Talk:Social liberalism/Archive 4

Peer review
I have nominated this article for peer review and believe that assistance is required for improvement. The article is currently considered "High-importance" and rated "B" in both the Politics and Liberalism wikiprojects. Also, I have archived past discussions which have beren inactive for over a week. TFD (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell
Is it normal that George Orwell is listed as a "notable social liberal thinker"? He wasn't a social liberal, he was a democratic socialist (in the sense of, basically, a communist against Bolshevism) with sympathy for libertarian socialism. In any case, he was against capitalism and the market economy, which excludes him from liberalism. Why is he listed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Liberalism is a belief in freedom, social liberalism a belief in freedom and social justice. The opposite of liberalism is totalitarianism, the opposite of social liberalism is unrestrained capitalism.  Most liberals today favor capitalism with government control.  Orwell lived at a time when communism, on the one hand, had led to totalitarianism, while capitalism, on the other hand, had led to extremes of wealth a poverty.  Orwell, along with many other writers of the period, rejected both. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

.ref name="google.com"
Is ref name="google.com" a proper name for a reference? (See reference 8 in the lede.) Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see that. I corrected footnote 28, if that is what you meant, but could you please look again.  TFD (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ref name="google.com" appears twice in the article. If you click on footnote 8 and then go up from there to reference b, you'll get the second occurance. Of course, you can only see a refname in the edit mode. I suppose a ref name can be any string of characters, but I think it is better when a ref name suggests the object it references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian National Congress
My addition of Indian National Congress to the list of social liberal parties, with the Congress manifesto as reference, was reverted with the comment "Congress is not a liberal party". May I know the justification for the same, especially given that the list qualifies that most parties mentioned are social liberal in an approximate sense. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was discussed earlier. While most modern parties have advanced social liberal policies to some degree, the term "social liberal party" is used strictly for liberal parties and is used to distinguish them from conservative liberal parties.  It is not clear in the manifesto that they are calling themselves a social liberal party and third party sources are preferable in any case.  The Congress Party however is generally classified as a socialist party, call themselves socialist in their constitution and they have applied for membership in the Socialist International.  Here is a link to discussion about the party.  TFD (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. Actually, those do not seem like convincing reasons to me. Looking at it objectively, the Congress has been socially (in the societal sense) much liberal compared to the "morally" conservative BJP. At the same time, economicallly, it has been, for much of the past two decades, in favor of increased privatisation and decrease of government interference in economy, while being much more keen on direct government expenditure in "socialist" endeavors such as guaranteed employment for the poor. I feel this qualifies it as a social liberal party in the sense given by the article. In fact it seems to be the exact opposite of conservative liberal parties. Also, the Indian National Congress article infobox describes social liberalism as one of its ideologies (I didn't add that). Like you said, we shouldn't go by the party's own proclamations, so the membership of Socialist International is also moot. We can, however, look for an independent source. Kindly reply. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to draw a distinction between social liberal policies and social liberal parties. All major parties implimented social liberal policies after the Second World War, just as now all major parties impliment neoliberal policies.  The British Labour Party is a good example.  INC is no exception.  Here is a link to an article about party types, and you can find Ware's book at Google books.  TFD (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Template
I think that the Liberalism template in the article deals more with Classical liberalism which is a totally different concept than Progressive liberalism. I think that the Socialism template would be more appropriate..-- Novus Orator 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your perspective but contrary to reliable sources. Both classical liberalism and social liberalism were developed by liberal parties.  Social liberal policies were actively opposed by socialists until after the Second World War, when they were embraced by all parties.  TFD (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism is a type of Socialist collectivist thinking. All that it borrows from liberalism is the name. Progressive would perhaps be a more appropriate term. I think that having both templates is the best compromise.-- Novus Orator  07:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

GreenLeft
In order to include this party as a social liberal party we need a source that says it is. Communists, socialists and greens are nornmally considered to be political families separate from liberalism. The fact that they call themselves "Liberal Left" does not make them social liberals. Please provide a source that calls them social. TFD (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberal-Conservative coaltion government
An editor has inserted a lengthy paragraph claiming that the Liberal Democrats are pursuing social liberal goals as part of the UK coaltition government. It is sourced to a Liberal Democratic Party document and a liberal blog. Neither of these sources are reliable. Please provide valid sources that support the claim. Note that the claim appears doubtful. Most articles I have read claim that the Cameron government is continuing the neoliberal policies of the Blair administration and has further rolled back social liberal policies. TFD (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't seek to claim that overall it is a solely social liberal government, that would be preposterous. However there are policies going through the government are distinctly social liberal in nature, some examples of which I gave in the paragraph. Perhaps we can have some kind of compromise? Something along the lines of "Some have claimed that the coalition have adhered to certain social liberal policies...etc" We have to acknowledge that there are certain social liberal policies which have come into government as a direct result of it being a coalition with the Lib Dems. Though the first link may have been produced by the party itself, I have checked it and it is viable, the policies quoted from it certainly are. I think compromise is the best option. --Matt Downey (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This topic presents a problem with terminology. Social liberalism may be desribed under different terms, e.g., the "new liberalismn" of Green and Hobhouse, while the term may be used with a different meaning, e.g., "socially liberal and economically conservative".  It is therefore inmportant that it is clear in sources that they have the same meaning,  Also, we need better sources, for example an academic paper (which may not be possible because we are discussing recent events", an analysis in news media.  I believe there are sources that the Liberal Democrats is a social liberal party, as was the Liberal Party.  It may be that the policies implemented by the coalition are social liberal, but we would need sources for that.  The blog mentions Richard Grayson's book, The Liberal Democrat journey which may be a good source.  Also, we should keep the section brief, so as not to give more prominence to it than we do to earlier but more notable history of social liberalism.  TFD (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

When is there ever not a problem with terminology? I think we agree that under most definitions at least some of the coalition's policies or social liberal ones. I'm sure we also both agree that if we conclude that there are social liberal policies being implemented then that should be documented somewhat in the implementation section. I agree there is a problem over sources. However these are undoubtedly social liberal policies that were in the manifesto of a social liberal party.--Matt Downey (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I read Grayson's article and will go over it again. While it is a good source, we need to correctly reflect what it says.  TFD (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
An editor continues to insert text into the article sourced to the New Republic to replace text sourced to Contending liberalisms. When academic sources and popular magazines conflict, it is prudent to use academic sources. The new source over-emphasizes the extent of the revision in American liberalism during the New Deal and over-exaggerates the difference between Republican and Democratic positions. The New Deal in fact did not go as far as social liberal projects in Europe and the UK, and subsequent Republican administrations continued these policies. If that assessment is wrong then please find a source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was but one possible reference to the fact that contemporary liberals in the United States do advocate a larger role for the state. The publications and politicans of the party referenced provide ample examples of support for Liberalism of the state-intervention kind (from The New Republic, e.g. Jonathan Chait to The American Prospect, e.g. Paul Starr; from Ted Kennedy, to FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama). As for the fact that these programs, such as Social Security (FDR) Medicare (LBJ) have not been completely eliminated, it was and is the Democrats who advance them, most recently with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama), and Republicans who did and do support either shrinking or eliminating them: the outright opposition at the time they were adopted, cuts to the coverage offered, or proposals to radical reduce their state element (Bush Social Security privitization proposal) or effectively eliminate (Congressional GOP Budget on Health Care). The fact that they have not eliminate them reflects, among other things, a) public opinion, and b) the US political system (which makes it difficult for either party to fully get what they want thanks to multiple veto points - House, Senate, Senate Filibuster, President, Courts); and does not change the stated (in speechs and publications) and apparent (i.e. legislative actions) drive of the parties - one of a mixed economy which modern liberalism embraces, and the other in favour of the market to the reduction of the state. P.S. Sorry if that's a bit long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the United States. It is quite clear that social liberalism provided an influence on U.S. government policies from the time of the New Deal, but not to the extent of other countries.  You need sources that come to the same conclusions you do about U.S. liberalism and social liberalism and should not use original research to develop what the article states.  TFD (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, even what you are saying seems to acknowledge that it is erroneous to say, as per the article, "there was no revision of liberal theory in favor of greater state initiative." Saying that the reforms weren't as radical in the US as they were elsewhere in the world, under the same broad ideas, is different from saying that that there was no revision of theory, period - which the source I cited, albeit only the online section of the publication, does quite clearly contradict in the american context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.221.123 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To suggest that social liberals favor state control and social conservatives do not is a false dichotomy. Social liberals favor state control to protect the environment and provide education and health care for all citizens, social conservatives favor state control to prevent abortion and to censor sexual content in the media.  Outside the US, we have conservatives favoring state control of what women can wear in France, of which religions can proselytize in Muslim countries, and of the ethnic customs of foreigners in Germany.  The issue of "state control" is usually an issue only for whichever party is out of power at the moment. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the source is wrong, then you need to provide a source that says something else. We report what the literature says, not how we personally interpret history.  In terms of theory, classical liberalism had always supported some sort of government intervention - they built workhouses, for example - but social liberalism represented a re-thinking of core principles, which did not happen in the U.S.  TFD (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Did not happen in the U.S." is a much more extreme claim than your earlier statement "not to the extent of other countries". I agree with the latter, not with the former. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Richardson explains it on pp. 38-41 of Contending liberalisms, and other sources seem to confrim this. Or as Ian Adams wrote, "Dewey's influence was largely confined to education.  It was events that dictated the extension of a degree of social liberalism." (p. 34)  What I wrote is not inconsistent.  The U.S. adopted social liberal policies, although not to the extent of other nations, but it was seen as a continuation of the liberalism of Jefferson, Jackson, etc., in the face of new challenges rather than a fundamental break.  Some people of course argued for a reformulation of liberalism.  But it could be argued that American liberalism was not as dogmatic and therefore no break in ideology was necessary to extend government intervention.  TFD (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Leonardtrelawnyhobhouse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * I have replaced the picture. TFD (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)