Talk:Liberalism

Equal rights

Equal rights don't belong to the definition of liberalism. No other language version of wikipedia includes equal rights in the main definition of liberalism. Britannica defines liberalism thus: "liberalism, Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government." Here it is also sourced problematically. What we need here is some dictionary definition and I'm sure that none includes equal rights as a major principle of liberalism.--85.162.94.135 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias. Do you think btw that the quote you provided is referring to unequal rights? TFD (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Equal rights = Egalitarianism. By "rights" the definition is referring only to legal egalitarianism - equality before the law. The mention about equal rights in this article is taken from some unimportant book called "Christianity and Liberal Society" on page 45. It looks it is taken out of context and it certainly doesn't look like part of any definition.--85.162.0.150 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that our IP editor is applying the negative, pejorative meaning of "liberal" here and cannot associate something positive like equal rights with it. I suggest studying the diverse meanings of the word (mostly positive) around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe it's the exact opposite, I am well aware of the true meaning of the word and I see how its meaning has been distorted in the USA. I rather dislike the concept of equal rights as such and I really don't consider them positive. I am sure that the concept of equal rights doesn't form integral part of liberalism in any part of the world and therefore it should be removed from the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The only distortion Americans have applied to the meaning of the word "liberal" is to make it even more right wing.67.60.119.206 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be sure, but the term "equal rights" appears six times in the article, so some others must be equally sure of the opposite view. I think that it's a part of what some people see liberalism as meaning, but obviously not all. This is always going to be a difficult concept to pin down precisely. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned 4 times including the introductory part, but never in direct connection with the definition of the word. I see no reason to leave it there. Your view is the minority view, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention minority views, and anyway, Wikipedia doesn't work on voting, it's works on what reliable sources say. Your opinion (and mine) aren't very important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well reliable sourced don't say anything about equal rights being part of liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberals may disagree among themselves about what equality and freedom mean. Early liberals believed that it could include slavery for example. But those are the two core principles. TFD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The American Declaration of Independence is considered to be one of the defining documents of liberalism, and most of the liberal constitutions in the world, including the charter of the United Nations, are based on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is simply ridiculous. There seems to be a very pathetic, or deliberate misunderstanding of the word liberalism here. It is a latin word, from liberalis, and is not something anyone can just redefine at their leasure, as "TFD" seems to be suggesting above. Words don't change just because a few wikipedia trolls support a particular political ideology. Liberalism has nothing to do with equal rights, infact liberalism divides humans purely by monetary worth and removes protections of the disadvantaged. This page is simply ridiculous and one of the best examples I've seen of wikipedia being used for sinister political bias. And TFD "We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias." This statement is, again, simply ridiculous. Most dictionaries and other encyclopaedias I've read are far more reliable than the junk internet-based sources used in this article. I love how wikipedia goons go on about references, and then quote off the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.114.8 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic Yellow Flag

The Yellow flag used as symbol for the whole liberalism portal should go. Three reasons:

1. Yellow is the colour associated with a bunch of modern liberal political parties. But not more than that, a mere association. The colour yellow does not have the same meaning as for example the colour red has for socialists.

2. Flags like these symbolize resistance and revolution. Modern liberals don't do that stuff.

3. Classical liberals did, but this colour is completely anachronistic when discussing classical liberalism. They would use the national colours or the colour red (jacobins). The image on the front page of liberty sporting the tricolore is a good example. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the talk page for that discussion. This is just one of a series of articles on liberalism. TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize. I will go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Liberalism_sidebar to discuss this further. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Psychology" section

Removed this as not noteworthy.

The full section relied on just one study which had found a correlation between some genetic disposition and being liberal (when some other condition is fullfilled, and it looks like all subjects lived in the US). Scientific studies correlating something measurable, such as genes, with the political view must number in the thousands, if not more. Finding one more correlation there is absolutely not noteworthy. --Xeeron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this removal. People can change their view points due to life experiences, it is hard for me to believe that genes play a significant role in political affiliation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on evidence, not on what is or is not "hard to believe". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

First of "it is hard for me to believe" does not enter into it, secondly concervatives has a psychology section so sould Liberlism. If not it sends the signal that one is a patology, the other is the thing that is "not hard to belive" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.49.112 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, not having seen the data, an appropriate same size is determined by the statistical error, not whether the variable is "measurable" vs "political." If the comparison attained statistical significance, it was sufficiently sampled. de Bivort 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

USA section is very wrong

This article discusses classical liberalism...that which is called libertarianism in the USA. What is called Liberal politics in the USA is socialized economics (FDR, Kennedy, Obama, etc.). The two have almost nothing in common. If there is going to be a section in an article that discusses classical liberalism, as this does, the USA section needs to reflect American libertarianism, not Democratic Party history. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is, of course, what US conservatives say American liberals believe. But this article reports what American liberals say they believe, not what their enemies say they believe. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the USA, the Democratic party is known as the liberal party. So it would seem more accurate to report what that party does with policy, rather than report what those who claim to be liberals, claim they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.83.46 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but with caution. First, you need to avoid saying Democrats do things when Republicans do the same. For example, Democrats spend a lot of money. So do Republicans. You need to stick to things Democrats do that Republicans don't do. Second, you need to avoid generalizing what some individual Democratic politicians do, and stick to actions that characterize Democrats, such as the right of labor to organize for better wages and working conditions. Third, you need to be clear that while at the present time the Democracts tend to be more liberal, the Republicans more conservative, this was not always the case.

On the subject of "socialized economics" which Lance W. Haverkamp brings up, the meaning of that phrase has changed dramatically in my lifetime. It used to be a synonym for state ownership of business, and both parties oppose that. Now it means medicare and social security, and both major parties favor that.

Finally, classical liberalism is not all that different from modern liberalism. Both favor freedom. The only major difference is the ongoing debate about whether small government, low taxes, and economic freedom leads to more or less personal freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Another issue

Another issue. Someone is adding information that says that after the election of Barack Obama "the question of whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism remains in doubt." This is inappropriate for this section because it is trying to predict the future instead of stating what has happened in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalaine00 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not mention the first part of the sentence which you have left intact, "Economic woes in the early 21st century led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the |2008 presidential election...." The source, which is used throughout the article, The future of liberalism (2008), also says (p. xiv), "But will [liberals] use that power to advance liberal ideas? The answer to this question, as it happens is not self-evident."[1] We cannot use this source to say there was a resurgence of social liberalism without qualifying it. Since the book was published of course it is increasingly apparent that the 2008 election is not leading to a return to 1960s economic policy. There is no policy btw against saying there is doubt about future events. TFD (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You have taken the authors words out of context because you personally don't think that there's a future for liberalism while I know that there is a future for liberalism in this country because I'm involved politically. Liberal political groups have grown quickly over this last year and polling is showing that they are viewed favorably with 79% viewing progressives favorably while only 72% view conservatives favorably. I took this out and I'm writing to Alan Wolfe to clarify this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.166.60 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not whether liberalism has a future but whether it will be the social liberalism of John Dewey or the that of "post-New Deal Democrats" as represented by Bill Clinton. When Wolfe wrote, there was doubt which road Obama would take. You might way to read Wolfe's introduction to his book before writing to him. TFD (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A note to 71.227.166.60. Mind reading is frowned on in Wikipedia. ("...you personally don't think that ...") The statement reflects the view stated in the book cited. On the other hand, I looked at the paragraph with the last part removed, and I think it is more encyclopedic that way, so I agree with you that it should be removed. But please don't tell us what other people think. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of removing the sentence entirely. To say that the source says there has been a resurgence of social liberalism is misleading. Wolfe did not use the term "social liberalism" and it is used here as a synonym for U.S. liberal economic and welfare policies, not what in the U.S. would be called "social" policies. There has been no return to Keynsianism or expansion of the welfare state and it is doubtful that there will be under the current administration. TFD (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the topic of the article is Liberalism, I think Obama merits a mention. If you want, you could delete the adjective "social". As for your statement that there has been no expansion of the welfare state, I need only mention Bush II's prescription drug plan for seniors and Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. But social liberalism is not the same as welfare liberalism. It includes the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the decriminalization of medical marijuana. The election of a Black president is itself a major victory for social liberalism, in a country where all previous presidents have been White. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the ambiguity of the term. The term "social liberalism" as used in the article refers to economic and welfare policies only, which are "social policies". As you mentioned, Bush introduced the seniors' drug program and he also brought out a stimulus package, all before the election of Obama. In any case we must represent what the source says and if it is wrong find another source. The source says that it was possible that Obama would return to the social welfare policies of Roosevelt and Johnson, but might instead return to the policies of Clinton. The belief was that the polices followed by Western governments since the mid-1970s had failed and we would return to the policies followed from the mid-1930s to the mid-1970s. Well that has not happened. TFD (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. While this article is strongly biased in favor of what it calls "classical liberalism", presenting it as an equal movement with what it calls "social liberalism", when in fact it is a minor strain, which has never been put to the test, while social liberalism has been successful in every country where it has been tried, and is the major political view in every successful country. The chief opponents of social liberalism is not classical liberalism but rather capitalist dictatorship, as in China, or religions dictatorship, as in Saudi Arabia. However, this article does at least define social liberalism as the use of government to protect people's rights. Consider how absurd it is that the section on liberalism in the US does not even mention the Civil Rights movement! The article needs a major rewrite, to restore some semblance of objectivity. Ironic, that the person who alerted me to this is someone who objects that the article is not biased enough! Rick Norwood (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is biased, the prediction that Obama will roll back 35 years of post-New Deal liberalism is doubtful. The article should accurately report what the source says. TFD (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all agree that the speculative portion of that sentence should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN#Liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Libertarian view of liberalism the mainstream view?

This article states, without reference, that liberalism has two strains, classical and social. Throughout the article, these two views are contrasted. This is, of course, the Libertarian worldview, and the Libertarian jargon, "positive rights", "negative rights" is introduced in the lead.

Looking at several encyclopedias, dictionaries, and academic studies of liberalism, this does not seem to be a standard view of the subject. In fact, only libertarians seem to hold this view, and of libertarians, mostly American libertarians.

Unless someone can provide a mainstream source for this point of view, I plan to remove it from the lead.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I see comments like this the more I think we need two articles on Liberalism, one for the USA and one for the rest of the world. The usage and common meanings are just so different. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood. HiLo48, there already is an article called Liberalism in the United States. TFD (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we call this article Liberalism outside the USA and treat the usages completely as two different languages? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The two uses of "liberalism" did not begin to diverge until about fifty years ago, and so this article is the appropriate place to disucss the liberalism that was and is the dominant political philosophy of all modern nations that are not dictatorships. We need to remove the strictly American usage (and that only by some Americans) from this article, or else limit it to the subsection on liberalism by country. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It would make no sense exclude the U.S. from an article about liberalism. TFD (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Without acknowledging the problem of fundamentally different usage, that post makes little sense either. Let's face it. It's virtually only in the USA that the word liberal is used by some as an insult, almost akin to "spawn of the devil". The emotion attached to that usage makes it very hard for some American editors to accept that such a meaning doesn't exist elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? TFD (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would make no sense to exclude the US from this article, but nobody is suggesting that. What I plan to do is make the article a little less US-centric, by limiting the anti-liberal definition of liberalism that HiLo48 rightly complains about to at most a short section on the modern US usage. Since there does not seem to be any disagreement about that, I'm going to go ahead and start rewriting the article, by removing unreferenced claims. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the usage of "Liberal" as a pejorative seems to be limited to the US I agree with RN that it is better placed within the US section. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)