Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 1

False and Baseless Accusation

What major deletions? My edits were mostly additions to restore balance. And how dare you question my neutrality based on the articles I choose to edit? The Hillary Rodham Clinton article was a Clinton-bashing article until I arrived. As a political moderate, I edited it to restore truth and balance. You should be very careful when you level baseless personal accusations against others. The only conclusion I can draw is that you're against American liberalism and trying to destroy the portrayal of American liberalism in this article from the perspective of an American liberal. No one can define liberalism but a liberal, in the same way that a liberal has no business editing the "conservatism" article, attempting to define "conservatism" in a manner other than that accepted by conservatives. The definition to which you referred was a modification of a prior edit which was baselessly anti-liberal. To remove that definition is fine with me, but it should not be replaced by a definition that inaccurately portrays liberalism or baselessly identifies it with socialist policies. luketh 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Madness dude. Do you hear yourself? Can only fascists write the article about fascism? Can only Centurions write the article about Roman political philosophy? Silly. To write about a political philosophy you need to understand the philosophy's tenets and be intellectually honest. You don't have to agree with it!

Luketh has deleted huge sections without explanation. In his bio it shows how he is known for his Hillary Clinton article, not exactly someone with an objective point of view.

Look at what was added: "A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that encourage economic liberty, protection of the weak from aggression by the strong, and freedom from restrictive social norms"

That's a highly favorable definition, one that does not describe political ideology from an objective point of view. Liberals favor economic liberty? Do most liberals want more or less government regulation in the market today? Using terms like weak and strong is very general and grandiose. Leave the NPOV charge, the definition is obviously biased.

Johnson, liberalism, and war

Johnson is a very confusing leader. On the one hand, he was liberal both economically and in his incremental, rather than revolutionary, handling of the civil rights movement, with the end result being full accordance of civil rights to African Americans. However, he mishandled the war in Vietnam. Vietnam was a tricky issue. Starting in Kennedy's administration, liberals thought that if Vietnam fell, all of Asia would fall, and the communists would continue to expand their power until all liberty, in the entire world, was destroyed. This view may have been wrong, but Kennedy's participation is understandable. Once things started getting really bad, however, Johnson should have worked harder for a global consensus, and should have been more transparent about the choices being taken with the American people, the US Congress, and the rest of the free world. Is this criticism enough to say that he "wasn't liberal?" It's not clear. He DID resist the conservative elements that demanded full-scale war against communism which would have definitely been a World War III, but that doesn't necessarily make him "liberal. Remember that the liberals were in control during WWI and WWII. This is one of the places where liberalism has few answers. What happens when your enemy will not negotiate and losing means the destruction of liberty? In WWII, Roosevelt decided that liberals must fight. In modern times, liberals have concluded that we must fight against Islamist extremists; however, an important component of this fight is through education and a friendly foreign policy that will limit new recruits. With those so extreme that there's no hope: we must fight. Johnson faced the problem that Vietnam was not negotiating. Many issues to consider. Since Johnson is so controversial and not universally accepted by liberals, we should leave him off the list of liberal leaders, unless someone makes a good argument to the contrary. luketh 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Dean, liberalism, and progressivism

Dean talks as if he were a liberal such as "reaching out to red states", but he's definitely a progressive by his methods and policies. He talks consensus, but, instead, turns to antagonism. My recommendation is to leave him off of the list of liberal leaders. There are a number of progressive politicians, Chisholm, Nader, and Kucinich, for example, who many liberals want to claim, but who aren't liberal in the philosophical sense. Progressives, such as Nader and Kucinich, who prefer to influence politics by drastic measures that even they know cannot hope to find consensus, shouldn't be on this list. Some liberals think that McGovern and then later, Dukakis, infused progressive elements into mainstream liberalism which contributed to the weakness of liberalism today. Progressivism was not a good thing for liberalism, leading many to think of liberals as progressives in disguise. luketh 00:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Retitling entry

I plan to make a move that may be controversial, but it seems to be the right thing to do. This article does not outline liberalism in the United States pre-Wilson. That is, it focuses only on modern/American liberalism. Since it's an article on the development of a particular ideology, namely American liberalism, and not a historical article on liberalism in the United States since U.S. independence, the title is somewhat misleading. My proposal is to retitle the entry "American Liberalism." Since activity on this page has been minimal since I began editing, I'm going to go ahead and make this move, leaving this documentation of my reasons. If anyone objects and wants to expound on the entire history of liberalism in the United States, then they are free to move this entry back to its prior title and expand it or copy relevant portions to a new entry. Note that this entry is already referenced through the "Liberalism" box as "American Liberalism." Hopefully this move will not generate a considerable amount of controversy. luketh 03:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Major deletions

User:Thejackhmr recently deleted several entire paragraphs of material from this article on no apparent basis other than his apparent dislike of what it said. Thejackhmr: are you saying that any of these statements are not true? I considered them sufficiently self-evident not to need documentation, but if you are doubting them, I suppose I can search out citations. Or do you have some other reason for the deletions?

I really try to avoid edit wars, so am refraining from simply reverting your edits. I'd like your reply before I edit.

(I will ping Thejackhmr on his talk page to make sure he sees this.) -- Jmabel 04:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

No, no... no edit war is going to happen. Your wording, and the concept of liberal as a pejorative term, struck me as subjective, but if there's any place to be liberal with the NPOV rules, this is it. Sorry, i won't bother you here. Bye, ~thejackhmr

OK, given that I will revert. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. -- Jmabel 04:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Leaders

The recently added list of 20th-century U.S. liberal leaders strikes me as quirky. I certainly agree with:

Hubert H. Humphrey - Nelson Rockefeller - John F. Kennedy - Robert Kennedy - Edward Kennedy - Allard K. Lowenstein - Eugene McCarthy - George McGovern - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Paul Wellstone - Fiorello LaGuardia - Walter Mondale. And I guess I can't argue with the inclusion of Daniel Patrick Moynihan (despite some lapses on his part: "benign neglect" and all that), but if he's on the list, then how about other sometimes-lapsed liberals like Henry M. Jackson?

I would certainly add Adlai Stevenson, probably an even clearer inclusion than some on this list. I'd also consider adding Warren G. Magnusson (not even an article yet? Jeez), Ann Richards, Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall, William Scranton (also lacking an article), and John V. Lindsay; that's just off the top of my head.

Is the inclusion of Theodore Roosevelt as a "liberal" an implicit way of making the case that the Progressive movement is part of the stream from 19th-century liberalism to modern American liberalism? If so, Robert M. La Follette, Sr. seems an even more appropriate inclusion in this respect.

William O. Douglas seems to me to be a bit left of "liberal". On the other hand, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Harry S Truman all were pretty centrist in terms of their times and don't particularly strike me as liberals. All had some liberals in their cabinets (and Carter certainly had one as vice president), but I don't think they themselves were liberals, any more than Lyndon Johnson was.

Also, any reason to include only politicians, not (for example) influential writers like Lionel Trilling or John Rawls?

Anyway, these are just suggestions: feel free to act on them, or discuss, or ignore. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Some centrists (in the US sense) are included, since this article is part of the liberalism series, in which a broader usage of liberalism is used. People who can be considered left of US liberalism shouldn't be included, so you ca delete William A. Douglas. --Gangulf 07:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for my last edit in which I said Ann Richards was "definitely not a liberal." While she never used the term "liberal" self-referentially, her views do, in fact, seem quite liberal. A good argument could be made for returning Richards to the list of liberal leaders. luketh 20:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerry

Hi, should we put John Kerry on the list as noteable liberals?--Sina 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. Weirdly, though, he's never particularly been a liberal leader, even though he was his party's candidate for president. In that role, he rather distanced himself from the liberals, even though he usually votes with them. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

On the lis there are lots of Presidents and Presidential candidates. During 2004 presidential election, George Bush called him LIBERAL lots of time.Everone agree to put him on?--Sina 15:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question is just what the list is supposed to be. Kerry started out in politics in the anti-war Viet Nam vets movement, which was not necessarily specifically in the American liberal tradition. He came to Congress a bit of a crusader, perhaps more a left populist than a liberal. Then he settled more into the Establishment. Again, he tends to vote with the liberals, but he's never really been seen as a leader of the liberals. He didn't particularly run for president "as a liberal" (that was more Dean's position) even if the GOP found it convenient to brand him as one.

I don't think it would be terribly wrong to add him to the list, but I don't think it would be particularly edifying, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:41, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let us start another group name's: 21st century leaders and I think Kerry is the first on this list. Agree?--Sina 22:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say Howard Dean more so, and certainly Nancy Pelosi, but I'm not going to do more on either than state my opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky?

I am removing Noam Chomsky from the list of "left liberals". Chomsky certainly does not consider himself a liberal, and tends to use the term, usually disparagingly, to refer to people he considers well to his right. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Noam Chomsky was ever included here. While the article has a long section on right-wing criticism of liberalism, there is also a long tradition of left-wing criticism of liberalism. American liberals started to describe themselves as "progressives" in the 1960s and 1970s, to avoid left-wing critics. In the 1980s, through today, they more commonly adopt the label "progressive" to avoid right-wing critics. All of which raises another question: what is a progressive? The wikipedia article is a stub. --Sentience 03:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Major Criticism

The authors of this site are missing the whole point of liberalism. Liberalism, ESPECIALLY in the United States, was a reaction to political realism. Liberals believed in the fundamental good of human nature and the potential for positive human collaboration. Woodrow Wilson, the great liberal, was the first advocate for a global authority, the League of Nations. The way that conservatives on the right have destroyed the word "liberal" is truly a reflection of their underlying realist philosophy. It's sad that those who are not liberal, for example Richard Nixon, are being called liberal on this site, and those who are clearly liberal, such as Bill Clinton, are being called "centrist" because of their economic policies. Remember that liberals have always championed the free market as a positive social structure provided it operates within set boundaries and one group of people doesn't victimize another. Sometimes, unfortunately, the political system fails, realism gains the upper hand, and exploiting those who are weaker is encouraged as a virtue. When these periods of instability last for prolonged periods of time, such as during the Industrial Revolution and during the period before the Great Depression, it becomes necessary to restore balance to the system by placing, hopefully temporary, limits on capitalism, and, in the most extreme circumstances, redistributing a portion of the nation's wealth. Bill Clinton exemplifies and continues to exemplify the essence of American liberalism with his genuinely optimistic and hopeful attitude toward people throughout the entire world. The essence of liberalism is the belief that people want to be good and they inflict harm on fellow humans only because of disempowerment or by the lack of a liberal education. In response to my complaint, however, don't simply add Bill Clinton to your list of "liberals" without defining the meaning of "liberal" correctly. I don't have time to rewrite this article and I know that, even if I did, I would meet with stiff opposition from those of you who are solidly on the right. For the sake of preventing the unquestioned spread of informaton that is not in accordance with the historical development or the perpetuation of American liberalism, I am placing a NPOV tag on this site. Primary reason: the material as presented is definitely not in line with the development of American liberalism as a reaction to realism. I have a similar criticism of the article on liberalism. My expectation is that this NPOV tag will remain on the site until the time that someone, who is not hopelessly biased toward the right, has the opportunity to present American liberalism not with a few static policy positions and some lists of "liberal" politicians, but as a philosophical alternative to realism with its markedly different, perhaps completely opposite, view of human nature. luketh 10:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that some of what you have to say here is valid, especially in terms of Wilsonian reaction against realpolitik (although it seems to me that JFK could realpolitik with the best of them) and would welcome your contributions to the article. However, your ad hominem remarks about "…solidly on the right…" and "…someone, who is not hopelessly biased toward the right, has the opportunity to present…" are utterly off the mark. I wrote as much of this article as anyone, and I am certainly to the left of most self-declared American liberals. As is Noam Chomsky, whom I drew on (with citation) for his remark on Richard Nixon's continuity with the liberal consensus. Wilfried Derksen (now User:Electionworld) is a Dutch liberal, and has probably written as much about liberalism, almost entirely from a sympathetic viewpoint, as any one Wikipedia contributor. And User:Rlquall, another major contributor to this article, is certainly no right-winger, although I don't know his politics in any detail.

While I would agree that Clinton was closer to the left edge of the spectrum of federal electoral politics that existed at the time of his presidency than Nixon to the left edge of the spectrum at the time of his presidency, this article isn't about left/right, it is about liberalism. Fundamentally, the U.S. electoral spectrum shifted so far to the right with the Reagan era (and again in '94), that moderate Republican Nixon—his pathology as a person is neither here nor there, we're talking about his politics—was more of a liberal than moderate Democrat Clinton. The article cites several specific illustrations of this. Compare, for example, Nixon's proposal for welfare reform—a negative income tax in the lower income brackets—with what we actually got under Clinton. Or their respective drug policies.

Please, let's talk facts and citations, not contributors' personalities. And, frankly, saying "I won't contribute to this article because I wouldn't expect to get a fair hearing" is a pretty odd way to begin a discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your welcome. It was only out of frustration at the lack of a historical section on the philosophical development of American liberalism, an omission I incorrectly assumed was intentional, that I assumed the editors were conservative. As you requested, I have returned to contribute to the page. Hopefully you and the other editors will find this contribution both historically accurate and relevant. Because I'm very busy, I can't contribute more right now, but will check back from time to time and contribute what I can. Thanks for the welcome and good luck working on the article. luketh 06:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Classical liberalism advocated liberal institutions as an alternative to monarchy and political structures of arbitrary power. American liberals do, indeed, think that they inherit and perpetuate the legacy of classical liberalism. Claiming, as if it were a fact, that classical liberalism supported small government and almost-anarchical liberties, without pointing out that this view which is held by libertarians isn't shared by American liberals, is most-definitely POV and should have no place in an NPOV article. luketh 07:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently comfortable with the page, I'm removing the NPOV tag. Feel free to replace it if you object. luketh 02:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Current definition is out of line with U.S. political science textbooks

In the early 21st century, the term "liberalism" in the United States has become somewhat confused, applied to a broad spectrum of viewpoints. As the Democratic Party, generally seen as the standard-bearer of liberalism, adopted the more centrist outlook of the DLC, the term "liberal" (applied to the party as a whole) became associated even with more centrist candidates and issues who, for example, support the death penalty or take pro-business positions. For this reason, and because many on the farther right have so heavily used "liberal" as a pejorative, many Americans on the left of the political spectrum prefer to use the term progressive to describe their views, disassociating themselves from what they see as an increasingly conservative politics that still holds the name of liberalism.

The question of whether or not the word "liberal" is used as a pejorative should not be included the main definition. It seems to me that this definition was written by someone who has taken personal offense to the use of the word in this manner.

I agree. -asx-

Some Americans define liberals as those who support the use of government power to promote equality. U.S. liberals also are more likely to openly support the legitimacy of government social intervention than are conservatives.

Some Americans? Try most U.S. political science textbooks. The word liberal should be defined by the prevailing political ideology held by its members, not the opinions of opposing political groups.

I agree. -asx-

The mention of the DLC is also completely unnecessary. A "liberal" is a leftist, or even better described as a semi-socialist.

I disagree. "Socialist" is an emotion-laden term and it's use to describe liberalism is not only inaccurate, but inflamatory. -asx-

People who call themselves "liberal" are uncomfortable admitting this,

What is your evidence for this claim? -asx-

but by comparing the main demands of socialists and liberals one can see that they are basically the same.

I disagree. They are not basically the same. The belief that they are is your Point of View. -asx-

It is true that liberals do not favor as much public ownership in the economy, but they are essentially socialists because their main goals involve more government control to promote equality, both social and economic.

By this definition, Republicans and conservatives are also "semi-socialist." Therefore, your definiton of "liberalism" is well to the right of mainstream American political opinion. -asx- 02:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(anon 14 July 2005)

• I would agree that the first paragraph is muddy. The rest of what you say, though, is, I think, basically wrong. The claim that liberals are "semi-socialist" would certainly not be something very many socialists would agree with. Are some liberals social democrats? Sure. And the positions fade into one another. But unless your definition of socialist is "anyone who believes government can serve the public weal and should not be drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub", it's hard to say that most American liberals are socialists. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jmabel. And i think your understanding of liberalism is backwards - liberals promote equality, both social and economic, and see government as a means to carry out that goal. The goal is not more government control, it is mearly one of the means, and sometimes the most effective means, of achieving a broader goal. - Jersyko talk 20:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Definition should describe political ideology first

• I would agree that the first paragraph is muddy. The rest of what you say, though, is, I think, basically wrong. The claim that liberals are "semi-socialist" would certainly not be something very many socialists would agree with. Are some liberals social democrats? Sure. And the positions fade into one another. But unless your definition of socialist is "anyone who believes government can serve the public weal and should not be drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub", it's hard to say that most American liberals are socialists. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

My response:

The word socialist may often be an emotionally driven and subjective word but it has to be defined in some sense, as does the word liberal. To define a socialist it would be easiest to first determine what all socialists agree on. Today the goal of all socialists is to use the government to create more equality, even if this means giving up some freedoms. What do all liberals agree on? Basically the same thing, but not to the same degree. If liberals can agree on one thing it is that government intervention is needed to improve society to make it more equitable. Liberals like socialists do not believe that a free society will result in an equitable society. This is unacceptable to them and thus favor government intervention, even at the cost of liberty.

This is wrong. A society is not free when the strong are allowed to restrict or eliminate the freedoms of the weak. Liberals think that, while government plays an important role in protecting liberty, when laws are carefully constructed and enforced, government need only play a minimal role. luketh 03:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Consider the fact that both liberals and socialists want more government control to promote equality in the following areas:

1. Corporations. 2. Wages. 3. Quotas. 4. Taxes. 5. Unions. 6. Worker protection. 7. Gender equality. 8. Racial equality. 9. Equality among nations. 10. Equality among people in general.

The central question then arises, where do liberals and socialists disagree? The only real difference is how much government intervention is required to achieve an equitable society. For example liberals are more likely to allow the private market to manage a major or national industry, while socialists are much stronger advocates of public ownership. However, that being said, today’s liberals are the strongest advocates of public schools, media, and transport and do not have an agenda that promotes privatization.

Is it fair to call a liberal a socialist? Not really, but a liberal is indeed a semi-socialist, one that espouses the goals of socialism but disagrees on the amount of government intervention needed to achieve those goals.

More evidence:

Consider the principles of the U.S. socialist party:

http://sp-usa.org/principles.html

One can easily see that the principles of this party are very similar to those held by most U.S. liberals. More importantly, those positions are far closer to today’s liberal than those of the libertarian party, which many consider to be the party that is truly for liberty. Thus, although many liberals do not like to think of themselves as socialists, a comparison of positions shows that the two groups are much more alike than not. It is fair then to conclude that liberals are in fact semi-socialists, and even the use of the word liberal by them is dubious because it implies they are for liberty first, which is false.

• I agree with Jmabel. And i think your understanding of liberalism is backwards - liberals promote equality, both social and economic, and see government as a means to carry out that goal. The goal is not more government control, it is mearly one of the means, and sometimes the most effective means, of achieving a broader goal. - Jersyko talk 20:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I never stated that main the goal of liberals is simply to increase goverment control. In fact we seem to both agree that the central goal of liberals is to promote equality and that the use of government control to achieve that goal is acceptable to them. This is close to what you will find in a U.S. political science textbook and should be reflected in the first paragraph of the definition. (anon 19 July 2005)

Hello there. I just wanted to interject some common sense. All of you seem to be forgetting the one HUGE difference between socialists and what you Americans call liberals. The socialists are completely opposed to capitalism and the profit system. The American liberals/progressives on the other hand, only seek to reform capitalism, to lessen its harshness a little bit while at the same time keeping the underlying capitalist system intact. The more correct term for the policies advocated by American liberals would be social democrat or reformist. From the perspective of genuine leftists (socialists, anarchists, and communists), American liberalism is very much on the right of the political spectrum. Why did FDR enact those social democratic policies? It was done mainly to cool off and prevent any further radicalization of the working class and the poor. In other words it was done to keep the capitalist system in place and curtail the rise of any kind of genuine socialism from taking shape in America. - Anon

Social democrats support large-scale nationalization and much stronger economic regulation than any American, or indeed European, liberal. The socialist and social democratic left support economic equality for its own sake. Socialists and social democrats disagree on how fast to move towards it, and on what is practically possible to achieve. American liberals, and many European liberals, only support ironing out the biggest inequality, because they believe that some economic equality increases liberty. A supporter of small government will disagree with that perspective, but one should at least accept that there is a difference between supporting equality as an end, and equality as a means to an end. Even from the perspective of social democrats, American liberalism is on the right. - User:Flagboy 08:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bretton Woods

What is with the recently added, uncited claim that the collapse of the Bretton Woods system was a death-blow to the liberal consensus? Seems absolutely unintuitive to me. Unless someone can come up with a clear citation for who says this, I intend to remove it from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article tends to favor the political to the exclusion of the economic, and tends to focus on political ideas as opposed to political conditions. The discussion of political ideas is fine, but I think some the things happening in the material world have to be discussed. Stagflation, the collapse of Bretton Woods, the decline of wages and unionization rates during the 1970s and 1980s, Europe and Asia going from economic basket cases to real competitors, all of these things had an effect on political conditions and political ideas.

I am not fixated on the specific change I made, but I do think the effect the changing economy had on the liberal consensus should be mentioned more in this article. Mr. Know-It-All 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of American Liberalism

While I believe the article does need a section on "Criticism of American Liberalism", the current American Liberalism#Critics of American liberals is shallow and unencyclopedic. Among other things, it presumes that all criticism of liberalism is from the Right. I'm probably too close to the liberal tradition myself to do its critics full justice (although I suppose I could do better than the current content). Would someone with some sense of scholarship have an interest in taking this on? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The absence of a strong socialist Left in the US, and the prevailing free-market, low-tax (by international standards) consensus, means that virtually all mainstream domestic criticism of American liberalism does come from the right. American liberals support government measures which are part of the mainstream political consensus in most of Europe (universal health care, welfare state, subsidized public transport etc) but which seem like very radical "big government" concepts in the US. This does not mean American liberals support big government for its own sake (even if the American lazy-thinking right gives that impression) but it does mean that American liberal proposals are inevitably going to mean bigger government and higher taxes than is currently the case in the US. It does not mean that American liberals would tolerate government inefficiency, or support punitive taxation of the rich or state monopoly central control of the economy --- but hardly anyone who supports that sort of thing gets substantial support in the US. Compare the strong support for former communist parties in some European countries. Someone in Europe who supports the same sort of thing as American liberals, on the left of American politics, do would be considered a centrist, or in some countries right-wing (but could still be called "liberal") User:Flagboy 08:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wilson was not a liberal

I don't know where this person got that idea from:

President Woodrow Wilson, one of the first prominent Americans to use the term "liberal" self-referentially, lamented the contemporaneous focus on factional power in the United States Congress, and advocated the building of institutions that would benefit the nation as a whole. At the close of World War I, Wilson advocated mutual collaboration on the international stage, through carefully designed institutions, such as the League of Nations, rather than relying on the threat and use of force. Wilson's premise was that human beings, when provided the correct institutions, will collaborate to solve problems rather than resorting to war.

Woodrow Wilson was a conservative, as were most Democrats those days (before the two parties changed in ideology). The last sentence is a load of crap, Wilson had invaded many countries, including Haiti. --Revolución (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying Wilson wasn't liberal is crap. Read this:

In the last year of his first term Wilson assembled an impressive record of legislation, borrowing much from Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 platform. Wilson signed the Federal Farm Loan Act, which lowered interest rates for farmers. The Farm Loan Act immediately lowered interest rates and farmers hailed it as "the Magna Carta of American farm finance." Wilson aggressively and successfully lobbied on Capitol Hill for the Keating-Owen Act, which banned child labor, the Kern-McGillicuddy Act, which set up a workmen's compensation system, and the Adamson Act, which improved conditions and wages for railroad workers. To prepare for the possibility of entering the war, Wilson expanded the army and navy with an estate tax and a progressive income tax. (To End All Wars, 90–92)

Tell me how that isn't liberal.

He wasn't a liberal. He was a conservative racist Southerner who cracked down on dissent, invaded a couple countries, and more crazy shit. Sure, he did a few good "liberal" things, but it was probably because he did it to boost his own public image. anyway, I can play the "Quote" game too, from "whitehouse.gov" (I don't know why the hell I'm quoting from that place, but this time will be the few times I do):

Wilson advanced rapidly as a conservative young professor of political science and became president of Princeton in 1902. His growing national reputation led some conservative Democrats to consider him Presidential timber. First they persuaded him to run for Governor of New Jersey in 1910.

Wilson helped re-ignite Southern racism, and provided the way for future American imperialist interventions. Not a liberal at all. --Revolución (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You really ought to read Woodrow Wilson: World Statesman. It's really quite fascinating. Wilson was a racist, yes, but he hardly "re-ignited" Southern racism. As a matter of fact, conservative Democrats opposed Wilson at in 1912, for specifically the reason that he had been such a full-throated economic liberal when he was governor of New Jersey. Although Wilson disliked blacks intensely (a product of his upbringing in a family that had lived in Virginia since pretty much the dawn of time), he really believed that government was a tool to make people's lives better, a belief that he acted upon constantly and consistently while he was governor and president. It is for that reason, and not for his accomplishments in the areas of civil rights, that I placed him on the list.

Is Bill Clinton a liberal?

Just wanted to know any thoughts on the subject since I saw that someone listed him as a "notable liberal leader", though I've heard him described alot as "third way" or "centrist". --Revolución (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a liberal. In most of Europe, he'd probably be considered a conservative centrist. Ditto John Kerry. -- User:Flagboy 12:58, 23 August 2005 (CST)

Of course Clinton's a liberal. He had some centrist policies but also supported universal health care, debt relief, anti-gun legislation, and let's not forget tax hikes. Since when are we using European standards in an article entitled "American Liberalism"? Rhobite 21:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, he also was responsible a large part in introducing NAFTA. He supported don't ask, don't tell. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I could go on more but I don't see the point. At best he could be called a centrist (he was a former Chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, a faction of centrist and or right-of-center Democrats), but I do not see how he qualifies as a liberal, in the same sense as liberals like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, etc. --Revolución (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer aren't president - they have the luxury of espousing radical positions. Clinton had close to zero choice in enacting "don't ask, don't tell" - the president has a limited role in reforming the military. He viewed it as a compromise, and it was: allowing gays in the military would have caused massive upheaval, both politically and within the armed forces. Like I said, liberals on the sidelines have the luxury of saying Clinton should have done more to advance gay rights. As for gay marriage, you seem to be saying that you're not a liberal unless you support it. That's silly, many liberal lawmakers today do not support gay marriage. It is far from a requirement that liberals must support gay marriage. Do you think FDR would have signed DOMA? And I don't know why you're bringing up NAFTA, since that was signed by George H. W. Bush before Clinton was president. If those are your only examples I think this discussion is over. You've given two marginal examples (both revolving around gay rights for some reason), and another which has nothing to do with Clinton. I maintain that his record as president as well as his current work in Africa supports the conclusion that he's a liberal. Rhobite 01:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

from NAFTA: the Clinton administration made passage of the agreement its major legislative initiative in 1993. He was very much involved with NAFTA. --Revolución (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm amused that out of all the points I made, that is the sole point you choose to respond to. True, Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress but it was George H.W. Bush who signed the agreement. Do you not feel like responding to my other points? Rhobite 03:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love it if people would respond to me instead of revert warrning. I'm referring this to WP:RFC. Rhobite 01:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to check the talk page, sorry. --Revolución (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Promotion of equality

We seem to have a back-and-forth in editing the lead section over whether American Liberals are concerned with promoting "social and economic equality" or merely "economic equality". I would argue strongly that the former formulation is far more accurate. At the height of the "liberal consensus" in the 1960s, far and away the bulk of the civil rights legislation related more to social and civic equality than economic equality. It was a sweeping away of laws and practices (especially in the South, but school segregation, for example, was almost as much of a factor in the North) that institutionalized social inequality. Similarly, multiculturalism -- not a universal liberal position, but one whose support comes mainly from liberals -- is a matter of social equality and only has a tangential connection to economics. Some aspects of multiculturalism that are most connected to social and civic equality -- availability of ballots and voter pamphlets in multiple languages, availability of translators in courtrooms and hospitals -- have been rather specifically liberal projects. Similarly, Title IX: social, not primarily economic. I could go on, but I don't want to make a laundry list. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would go even further. The opening paragraph needs to explain in almost childishly simple terms what the word liberal means to an American (during the last few decades, if I understand the US etymology of this word). A lot of Wikipedia is useless because the term liberal, used by international readers and editors, means laissez-faire capitalism, while many American readers and editors use it in exactly the opposite meaning: limp-wristed, tax-spending socialist. Note that I am not expressing an opinion about which usage is correct; I am merely saying that this page should be embarrassingly clear about which usage is intended, and be explicit about the possibility of a misunderstanding. When that is settled, we have a huge task disambiguating the link liberal to this page (when used in the current American sense) whenever it is appropriate.Arbor 11:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Long new list

I think the new list is mostly excellent. I made two removals of names I thought were inappropriate as simply items in a list, though I'd be willing to see more verbose handlings of them in the article:

• William Jennings Bryan was certainly a populist, but "liberal" seems the wrong word for someone who so enthusiastically prosecuted the Scopes case. One can be on the left, but still quite illiberal.
• Father Charles Coughlin started out somewhere in more or less liberal turf, but he sure headed off in other directions. If he is to be restored to the list, it really should be with a note that indicates this. In particular, his virulent anti-semitism would seem to disqualify him as a liberal.

A few others seem dubious to me, but not as egregious as these two; I think they all merit notes rather than mere inclusions, though:

• Hattie Caraway was a New Dealer, but pretty poor on race (in which respect she was a pretty typical white southerner of the era, though not, I gather, a hater).
• Huey Long was certainly a left populist, but his disregard for legality would seem to me to tend to disqualify him as a liberal.
• Vito Marcantonio (who, by the way, my father worked for in the late 1940s) seems to me to be somewhere left of what would usually be meant by "liberal"…
• … as would Ralph Nader. Like Marcantonio, he's really more some sort of democratic socialist.
• Al Sharpton has always struck me as basically a race man, and not particularly a liberal. He's often allied with liberals, almost inevitably so for an African American leader, but (for example), Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. would have an even better claim to being on the list, and certainly Harold Washington has a far better claim than either.

I suspect there are other figures on the list about whom similar comment could be made, but with whom I'm less familiar. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Removed Al Sharpton. His brand of racial identity politics, which borders on racism, along with his demagoguery, seem to disqualify him as a liberal. Ditto his anti-gay and anti-semitic remarks. You might as well class Louis Farrakhan as a liberal. User:Flagboy 15:53, August 25, 2005 (CST)
  • Oh please. Don't make accusations like that if you can't support it with evidence. It seems like you are the racist for making up lies about a black civil rights activist. --Revolución (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You only need to follow links from his Wikipedia page to see that he is pretty illiberal in many ways, particularly when it comes to race. His involvement in the Tawana Brawley hoax is particularly reprehensible. I don't see anything liberal about calling someone a rapist without evidence. User:Flagboy 06:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I see that Bryan has been re-added without anyone answering my remarks. I won't be the next to remove it (I don't want to do this if I'm a minority of one), but would welcome someone else doing so. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Bryan was the original liberal Democrat. He had basically the same positions on all of the issues as the Roosevelts (all of them) and Wilson. If they stay, he stays.
• Just because someone is poor on one issue (like race), this does not disqualify them from being liberal. You have to take a look at all of their positions as a whole. Pat Buchanan takes a fairly liberal view of trade and campaign finance reform, but I think we can all agree that he's still a conservative.
• Marcantonio is specifically described as "liberal" on his page. Nader has basically the same positions as most liberals from the sixties and seventies. It's not really his fault that the Democratic Party moved to the right and left him behind.
• Read this and tell me Al Sharpton isn't a liberal.
  • Just becasue he may support some liberal causes, doesn't make him a liberal. It's not simply that he takes illiberal positions on race. Race colors his whole approach to politics, and that itself is fundamentally illiberal. When a race-based approach to politics leads someone to make slanderous allegations of rape, it's more than a slight unsoundness. I think he's illiberal in too many fundamental ways for him to be qualified as a liberal. User:Flagboy 06:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • What, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesse Jackson don't have a race-based approach to politics? What you seem to be saying is that, even though he's more liberal than most of the other people on the list, he shouldn't be on the list because you don't like his style of politicking. It doesn't work like that. If we disqualified people from the list for doing one or two bad things in thier lives, half the people on the list would be gone.
      • King was, and Jackson is, a constant builder of alliances. Each could count as followers a broad swath of liberal Americans, only some of whom were black. Sharpton cannot. King brought Gandhian tactics into American politics. Jackson in the 1980s seriously threatened to realign the Democratic Party, before his ill-conceived decision to tighten his control over the Rainbow Coalition and then do approximately nothing with it. (Even with that blunder, his approach to registering new voters echoes strongly in the party's tactics today.) Sharpton? Simply not a leader on that level, at least not to date. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)