Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 5

Question.... is "American Liberalism" really a type of liberalism at all? I'm american, and my undertanding is that 95% of us probably couldn't tell you what a real "liberal" is.

That is because Republicans steal billions by lying about what liberals are. Liberals believe in freedom, it is as simple as that. Rick Norwood 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

American liberalism differs from (and is probably more specific than) liberalism in the rest of the world. In most of the world liberalism means support for freedom and civil rights, in the United States it is more nuanced and assosiated with specific viewpoints.

POV problems

This article fails to discuss american liberalism in an objective NPOV manner and needs a serious revision to rectify this problem. --TheGWO 06:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit was by-and-large a judicious one, but I wonder about the issue of gun control. While I think most people who favor gun control are liberals, I don't think most liberals favor gun control, unless by gun control you mean laws against convicted felons buying guns. I'm a liberal, and I like guns. The two most recent Democratic candidates for president both came out in favor of guns. Clinton likes guns. I think the gun control people are no more typical of liberalism than the vegans. Rick Norwood 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider support of gun control an essential liberal stance. Where do you get the evidence that "Clinton likes guns"? Let's not forget that Clinton pushed for and signed the Federal assault weapons ban in 1994, and that this was probably responsible more than anything else for the Democratic Party's loss of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections. GriotGriot

Professor Griot: Glad to hear your pedantic pronunciation that gun control IS "an essential liberal stance". I look forward to your complete definition of the liberal platform in both the upcoming Democratic convention and the Merriam-Webster dictionary. We all forgot that you're the source for liberal 'stances' -- how silly of us. (Oh - oops - I mean: "go **** yourself, you self-important ideologue.")

Catch-all terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" must necessarily encompass MANY differing POVs on MANY topics. When I was a young and stupid college student, I was pretty sure I knew everything about everything, too. Absolutes were all OVER my mental dashboard. Twenty years later - I'm pretty sure I *don't* know everything - and I'm willing to listen to other people who disagree with me. I'm pretty sure I do NOT know everything, and that absolutes, or (as you put it) "essential...stance(s)" are nice to think about, but really, really stupid -- and often unworkable -- in reality. (Reality doesn't mesh well with idealism, as you'll learn when you grow up a little bit, grasshoppa -- even if the neocons don't seem to have grasped that. Reality is reality - hope and idealism don't change that much. What WORKS, is, well, what WORKS. --A Doon 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A valid argument. I was basing my choice of issues to place in the intro off of the list of "american liberal" positions located later on in the article. Feel free to change it to something more generally applicable. --TheGWO 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to like sporting guns and still oppose weapons that are used almost exclusively by drug lords. I am opposed to gun control, but favor a ban on plastic guns and on cop killer bullets. Rick Norwood 13:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So then, you are for gun control. Gun control means any limitations. Most Americans are for some gun control, including what you mention. People opposed to gun control are the people who object to any limitations on the type or number of weapons you may own, and how you may possess them (concealed, etc.) Just throwing that in there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of gun control I have two comments. First that it is a liberal idea, although that does not mean that every liberal is for it. Just as the NRA is a conservative group doesnt mean every single member is conservative. Furthermore gun control does not need to mean gun restrictions (stopping people from buying guns or a type of gun would be restrictions). For example, the current law says that you must have a permit to own a hand gun (i believe this is a federal law but correct me if im wrong), thus if all new guns sold had fingerprinting (needs the owners finger print to activate and fire) this would not be a gun restriction but rather gun control, and furthermore simply an enforcement of current law. It's somewhat symantics but also important. Just looking for some response. Caleb rosenberg 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no Federal law requiring any kind of permit to own a gun. In fact, there is a Federal law prohibiting the BATFE from retaining any permanent information regarding gun ownership or purchases. Just FYI; I'm not watching this talk page so if you have any questions please use mine. -Syberghost 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I started to make a joke here, but then I realized that the government may be watching. No right to privacy. (Is that really a conservative principle?) Rick Norwood 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The government may be watching? You bet your sweet bippy they're watching. But I don't think it is a conservative/liberal thing, it is more of a here's a big crappy bureaucracy where nothing can get done, so policies enacted forever ago never get changed and everyone gets watched "for the good of the land". Or something like that. Joke away. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the very first time ever that I have censored myself for fear that the government would hurt me. But the news today that the government has demanded all the files from google, amazon, yahoo, etc and gotten them has me scared. I have a friend who told an anti-Bush joke while waiting in line at the airport. Now, she is subjected to a strip search and a body cavity search every time she boards an aircraft. These guys have embraced the dark side, and I need to be careful only to exercise my freedom of speach when it is important enough to go to jail for (without warrent and without trial, of course). Rick Norwood 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because I've heard that whatever you type will always be taken out of context and used in court to put you in a pound-you-in-the-ass prison. But, hey you'll have a lot of politicians to keep you company. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of American liberalism

For a long while, this section has bothered me, and I think I finally put my finger on it. For one thing, the Lakoff citations are IMO questionable. Lakoff isn't a neutral source and his characterizations of American liberalism are likely to be biased toward a favorable definition. Second, and much more importantly, the (registration required) "sourcing" of how American liberalism is "empirical" and evidenced-based aren't really a sourced in a way that evidences this. They refer to someone (Chait in this case) asserting these are characteristics of American liberalism, rather than examples proving that AL is actually evidence based. If I assert "American liberalism is an inclusive philosophy" and then provide a citation of Franklin Roosevelt stating "American liberalism is inclusive!" it doesn't prove anything about the viewpoint, just that he made the same assertion. Can we work on this? Kaisershatner 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you.

First, since the introduction to the article already gives the philosophy of American liberalism, this section, if it has any place in the article at all, should be titled Philosophy of Modern American Liberalism. Off the top of my head, that philosophy favors freedom, diversity, equal rights, labor unions, and a progressive income tax. It opposes poverty, corruption, and the influence of organized religion over politics, science, art, and the private lives of citizens. At least, those are the issues that make me identify myself as a liberal. On the other hand, the section in question goes too far, and says that liberals are people who are nice and kind and honest -- virtues that people from both sides of the political divide share, and that people from both sides sometimes lack.

Maybe together you and I can write a better paragraph. Why don't you give it a try, and I'll offer suggestions.

I suggest, however, that we write it here and get comments before we try to put it in the article. Rick Norwood 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I agree completely that editing it here would be less controversial, but I think I'm leaning to deleting it entirely. Is there stuff in there that you think is important to salvage? Kaisershatner 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss it, but I think you would hear some howls of pain if you deleted it. If you don't want to tackle it, I'll give it a try, if I can find the time. Rick Norwood 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to see all of you again. I'm back after an outstanding vacation as a newly-married man. About the philosophical section, the objection listed above doesn't seem sufficient to justify removing the section. The section is about the philosophy of liberalism, i.e. what it means to a liberal to be a liberal. To liberals, liberalism is not about policies or government role (things that conservatives notice in liberal positions), but rather it's about certain philosophical ideas. Of course it's unlikely that concservatives would agree wtih these ideas that portray liberals favorably, but, for an encyclopedia entry on liberalism to be accurate, we must, in some way, cover what it means to a liberal to be a liberal. If we don't, then the article is very unfavorable to liberals because it leaves the question "Why are liberals liberal?" unanswered. The sources for the philosophical section are liberals who write in a liberal publication to other liberals. These sources definitely do a good job defining what it means to a liberal to be a liberal. Though conservatives may disagree with liberal methodology to accomplish their goals or even with the goals themselves, they'll be happy to read this section and discover what it means to a liberal to be a liberal. Then detractors can plan their counterattacks or whatever else they do. It's important to define the meaning of "American liberal" to an American liberal in an article on American Liberalism. Otherwise, our article will by necessity be incomplete and unrepresentative. luketh 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. (But -- are married men allowed to contribute to wikipedia? Where do they find the time?)

Conservatives often assert that certain groups -- college professors, reporters, city people, etc -- are "biased" in favor of liberalism. Which, of course, we are. But that does not address the question of why we are biased in favor of liberalism instead of being biased in favor of something else, nor does it address the question of why favoring liberalism is "bias" but favoring conservatism isn't. So, yes, I think a short section on Modern liberal philosophy is in order -- but I agree with Kaisershatner that the current section doesn't quite do the job.

It seems to me, looking at my own ideas and why I believe them, that liberalism is founded on a love of diversity, and conservatism on a love of uniformity. Certainly, statistics on how people vote show that people who vote Republican tend to live in uniform communities and people who vote Democrat tend to live in diverse communities. All of the "biased" groups mentioned above encounter a lot of diversity in their lives. But I'm not sure how to reference this so it doesn't fall under the ban against original research. Rick Norwood 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The talk page was getting too long for my browser, so I attempted to archive it, but I don't think I did it quite right, because my link doesn't look like the others. Can anyone tell me what I did wrong? Rick Norwood 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Question for LukeTH. You slapped the NPOV tag on Negative use of the word "liberal" section, and said, "see talk", but your objections here area about the Philosophy of liberalism section. What gives? Rick Norwood 16:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

LukeTH should note that during his absence, nobody else seemed to have a problem with the "Negative use of liberal" section. One might take this as a sign that Luke is the only person who is not satisfied with the neutrality. I still fail to understand your complaints Luke, and I request that you not start this old edit war back up again. Congrats on the marriage. Rhobite 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this section is a complete joke and is entirely POV. If it's supposed to represent how liberals view themselves, then it should be clearly labelled as such. Salvor Hardin 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Merge?

Shouldn't this be merged with Modern Liberalism? They are essentially one and the same. Slizor 14:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hate to think that American Liberalism is the same as Modern Liberalism. The European Union, not America, is the new bastion of liberal thought. If the articles are the same, then Modern Liberalism needs to be rewritten from a less US-centric viewpoint, and possibly merged with Liberalism, from which the various articles on national movements split off. Rick Norwood 15:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

US-centric viewpoint? I, as a Brit, don't see a US bias in it. Slizor 13:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to be more clear. I do not think that this article on American Liberalism shows US bias. I think it is a good article. What I think shows US bias is the suggestion that all Modern Liberalism is the same as, and so can be merged with, American Liberalism. Rick Norwood 15:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agre with Rick. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But modern (new, social, welfare) Liberalism has pretty much exactly the same philosophy as American Liberalism. Slizor 16:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. American liberalism allows more freedom than social liberalism in Europe, in many areas. For example, America does not not criminalize hate speech, allows corporations to fire an employee any time they wish, has a much lower rate of taxation, much lower mininimum wage, and allows students to wear religious symbols in school. On the other hand, Euro liberalism allows more freedom in the area of drugs and nudity. These are just a few of many, many differences. Rick Norwood 16:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is stressing the differences between (some parties, not necessarily liberal) policy and not between the philosophy. As we are talking about an ideology shouldn't we start with the philosophy? Slizor 15:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of liberalism is discussed fully in the main article, though I recall someone saying repeatedly that conservatism is a philosophy, liberalism is an idiology. In America, liberalism is much more about partisan politics than about philosophy. Headline on the cover of today's "The Week": "Why liberals are becoming extinct." In order to loot the public treasury, the Republicans must first silence the watchdogs of liberty. Rick Norwood 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article is strange. Shouldn't it be called "social liberalism in America"? Calling it "American liberalism" gives the impression that there is something intrinsically and uniquely American about social liberalism. Don't forget that there is also classical liberalism in America. I think a better term would be is simply "social liberalism" or "modern liberalism" --and if necessary .."in America." RJII 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article split off from the liberalism article, which is now being considered for a further split. After it split off from liberalism it was further split to separate liberalism in Canada from liberalism in the US. Given this history, I don't think a merge is likely. Rick Norwood 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The liberalism article deals with both classical and "modern" liberalism, as it should. This one is called "American liberalism" but only deals with "modern liberalism" --it just doesn't make sense. American liberalism should include classical liberalism in America. Either this article is going to deal with only "modern liberalism" or all "American liberalism" including classical liberalism. Which is it? If the former, then the name needs to be changed. RJII 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this flowery clip "Liberals tend to see themselves in the context of their fellow man and woman and assume their rights are no greater and their privileges no greater than anyone else's, regardless of wealth or position [4]. Key liberal values are empathy, compassion, trust, and cooperation", is bizzare, unreal and definitely POV. Liberals often see themselves as the natural ruling elite in the U.S. and consider conservatives and other non-liberals unsophisticated hicks who should have no say in political or cultural matters. I've had liberal college professors say as much jm66.72.215.225

Flowerbox Liberalism

This sentence from the opening paragraph makes no sense:

"American liberals advocate regulation of certain human activities, such as regulation of corporations and gun control, to create a balance between the rights of all individuals."

"...to create a balance between the rights of all individuals." Flowery and nonsensical.Scribner 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to explain the sentence you did not understand. The idea that an individual worker can go mano a mano against a multinational corporation is not reasonable, nor are the laws treating corporations as individual, with "human" rights. As Solon said in Athens three thousand years ago, you cannot talk about freedom when wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of the few, who can buy politicians and judges.

As for gun control, I'm with you on that one. Rick Norwood 13:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved article

I moved the article from "American liberalism" to "Social liberalism (United States)". It is misleading to call the article "American liberalism" when classical liberalism is also part of American liberalism. Clearly, this article is about social liberalism or "modern liberalism." An alternative move would be to call it "Modern liberalism (United States)". This type of title is a good form title to make articles for various countries. RJII 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the move, though I think "Social liberalism in the United States" would be a better title. Have you fixed all the links? Rick Norwood 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of a move like this conducted with no discussion. You should also fix the links (which are, in fact, not fixed at all). I would add that, in the US, we don't refer to this style of liberalism as "social liberalism," which makes the title somewhat awkward. john k 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What? says I. This page should be about American Liberalism. I would suggest reverting back to American Liberalism, which now redirects to American social liberalism, which redirects to Social liberalism (United States. Social Liberalism can exist, just as a seperate page. We can even link to it from American Liberalism. I realize you are trying to improve the article, but I think the best way is to improve content and not change the title. --Shawn 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that it turns out that the person who made the move did not do their homework (re: redirects) and there seems to be a consensus here against the move, I am reverting back to the older title. Rick Norwood 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It turns out it is harder to undo a move than I thought. I now realize I should have moved back one step at a time, but now I'm stuck. I've put in a request to an administrator for help. Rick Norwood 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved, thanks to Flcelloguy. (Who was that masked man...? Hi Yo, Silver, away!)Rick Norwood 00:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you get it? Classical liberalism is also part of American liberalism. But, this article is not about that. It's specifically about "social liberalism" (or "modern liberalism") in America. This title is a misnomer. There is no such philosophy as "American liberalism." RJII 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, what you call "social liberalism" is a distinctively American creation which, thanks to the New Deal and other social and economic programs, has brought such prosperity to this country that it has now been adopted throughout Europe, and spread to Japan, and Australia. The best its opponents can muster against it is to claim that, with smaller government, the prosperity we enjoy today would be even greater. But that claim is by no means proved, while the spread of prosperity is an established fact. Rick Norwood 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

It is misleading to call the article "American liberalism" when classical liberalism is also part of American liberalism. Clearly, this article is about social liberalism or modern liberalism --not the classical form. An alternative move would be to call it "Modern liberalism (United States)". And, the title makes it appear as if "American liberalism" is the name of a particular philosophy, which it is not. If the article is called "American liberalism" then it should be about pre-Roosevelt liberalism as well (small government, low taxes, anti-welfare state, isolationism) --not just social liberalism (modern liberalism) in America. RJII 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Move to Social liberalism (United States) or Modern liberalism (United States) RJII 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose this move due to the common naming policy. In America, the unqualified term "liberalism" refers specifically to the ideology described in this article. It doesn't refer to classical liberalism. Rhobite 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wholeheartedly Object for a few reasons.

1. The lead-in of this article describes that, "American liberalism or modern liberalism is a political current in the United States that claims descent from classical liberalism in terms of devotion to individual liberty" (emphasis added). The arguement that Classical Liberalism is a part of American Liberalism, as RJII stated, is misinterpreted. From a worldview, American Liberalism does descend from Classical Liberalism as set out by Enlightenment Philosophers. I think you might misunderstand the point of the article, that is discussing the most popular form of "American Liberalism" as an institution, not as a specific belief such as "Economic Liberal" or "Social Liberal."
2. Classical Liberalism is a general notion of Liberalism. Whereas, Austrailian Liberalism might be different, but certainly not the same as Classical Liberalism. The comparisons being made here amount to saying that we should merge the article on Springer Spaniel into Sporting Dogs. American Liberalism is seperate from classical liberalism, even though it is composed of elements of classical liberalism.

I really don't see how this should be renamed whatsoever --Shawn 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism was simply called "liberalism" prior to Roosevelt --that's American liberalism (liberalism in America) as well. Just as the liberalism article includes both classical and social liberalism, this one should include classic and social/modern as well. OR, change the name to be more specific. RJII 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hasn't this been hashed out before? Consensus last time was to keep it at American liberalism. I feel it can be adequately shown it is a specific type of liberalism. I'd say keep it here. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the article is called "American liberalism" then it should be about pre-Roosevelt liberalism as well (small government, low taxes, anti-welfare state, isolationism) --not just social liberalism (modern liberalism) in America. "Liberalism" was a different philosophy pre-Roosevelt, and it is just as much American liberalism as is "modern liberalism." This article and title just doesn't make sense. Is it meant to indicate that "American liberalism" is the name of a specific philosophy or is it another way of saying "Liberalism in America"? RJII 01:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying "Social Liberalism" but American Liberalism also applies to Economic Theory. And to answer your question, I would regard "American Liberalism" as a specific brand of Liberalism. It's like if "liberalism" were the ice cream cone, "American" is the flavor. What I would suggest is if you have knowledge of information prior to the New Deal, that you add it in. I'm sure no one would be opposed to that. Shawn 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the suggested move and name change. Rick Norwood 02:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, do you support the article being about both social/modern and classical liberalism in America? RJII 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism is entirely different than American Liberalism, RJII. Shawn 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism includes both classical and modern/social forms. RJII 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, there are other forms of Liberalism in the US, but "American Liberalism", as it is called, is a distinct ideological current. This of course does not imply that other forms of Liberalism in the US are any "less American".--Pharos 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I would like to make clear that I don't think what RJII thinks (sadly I retain some sanity) but that I'm not convinced of the extent that American Liberalism differs from European Modern Liberalism and I disagree with the view that it was developed without any European philosophical input. I certainly would not agree with the further repetition of Libertarian propaganda on this page. Slizor 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a problem as well. The title implies that there is some unique philosophy called "American liberalism," but that's not the case. The same philosophy is present in other locales. "Liberalism (United States)" would make more sense to solve your complaint wouldn't it? RJII 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose'. Though I could agree with Liberalism in the US, the present title seems better. There is a trend within liberalism usually named American liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag for Title/Subject matter

Liberalism includes both classical and modern/social forms. Liberalism is broad, but this article confines itself to social/modern liberalism. Hence, the title is wrong, or the content is wrong. RJII 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from RJII's talk page:

"Hi there. I think you should slow down a bit on all the tagging and proposed moving of the article. Let us use the talk page to discuss what needs to be done first before we got slapping tags all over. I realize you are frustrated. I want to explain that Classical Liberalism is a specific set of beliefs that is seperate from Progressive Liberalism. HOWEVER, American Liberalism deals soley with the liberalist movements and style of liberalism in the United States. I think that expanding the article is a good idea. And I also think that you are a little confused about what Classical Liberalism really is. American Liberalism, as put forth by our founding fathers is based on Classical Liberalsm. In our articles we don't seek the mention every single person who might have a different view on the specific brand of liberalism. Instead we aim to provide an accurate overview of what American Liberalism deals with at the core. If you have any questions, ask before you do anything or I might have to ask that we get an admin to help us out. I know you're concerned and i'm excited to work with you :) --Shawn 02:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)"

This is my opinion on the subject matter. Again i want to emphasize that Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism and Modern Liberalism are not seperate, but in the same vein. --Shawn 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I also add that you should read the actual article for sources and contextual evidence.

1. Herbert Croly (1869-1930), philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism [1][2].
2. This usage creates some confusion, since the same term is used to describe the international revival of classical liberalism and the associated radical free-market policies associated with politicians like Margaret Thatcher and, in the United States, Ronald Reagan.

I think these two quotes demonstrate the role of Classical Liberalism in relation to American Liberalism. --Shawn 02:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those sources mention "American liberalism." They refer to "modern liberalism" however. "Liberalism" is a very broad philosophy that includes classical and modern/social forms --whether in America or anywhere else. Confining discussion of liberalism in America to only modern/social liberalism makes no sense at all, unless the title of the article confines itself to that. Do you dispute that people who called themselves "liberals" prior to Roosevelt were American liberals? They opposed the welfare state and believed in economic laissez-faire. They are as much American liberals as social/modern liberals but have a different philosophy. And, classical liberals still exist in America. Classical liberals are liberals too. RJII 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion copied from RJII's talk page for others' convenience:

I think you might have inadvertantly misinterpreted my words. you can't really divide "Classical Liberals" from "Modern Liberals." Classical doesn't mean old liberals. It's a specific ideology that is incorporated into American Liberalism, of which the article American Liberalism could use more commentary on. Further, the term "American Liberalism" isn't meant to encompass ALL forms of Liberalism in the United States. It is a specific name. Just as American Justice doesn't encompass all forms of Justice or does American Conservatism encompass all forms of Conservatism. I'm not trying to exclude any information, I am trying to define what American Liberalism is. And this is not a "List of American Liberalist Sects" it is a specific sect of liberalism in the united states--Shawn 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that classical liberalism is under the umbrella of modern/social liberalism. That's my point. Liberalism includes both forms of liberalism. But, read the intro of the article. It defines American liberalism as modern/social liberalism is defined. It is excluding non-social liberalism in America. RJII 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article on Classical Liberalism. Making a section about it in this article is counter-productive. We'd have to make a section on progressive liberalism and all types. Instead shouldn't we keep them seperate? --Shawn 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping them seperate is fine, as long as they are titled appropriately. Look at the liberalism article. That includes both forms of liberalism --classical and social/modern. Since this is simply called "American liberalism" it should include both forms of liberalism in America. I don't think it's convention for "American liberalism" to only refer to modern/social liberalism. For instance, this source [3] delineates "classical American liberalism" and this one [4] delineates "contemporary American liberalism." "American liberalism" is broader than this article is representing it. There are classical liberals and there are social/modern liberals in America. Both Milton Friedman and Hillary Clinton are American liberals --the former, a self-described classical one, and the latter a social/modern one. RJII

Please note that the views of classical liberals are not being silenced. There is an entire article on classical liberalism. But today, in America, almost nobody uses American liberalism in the sense of classical liberalism. They either call classical liberalism "libertarianism" or "conservatism". This article reflects current usage. Rick Norwood 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the term "liberalism" is not used to refer to classical liberalism in America. Classical liberalism is a form of liberalism. That's indisputable. And, it's a form of liberalism that exists in America alongside with social liberalism. How about calling the article "Modern American liberalism"? RJII 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that classical liberalism doesn't exist in America. Just that if somebody says "liberal" in America, they do not mean "classical liberal". The examples you give above do not call classical liberals just "liberals", because they know that would be misunderstood. Instead, the add the adjective "classical". Rick Norwood 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

They also added the qualifier "contemporary American liberal." I disagree with you. "Liberal" can mean either classical or social liberal in America. Liberalism is very broad. RJII 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh says, "All liberals are traitors." Does he intend to include classical liberals? Spiro Agnew says, "Liberals are the nattering nabobs of negativism." Does he intend to include classical liberals? Pat Robertson says, "God destroyed the World Trade Center to punish America for liberalism?" Does he intend to include classical liberalism? Can you give me one example in modern America where someone uses the phrase Americal liberalism to mean classical liberalism?

On the other hand, I have absolutely no objection to a paragraph in this article about classical liberalism in America, provided the paragraph makes it clear that what used to be called classical liberalism is now called philosophical conservatism, that is, conservatives who don't want to force other people's children to pray in the public schools. Rick Norwood 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, "liberalism" is commonly used to refer to social liberalism in the vulgar tongue, but the fact remains that liberalism includes both classical liberalism and social liberalism. And, this is frequently made clear in the academic literature. "Liberalism straddles the center, having a right-wing version - classical, individualistic liberalism - and a leftish one - the interventionist liberalism..." (Conservativism, Anthony Quinton) And, classical liberalism is not the same as conservativism. RJII 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When people speak about American liberalism, one means the present form of liberalism in the states. American liberalism is a very suitable title for this page. RJII: please stop your campaig. I think we can solve the problem with a entry remark, referring to an article about classical liberalism in the US (but be aware, some American liberals consider themselves close to classical liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII: Your point is addressed in several places: here, in the article on liberalism, in the article on classical liberalism, and elsewhere. Obviously, this is something you feel strongly about, but it has been addressed fully. Changing the title of this article has been proposed and rejected, with only your vote to the contrary. Rick Norwood 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It may have been addressed before. But, it's time to address it again. I wasn't here before. Wikipedia is fluid. Consensus is fleeting. (so far 2 would like a title change) RJII 04:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This move request was misguided; the article is about liberalism in the United States, while Modern American liberalism covers what people think of as "American liberalism". Additionally, common naming policy would mean this should be at Liberalism in the United States. 67.181.63.245 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

To clear up these issues it would really be best to have a separate article on Liberalism in the United States (as internationally defined), which is really an eminentlty encyclopedic topic discussed in academia no end.--Pharos 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes much more sense that the current title. The current title wrongly makes it look like "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. RJII 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me; I would say that "American liberalism" is the name of a political philosophy (or at least an appropriate name for what most American laymen just call "liberalism"). On the other hand, in addition to the article we now have on that topic, I think it would be appropriate to have an additional article on the whole phonemenon of liberalism (as internationally defined) in the United States, as I think they are certainly both rather significant topics.--Pharos 05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I could go for that. I think what eventually would happen is this article would be merged into that one. But, I disagree that "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. The name of the philosophy is "liberalism." RJII 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article was "Liberalism in the United States" before someone changed it to "American Liberalism". If we change it back, then chances are at some time down the road, someone will change it again. Argument through title change seems to me a bad idea, even if someone is willing to do the substantial amount of work necessary to fix all the redirects. Yes, we have now two people in favor of a title change, but they don't agree on what the new title should be. Let's give it a rest. Rick Norwood 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to "give it a rest." I think this is a disservice to people who are reading Wikipedia. There is no such philosophy as "American liberalism." Rather, there is a philosophy called "liberalism" that exists in several countries. RJII 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a philosophy called "liberalism". There is an article called liberalism. There is a kind of liberalism that is important in American politics. And so there is an article on American liberalism. Rick Norwood 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And that really is the crux of this issue. And I think most people agree. --Shawn 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some of you folks are also misreading my suggestion. I am distinctly not saying that we should retitle this article Liberalism in the United States; I am rather suggesting a new article that would probably use that somewhat confusing title. I strongly disagree with RJII's negation of the concept of "American liberalism"; of course it is a very important political current in the US, and the article as it exists covers that topic quite admirably. But I also think that a separate article on the whole history of Liberalism (as internationally defined) in the United States is warranted. Look, I took a whole required undergradute course on that specific topic; believe me there is plently of discussion in the academic literature.--Pharos 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And to that I agree. --Shawn 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it. Let's create Liberalism in the United States. RJII 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's start it at Liberalism in the United States/temp for now, and when we've made some progress on it in a week or so, we can work out reorganizing all of the redirects.--Pharos 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened with this? The current article should be at Liberalism in the United States, whereas Modern American liberalism is what "American liberalism" means. 67.181.63.245 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for terminolgy

I put a couple tags up. I put one in the intro requesting a source for the term. And then a disputed tag later in the text where it says "...progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism" and presents two sources for the statement that don't even mention the term "American liberalism." RJII 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A google on "American liberalism" produces seventeen million hits. For starters try www.americanliberalism.com. Rick Norwood 12:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have provided two new references at each point requested by RJII, one strongly liberal, one strongly anti-liberal. I can provide about 16,999,996 more if needed. Rick Norwood 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still not clear. Can you find any source that explicity says "American liberalism" is a philosophy. There is liberalism in American, but I don't think there is a philosophy called "American liberalism." RJII 15:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that no amount of evidence will change your mind, and equally clear that your point of view has no support. I think we will have to agree to disagree. Rick Norwood 19:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't "agree to disagree." Please provide evidence of any source that gives a definition of "American liberalism." RJII 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that RJII has consistently proven that there is no budging from his position. American Liberalism, as it were, incorporates parts of all forms of Liberalism. This article explains current trends in the U.S. If you want information on Classical Liberalism, then I think your concerns are best addressed at the Classical Liberalism article. It seems to me that you think everyone is out to get you. We're just all trying to work together to be more accurate. After a while, aggressive editing kind of ruins it for the rest of us. Shawn 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think people are out to get me? What?? All I'm doing is requesting a source for the term. I'm doing what any concerned responsible editor should do. I want to make sure this is not original research, because I've never heard of a philosophy called "American liberalism." All liberalism in American is not social liberalism, so this article is very strange to me. You really need to stop assuming bad faith. Wikipedia policy asks you to assume good faith. I'm also trying to "work together to be more accurate." If you assume bad faith of others, then you're not doing your part. I'm sitting here asking for sources, and you're accusing me of "aggressive editing"??? I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm DISCUSSING and putting in citation requests where appropriate. And, don't assume bad faith of others and don't make personal attacks. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Everything must be sourceable. See (Original_research). RJII 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith, I suppose misplaced passion. And there is not a policy against that. What I am trying to say is that you come off as very hostile, as if everyone who is not on your side is trying to give you the short end of the stick. You always talk about "Social Liberalism." The fact may be that this article emphasizes Social characteristics, but that is the major component of American Liberalism. Like I said, I am not going to try and convince you toherwise anymore because you don't seem like you can compromise. Thanks for your passion though. --Shawn 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

modern liberalism

I'm still trying to understand the gist of this article. The first sentence mentions "modern liberalism" as a synonym for "American liberalism." But, there is an article "modern liberalism". Is it a synonym or not? If it is, then why does this article treat "American liberalism" as a unique philosophy? Why would all modern liberalism be American liberalism? America does not have a monopoly on modern/social liberalism. RJII 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would be happier if it was named "liberalism in america"? Unless you think that liberalism is not a philosophy, stop whining. American Liberalism is nothing more than a new, evolved derivative of Enlightenment/Classic Liberalism. It is a grown up version of liberalism. One that recognizes the harsh realities of unchecked liberty and free markets, because it exists in the country that most whole heartedly adopted such a system. If you want to write about classic liberalism, go do it in that article. Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what you're actually talking about is "modern liberalism" or "social liberalism" --or what American's simply call "liberalism." "American liberalism" is not a philosophy. RJII 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Liberalism in America, or American liberalism. They synonymous. Just as Nationalism in Iceland would be the same as Icelandic nationalism, in my opinion. Whether or not this is a specific Philosophy is irrelevant. This article is not the identification of a specific philosophy, but an encyclopedic documentation of the liberal movement in the US. You are getting a little too caught up on semantics, i think. --Shawn 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but then I come across statements like this in the article: "Herbert Croly (1869-1930), philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism." That clearly says that "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. And, the sources at the end of the statement are very dubious. The first one is a link to an apparently copy of an old version of a Wikipedia article [5] (never mind that it doesn't even mention the term), the second source does not mention the term [6], the third source mentions "modern American liberalism" (which implies that there is also classical American liberalism) [7], and the fourth source uses the term but really informally --it's clear he's talking about modern American liberalism [8]. Something appears very wrong with this article. If there is indeed a "progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism" then there should be a source somewhere explicity defining the term. But, no one can come up with one. RJII 20:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to stop trying to convince you of the merits of this article because you will never be swayed and you clearly do not have any regard for other opinions. I really hope this was a misunderstanding but it ruins the fun of Wikipedia when there is someone who constantly refutes everything you say. --Shawn 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't handle disagreement then Wikipedia is not the place for you. To hell with "the fun of Wikipedia." It's more important that the information is accurate. I'm very much open to being swayed. You lose your patience way too easily. Everything on Wikipedia should be challenged. It's the only to way ensure accuracy and NPOV. And, you really need to stop with the personal attacks. This is your second warning. Maybe you think it's "fun" to insult others. But, it's the kind of fun that Wikipedia has a policy against. RJII 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken from my last comment, "I really hope this was a misunderstanding." I am not, and never will attack you. Anyways, I hope to you and moreover to others who are trying to improve this article that a concensus is reached and that there is an improvement in quality. Thanks, everyone. --Shawn 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying that I "do not have any regard for other opinions" is a personal attack. Obviously, I have a regard for other opinions or I wouldn't be discussing things here. I would simply be reverting things in the article. RJII 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The new list

The new list of American liberal causes seems to phrase things oddly. For example, liberals generally support environmental legislation, but not necessarily "more" environmental legislation. In many cases, all that is needed is for current laws which are not enforced to be enforced. In other words, the latest version of the list seems to be trying to spin the list. I'm going to try to unspin it. Torque is cheap. Rick Norwood 21:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to create spin (just started by trying to clean up) ... but AMERICAN LIBERALS do stand for very real and important things. If we water everything down too much, we start sounding like "compassionate conservative" polititians. Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am offended that you are accusing me of being a "right wing vandal" because I removed opinionated words you added to this article. Please do not insert your personal opinion into articles. It is not OK to imply that judges only overturn "outdated" laws, or that all wealth disparity is inherently unfair, or that capitalism is inherently greedy. All these are your own opinions. I suspect that you're an impostor of User:Nikodemos. Why did you change accounts? Did you lose your password? Rhobite 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course. Just trying to make the list clear and to the point. Rick Norwood 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

judicial authority

I brought the question of judicial authority here for discussion. I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who wants judges to have the power to ignore the law and precedent. On the other hand, the founding fathers, mindful of the excesses of power, clearly wanted the courts to balance the power of the executive and judicial branches. How can we phrase the liberal point of view on this issue, so we don't sound like the fools conservatives make us out to be? Rick Norwood 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no "liberal point of view" because judicial theory is much different from political theory. --Shawn 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Asimov was a liberal!

Salvor Hardin has misstated liberal views without references. First, while communists believe in equality of wealth, few if any American liberals believe any such thing. The disagreement between liberals and conservatives is this: should the rich be taxed so that the poor have their minimum basic needs met. Second, to endlessly qualify statements is unnecessary, since at the outset the paragraph says that this is what liberals believe. Rick Norwood 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, at least to the part about qualifying every statement. --Shawn 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement "should the rich be taxed so that the poor have their minimum basic needs met." is a biased, liberal way of framing the issue. Conservatives would say that taxation leads to the needs of the poor NOT being met. Salvor Hardin 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Conservatives would say that taxation leads to the needs of the poor NOT being met." No, that's Libertarians you are thinking of, not Conservatives generally. Rick Norwood 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"a classless society" WTF? American Liberals advocated a classless society? I'll tell you the difference: liberals want somewhat more redistribution than conservatives, while conservatives like to masquerade as libertarians while in fact generally support governments who spend just as much and are just as intrusive. --CJWilly 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Historically, the "small government" conservatives tend to join the "money conservatives" for the same reason the religious conservatives join the money conservatives. They keep hoping that the money conservatives will keep their promises. Maybe they will, someday. Hasn't happened yet. Rick Norwood 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional government?

What in the world? American liberals, beginning with FDR, have disregarded the US constitution as much as possible in favor of a body of activist judicial ruling. It seems to me the burden of proof for making such an outrageous statement falls on you. Salvor Hardin 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To give just a few examples, if it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, the Christian majority would have voted this a Christian nation long ago. As it is, four states ignore the constitution and require anyone seeking public office to affirm a belief in a supreme being. And your supposedly activist judges affirm that children can be forced to swear that the United States is "under God" and that it is ok to put "in God we trust" on our money. If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, rich Republicans would have jailed liberal newspaper editors, instead of just labeling them as communists. If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of the right to assemble, the government would certainly have killed more than just four of the anti-Vietnam War protesters. If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, I would proabably be in jail right now. The nonsense about "judicial activism" overthrowing the constitution is something invented by conservative talk radio, not a serious point of view. You can look up for yourself how many of the supposedly "activist" Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents -- a clear majority. Rick Norwood 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Republican ≠ conservative (in all cases). Plus, judges rule how they want, not how the person who appointed them wants. Sorry, back to wikibreak. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rick, your worldview is absurdly paranoid and unrealistic. Your understanding of the constitution is hopelessly muddled. I don't even know where to begin. Salvor Hardin 05:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't bother, Salvor, though I appreciate the thought. But also please don't state what "liberals" believe. Allow liberals to state their own beliefs (which, as the article notes, differ quite a bit from individual to individual). The core belief is in freedom, and most modern American liberals would not allow the rich the freedom to bully the poor, thus depriving the poor of their freedom, any more than you would allow the physically strong poor to bully the physically weak rich (though I suspect you would solve the problem of bullies by allowing the rich to hire private bodyguards). Rick Norwood 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A sentence too long

There was a young man from Japan

Whose limericks never would scan

"The reason," he said

"With a nod of his head

"Is that I always try to cram as many words into the last line as I possibly can."

American liberalism is a political current of modern liberalism in the United States that is arguably descended from classical liberalism in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but rejects absolute free-market economics in favor of an economic system in which the government intervenes where it considers freedom to be threatened by bribery, trusts, monopolies, or the concentration of wealth and supports a social welfare system.

This is a bad sentence on several grounds. First, it is too long. Second, a sentence should not argue with itself. Third, it is not at all clear what the subject of the final clause is. Please, if you want to argue that American liberals are really a pack of socialists, that belongs in an "arguments against liberalism" section. Rick Norwood 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support of a welfare state is essential to any definition of American liberalism. I don't think any modern American "liberal" will deny they support a welfare system. RJII 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your current edit is a much better place to make your point. Rick Norwood 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the point needs to be made in the defintion. It's essential to the definition. What seperates classical from modern American liberals? Support for a welfare state. RJII 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To see that "welfare state" is perjorative see the article by that title. You are, of course, quite right the all liberals support welfare. So do all successful conservative politicians. It was Bush who pushed through the perscription drug plan and poured money on the Hurricane Katrina problem, and it is Bush who has run up a nine trillion dollar debt. However, as you can see by the article of that title, the term "welfare state" is used with three different meanings, only one of which applies to welfare as it is currently practiced in the US. Rick Norwood 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said Bush was a classical liberal? Classical liberals are "more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government." (Quinton, Anthony. Conservativism, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy). And, Bush may support welfare, but conservativism is not defined as support welfare. That's the difference. So, if he does support welfare then it's arguable that he can accurately be called a conservative. And, I disagree that "welfare state" is a pejorative term. But, I don't care what you call it. Essential to American modern liberalism is support for a welfare system. RJII 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction now contains a clear statement to the effect that liberals support welfare. But other differences between classical liberals and modern liberals abound, especially in the areas of trade unions and civil rights. Rick Norwood 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is finding a definition of "American liberalism." I'm not convinced it's a real term. There are plenty definitions of "modern liberalism" but would it be the same definition? RJII 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs sourcing bad. RJII 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a few sources. Please add more as needed. Rick Norwood 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did, but you reverted mine. Please don't delete sourced information, even if you don't like the information. A lot of the "sources" that are in the article are non-credible --not from published matererial. The article needs reliable sources. RJII 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally I don't engage in this article, but adding sources information is not allways according to wikipedia standards. The article should be well balanced and not eventually be dominated by anti-American liberalism information, even if it is sourced. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I added ONE source that is anti American modern liberalism, because there is a dispute whether it was it was influeced by American classical liberalism. Certainly that deserves mention in the article. RJII 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As to Bush, he is a Free Market/Free Trade Neo-Conservative who is socially conservative and economically liberal by classic definition of the Says, Cobdens, Smiths etc. Modern American liberalism is a result mostly of the New Deal coalition which put Republican Progressives of the Theodore Roosevelt stripe together with Democratic Populists of the William J. Bryan/Woodrow Wilson stripe together into a coherent philosophy the perpetruated the economic system of America minus protective tariffs and plus social legislation in favor of working men and women such as Social Security - that brought Southern Dem's (who now reside mostly in the Republican Party) along by not touching the civil rights issue until the 1960's. That moment forward the coalition fractured, and the Southern wing left and the Republican liberal/progressive wing still in the Republican party left to the Democratic Party then forward, thus aligning with the other two elements spoken of before on the issue Civil Rights - thus modern American liberalism and the Democratic Party. --Northmeister 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another good reason not to conflate "liberal", "left wing", and "Democratic". Rick Norwood 13:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

missing information / POV

Why is RickNorwood deleting this information: "Whether American liberalism is founded upon the philosophy of classical liberalism is a subject of some dispute. For example, scholar Leonard Liggio (a self-described classical liberal) holds that modern liberalism does not share the same intellectual foundations as classical liberalism. He says, "Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are." He believes that this is why liberalism means something different in Europe than in America."(Christianity, Classical Liberalism are Liberty's Foundations, interview with Leonard Liggio. Religion & Liberty, Acton Institute, 2003) If it's going to be claimed that it's based in classical liberalism, then to be NPOV it needs to have the other side that disagrees with that. RJII 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwood is also deleting this header: "The is article is restricted to covering American modern liberalism rather than all American liberalism, which would include American classical liberalism.(Novak, William J. The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's "Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America", Law and History Review, Volume 24, Number 1, Spring 2006). Since the title of the article doesn't reflect that the article is about only modern liberalism, then this needs to be noted at the outset. RJII 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, a scholar of liberalism, considers American liberalism to include both classical and the modern form. [9]. So why, if this article is called "American liberalism" does it only present the welfare-state variety? RJII 18:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Close the doors, they're coming in the windows; close the windows, they're coming in the doors. You are absolutely right RJII, the article should cover all American Liberalism, not just modern American liberalism. There was, if memory serves, a very nice section tracing American liberaliam from Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. I've been so busy with other things that I did not notice that it had gone. I think the omission dates from the time when somebody (I forget who) changed the article from Liberalism in the United States to American Liberalism, in a double move that was hell to revert. Do you want to restore the missing chapter in American liberalism, or shall I? Or would someone else undertake the job? Rick Norwood 23:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

POV intro

Also, Norwood deleted the dispute tag after the claim that modern liberalism in America comes from classical liberalism. The intro is POV because there not a consensus on that. RJII 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an ideological development from early liberal thought to modern liberalism in and outside America. A consensus is not necesary and is no Wikipedia policy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. To state something as true, when some credible sources disagree is "POV." I personally think it was influenced by classical liberalism, but that's not my call to make. RJII 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary that every article on geography include the point of view, still held by some, that the Earth is flat. Rick Norwood 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a published article from a credentialed scholar that says the Earth is flat, then we certainly do need to include that opinion. RJII 01:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No. There are at least tens of thousands of credentialed scholars, representing such a variety of opinion that it would take a thick book to cover all points of view. Article writers must have judgment as to what are mainstream views, such as those published in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and what are minor views.

The problem with your edits is that you want to change this to an article about socialist tendencies in American liberalism, instead of a more general article. There may be a place for such a view, but not in the main article on the subject. Rick Norwood 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article to cover American liberalism before 1930.

This is a big job, but it needs to be done. I'm going to attempt a little at a time, here, and await comments.

The United States of America was the first modern government to be founded on liberal principles. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the American Declaration of Independence, quoted the influential liberal philosopher John Locke. While many of the ideas of liberalism can be traced back to the democracy of Athens, the republic of Rome, the city states of Renaissance Italy, and the parliament of England, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights ushered in a new form of government, a form of government that has now spread throughout much of the world, the constitutional representative democracy.

Comments, improvements, other ways to begin the story of American liberalism at the beginning? Rick Norwood 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing that can be done, is you can stop deleting sourced information. Your latest deletion was sourced information from a respect scholar on liberalism: "Scholar of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., writing in 1956, said that American liberalism includes both a "laissez-faire" form and a "government intervention" form. He holds that liberalism in America is aimed toward acheiving "equality of opportunity for all" but it is the means of acheiving this that changes depending on the circumstances. He says that the "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." (Schelesinger Jr., Arthur. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston, 1962)" I'm not very optimistic about being being able to work with you because of your wanton destructiveness. RJII 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope I can prove you wrong about my "wanton distructiveness". For example, I like your Schlesinger quote, and think it belongs in the article. I think you would have better success here if you made a few changes at a time, instead of making a dozen changes a day. Rick Norwood 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of "assume goodwill" I am going to try to work through your version of liberalism this time, instead of just reverting. Rick Norwood 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do now.

There are several of us working on this article. Let's see if we can work together instead of working at cross purposes.

America was the first major constitutional representative democracy. An article titled American liberalism should reflect this. Also, the article has the "too long" flag.

I would like to suggest the following articles.

1. American liberalism (covering 1776 to 2006) with major trends such as a nation without a king (George Washington's refusal to be addressed as "Your majesty"), separation of church and state, orderly transition of power (Adams to Jefferson), the Bill of Rights, slavery, The Civil War, The New Deal, and modern liberalism. Where these topics are addressed here at too great length, they should be shortened and referenced.

2. Modern liberalism (covering 1933 to 2006) including the American New Deal, Euruopean socialism, the Labour Party in England, and the modification of liberalism to include a "social safety net", a meritocracy, universal education, universal health care, expanded civil rights, and so on.

A great deal of this material is already in Wikipedia, spread out over a large number of articles. It needs to be organized and linked.

Comments? Suggestions? Rick Norwood 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, but European socialism and the Labour Party of the UK are not similar to American Liberalism. There are some similarities between part of the social democrats and American liberals, but British liberals shared a lot of the views of American liberals (Keynes, Beveridge were not Labour politicians). Labour suppported nationalizations, did American liberals do that? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, American liberals oppose nationalization. I also note that modern liberalism currently redirects to social liberalism. That redirect passes the google test, 8.4 million to 13.4 million. In both cases, the Wikipedia article is at the top of the search, followed by a large number of references to books and articles such as "How modern liberalism is destroying America" and "Social liberalism and the corruption of America".

The Wikipedia liberalism group of articles are growing like a weed, and I am not sure how to divy up the topics. Maybe liberalism → American liberalism → modern American liberalism? I think that the main problem with this article at this time is that it is way too long, so I do not want to add anything about historical American liberalism until the modern parts are shorter. In particular, I think the section on the New Deal can be shortened considerably, with a arrow pointing to the New Deal article (which is itself tagged as too long). Rick Norwood 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Again I agree with your proposal. Good luck (I'm not an expert on American liberalism). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your support, Electionworld. I'm still waiting to see if anybody objects to this proposal, because I don't want to carry it out and then raise a firestorm of objections, as happened with the recent unilateral move. Rick Norwood 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just move it to "Liberalism in America", like the other articles Liberalism in Canada and Liberalism in Europe, and then cover all liberalism in America, including classical liberalism? If discussion on modern liberalism gets too large then split if off into "Modern liberalism in America." RJII 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with frequent name changes is the proliferation of redirects. About a year ago, this article split off from liberalism and was called Liberalism in North America, then that split into Liberalism in the United States and Liberalism in Canada. Then the former was changed to American liberalism. There have been at least two other name changes, later reverted, since then. I see some advantage in parallel names for parallel articles, and have no preference between American liberalism and Liberalism in America except that the former is shorter. I'll put them to the google test and get back to you. Rick Norwood 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism in America got 12 million hits, American liberalism got 15 million hits. Those numbers, beging the same order of magnitude, do not dictate a name for this article. My fondness for parallel construction for parallel ideas leads me to support RJII's suggestion. That would be liberalism → Liberalism in America → Modern liberalism in America. Most of this article would go under the latter title, with a summary here and, starting with the 20th Century, a link to "main article: Modern liberalism in America". The Liberalism in America article would then begin with the Declaration of Independence.

Once again, however, I want to move very cautiously. Does anyone object to the outline above? Rick Norwood 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I may have one small point to raise, however, I am currently busy... I'll get back to you later today. Sorry for making you all wait. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it wouldn't be in America but in the United States. Canada is also part of America as is Argentina. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Liberalism (United States), Liberalism (Canada), Liberalism (Australia), etc.? RJII 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before. The term "America" is ambiguous because "the Americas" are continents. The phrase "United States" is ambigious because Mexico is the United Mexican States. If we are going to be technically accurate, the article should be titled Liberalism in the United States of America. See Use of the word American. Is there a consensus? In the absense of such a consensus, I suggest we keep American liberalism at least for the time being, to avoid making too many changes at once. Rick Norwood 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That or Liberalism (USA) is fine with me. The intro will need to be changed as well, since there is also classical liberalism in the U.S., unless the title says "social liberalism" or "modern liberalism." RJII 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You have edited the article to reassert your claim that it is only about social liberalism. That is not the case, and if, in fact, "classical" liberalism is slighted, then we are working to change that. I am tempted to revert, but I will try to work with you on this. Rick Norwood 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The definition in the intro is for social liberalism, not for classical liberalism. And, the body of the article is about the social liberalism that developed after the New Deal. Until that is changed, then the reader needs to know that the article is not about all forms of liberalism in America. At least the intro should be rewritten to reflect liberalism as a whole, before such a notice should be taken off --I would think. RJII 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it will help if you read the article liberalism, which makes a distinction between cultural liberalism on the one hand, a subject on which most liberals agree, and economic liberalism vs. social liberalism on the other hand, which has caused a split among social liberals with respect to what libertarians call negative rights and positive rights. For example, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that libertarians would support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right of all races and genders to vote, and so on. In other words, on all the issues where liberals and conservatives in America disagree, both the economic liberals and the social liberals are on the side of the cultural liberals. The issue that divides us is big government, but there economic liberals are left with nobody to vote for but Ralph Nadar, because both political parties spend like there is no tomorrow. The choice is between spending trillions and taxing the rich or spending trillions and going deeper in debt. Not much of a choice. Rick Norwood 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, quick word, then away again. Yes, currently both parties spend like crazy, but that has nothing to do with liberal v. conservative. Economic liberals (i.e. American conservatives) do not spend like crazy. Many in the current crop of Republicans are not true fiscal conservatives. I'll be back in a bit to comment furthe ron the issue at hand. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Lord V, but every American president in my lifetime has spent about twice as much as his predecessor. Party makes no difference. Conservative politicians talk about spending less, but it is all just talk. We're riding a tiger, and we we try to get off, the tiger will eat us. Rick Norwood 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The tiger isn't government spending - it's open borders - free trade - and loss of economic independence that's the culprit - why do you think Social Security is really threatened - illegals not paying into it and loss of high wage manufacturing jobs overseas means loss of revenue for Social Security (oh and the use of that money by Congresses of both ilks instead of letting it build up as well). Modern liberals are pretty much the descendants of Jefferson on equal opportunity, democracy, and liberty issues and of Hamilton on positive view of government's role in economic regulation for the good of the nation and people. There is off course always exceptions. Modern Conservatives are pretty much the same with regards to Jefferson on equal opportunity and liberty usually, but do not trust democracy (you often here we are a Republic not a Democracy on talk radio) - and stand with early Jefferson (he later converted to Hamilton's view on trade issues) on free trade and free market orientation to problem solving on economics ie. Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations viewpoint. Of course there are exceptions to this as well - like Buchanan who holds to the traditional 'Republican' and 'Conservative' view on trade - but shares the general Conservative view on small government and less regulation of economics. --Northmeister 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that characterizing the current political parties in the frame of this debate gets us nowhere. We need to focus on the names of the articles first, then the content, then the wirting proccess and then tweaking. In that order. This squabbling over whether or not a Republican is not a spendthrift has nothing to do with the article at hand. I might also add we should make this article parallel the article about American (United States) Conservatism. No? --Shawn 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That parallel with American conservatism might be a good reason to keep the title American liberalism. Rick Norwood 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why we have a talk page.

The place to discuss these issues is here on the talk page, not in constant rewrites of the lead paragraph, which is the end result of a long, long process of compromise, and is now being turned into an editorial.

The main issues of concern for modern American liberalism are issues of freedom, especially freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, academic freedom, women's rights, gay rights, and the right to privacy. The issue which the most recent rewrite of the introduction stresses, the social safety net, is a dead issue -- both major parties promise a social safety net. The Libertarian party got only about 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. Therefore, a statement about the disagreements between social liberals and economic liberals does not belong in the introduction. We agree far more than we disagree. Rick Norwood 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that focusing on political parties is proliferating the growth into an editorial. Philosophy isn't characterized by specific issue stances, but by philosophical views such as "Personal Freedoms" (which are usually applied to issues) but not the primary characterization. --Shawn 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be focused too much on political parties. A liberal can be a member of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. The issue for me is not "economic liberals" versus "social liberals" but American classical liberals versus social liberals. Either this article is going to be about all American liberalism (which includes classical liberalism), or just social liberalism in America. Which is it? RJII 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And you seem to emphasize this social vs. economic liberalism. And classical liberalism. As of right now, the edits you have made today have made the introduction into a leviathan of verbose and complicated jargon that any simpleton or shakespeare alike could not understand. Also, try using the preview button instead of making a million edits to one section. It helps unclutter the page history. I don't know how many times i have expressed that this article should not have a section about Classical Liberalism within it because Classical Liberalism is not the same thing as American Liberalism. Just because they have the word Liberal in both names does not mean they need to be talked about in the same breath. American Liberalism is the flavor of Liberalism that is supported most in the United States by popular consensus. If we talk about Classical Liberalism then we also have to talk about Radicalism, Economic liberalism, Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism, Paleoliberalism, Social liberalism, and Libertarianism. That is tedious and inefficient. That is not the purpose of this article. This article's purpose is to outline and describe the American brand of liberalism. We do not need to say "Some American Liberals derive beliefs from Classical Liberalism, while others derive their beliefs from Paleoliberalism." It is assumed that American Liberalism incorporates segments from every aspect of liberalism and from other ideaologies. You keep pushing this notion of Classical Liberalism for some reason, and it is not the best choice for this article. Thank, Shawn 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism isn't a "notion." It's a real, and popular, philosophy which experienced a revival in America after the 1970's --according to Encyclopedia Britannica. RJII 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that classical liberalism is seen as a conservative movement. As I said, just because it has the word liberal in it does not mean it deserves a spot in American liberalism. For a matter of proof, American Conservatism says that Classical Liberalism is a main part of their ideaology because of the freemarket beliefs. Freemarket economy is NOT an ideal of American Liberalism. There's a difference between a liberal policy towards the economy, and the popular usage of the term "liberal" to denote a political tenet of beliefs or philosophy. you are trying to blend the two and that is erronious. American Liberalism does have some similarities and have common themes as Classical Liberalism, but they do not stand together. They are two major philosophical differences. --Shawn 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

American liberalism is ALL liberalism in American --not just social liberalism. And, I question your premise that social liberalism is more popular than classical liberalism. RJII 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been discussed a bit before, and I don't know how much I buy into it but will bring up anyway, American liberalism is not just liberalism in America. It is a cohesive political and ideological movement that contains the theories of social liberalism but is not tied to economic liberalism. It is social liberal and (although some may have preconceived notions on the term) slightly socialistic economic policy (or if that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, government controlled, big government economic policy). American conservatism includes social conservatism, neo-conservatism (i.e. fairly "liberal", interventionist, foreign policy), with a very liberal economic policy. So they really are not just "liberalism" and "conservatism", but rather "American liberalism" (with all it entails) and "American conservatism" (and all it entails. Perhaps I am wrong. Can someone set me straight if this is the case? Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are working toward a more general article. I have been trying to wait for consensus before making major changes. Rick Norwood 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Making the big move

I had hoped that we could agree on a stable article before making the move discussed above, but it is obvious that it is not going to happen. Hearing no objection to the move, I'm going to go ahead and make it, as follows.

First, I am going to copy American liberalism into a new article, Modern American liberalism. Then, I am going to begin to remove the more general material from Modern American liberalism and remove the more modern material from American liberalism, leaving a summary. Please be aware that this is a work in progress. Rick Norwood 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do object on the grounds of technicality. The article should be entitled Liberalism in the United States, fashioned like Liberalism in Canada and Liberalism in Europe. --Shawn 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, and in any case has nothing to do with the move. If there is a consensus on a name, then we should change it. In the absence of a consensus (and none has been reached so far) then we should leave it the same.

I'm a strong believer in not making too many edits in one day, so, while there is obviously much work still to be done, I'm going to watch The X-Files now. The truth is out there. Rick Norwood 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson quote

The last Jefferson quote, please give a date, to follow the style of the other quotes. Rick Norwood 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is confusing

This article needs work. American Liberalism had two stages - pre-progressive era and post-progressive era. Liberalism in the USA today tends towards a progressive view: Democracy, Liberty, and Equal Opportunity on social issues while holding to a interventionist approach to the economy rooted in the New Deal experience whose influences were the progressives of the "New Nationalism" of Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Croly and the "New Freedom" of Woodrow Wilson - whose roots were with the Lincolnian-Republican/Whig tradition of economic policy mixed with worker rights and more government intervention. In other words, this article needs a section on "Classical Liberalism in America" "The Progressive Era" "The New Deal and Modern Liberalism" to be fair to the term as it applies today. The classical era Liberalism is really found in modern Conservatism, especially of the neo-conservative type - small government, free market economy, free trade, de-regulation (of FDR'S style subsidies etc.) and so forth - this was Classical liberalims now in America Conservatism overall. The sides have swapped due to the New Deal. Since this article applies to American Liberalism it should be divided into the three parts above - with proper links to "Modern Liberalism" which comments on the Progressive-New Deal Liberalism of the modern age in America and to "Modern Conservatism" which should comment on the post-New Deal Conservatism of Goldwater, Reagan, Bush and Bush which is very similar to Classical liberalism in many features. What do the rest of you think? --Northmeister 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing major changes, with a split between American liberalism and Modern American liberalism. Both articles are still works in progress. Please contribute your expertise. Rick Norwood 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. And, also a section on the classical liberalism revival would be necessary. And, we need to make sure we don't equate classical liberalism with conservativism ..it's been influential on conservativism though, for sure. But, contemporary classical liberals are more laissez-faire than conservatives. RJII 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Both economic liberalism and cultural liberalism claim descent from classical liberalism. Rick Norwood 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From article page

Below Added by Michael Girard, FL

Modern liberalism is nothing like the classical liberalism of the founders. The Bill of Rights which enumerates pre-existing rights and in the case of the Tenth Amendment, limits the power of government, particularly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Remember that governments have powers only; people have both rights and powers, except those powers specifically reserved to the federal government: coining money, making treaties, etc... No self-respecting modern liberal approves of an armed populace; liberals believe government should have the monopoly on arms, which of course bodes ill for individual liberty. The writing of the founders on this matter are prolific. The purpose of an armed population was to fight both local and federal tyranny. What militia then is mentioned in the Second Amendment? Tench Coxe provided that answer. All the people are the militia. True liberty also means being responsible for yourself. It is indeed theft to use a government gun to take money I earned and redistribute it to others who did not. The Constitution is a short document enumerating the powers of each branch. Our founders would be amazed at the power usurped by the legislative and the executive branches--powers far, far beyond those meager powers enumerated by the main body of the Constitution. That is the result of "liberalism."

This is an editorial, not an encyclopedia entry. It is your opinion, with no quotations and no references. You are entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to put it in an encyclopedia. Rick Norwood 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

We've had an exhausting and ongoing debate and effort at the American conservatism article to stop one or two users from blanking out a section of rather legitimate criticism of Americam conservatism. The charge has been leveled that the American liberalism article's editors would never tolerate such a section being added to "their" article. I disagree, and am adding one in good faith. Admittedly, I'm not especially well-versed in criticism of liberalism. I have ample criticisms of the Democratic party but that's not the same as criticizing liberalism, so hopefully somebody can assist me with citations and clarity on this issue. I started with a basic framework on the most common charges I see or hear attached to Democrats that do not involve specific policies but instead involve fundamental beliefs and principles. This is harder to do than it sounds! Anyway, I hope the community of editors here can assist with making this section fair and accurate as far as capturing what the essence of criticism of liberalism is. Thanks. Bjsiders 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that would be best for the Modern American liberalism article, because this article is supposed to also be about all liberalism in America including American classical liberalism which is in opposition to modern liberalism. RJII 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One note on splitting articles like American & Modern American liberalism, remember your audience. Would a kid get lost attempting to find out what someone meant by the use of "liberal"? The problem isn't isolated to liberalism. Scribner 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about a kid. But, if I were looking in an encylopedia I would want to know about all forms of liberalism in America. Since classical liberalism also exists in America, we would be depriving readers of the full story. Liberalism didn't start with FDR --welfare liberalism is just one form, albiet a pretty popular one. But, I think support for it is waning. Classical liberalism has had a significant revival. Just as the liberalism article covers classical and social liberalism, this one should as well. RJII 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...

The "Some positions associated with American liberalism" section is both uniformative and biased, e.g. "the rights of man is a position of American liberalism." That section should probably be overhauled with a more comprehensive truthful list. Oh and the Philosophy of American liberalism is ridiculous. A bunch of quotes from some of our more liberal founding fathers does not qualify as the philosphy of american libaralism And "The happiness of society is the end of government." Ya. Very Liberal. Forthelulz 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)forthelulz

American liberalism comes from Locke by way of Jefferson. The rights of man are central to the idea of liberalism. And the founding fathers laid out the fundamentals of American liberalism. What do you think American liberalism is all about? Rick Norwood 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now? The answer to that question is rather depressing. Bjsiders 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think modern liberalism in America is dying. Classical liberalism in America is predominating --opposition to the welfare state, low taxes, and low regulation. It makes me wonder if eventually the term "liberalism" will again revert back to its older meaning. It may seem inconceivable from where we stand now, but I think it was also inconceivable that "liberalism" could have come to refer to support for a welfare state and high taxation and a planned economy when FDR redefined the term. "Liberalism" HAS to redefine itself if it is to achieve electoral success under that moniker, given the support today for classical liberal principles. RJII 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reluctant to describe modern American liberalism as "socialism" because it's nothing of the sort when you compare it to the pseudosocialize of Europe. Or true socialism elsewhere. All the same, the idea that liberalism is ultimately "protecting rights" only washes if you are incredibly careful about what you define as a right. Very little of what comprised the "classic" rights can be found in modern liberal doctrine in America. College speech codes, hate speech, hate crimes are all farily troubling artifacts of political correctness and infringments upon the right to speak one's mind. But on the same token, it's easy to find liberals strongly and unyieldingly defending dissent and refusing to accept the right's attempt to cast anti-war sentiment as "unpatriotic." So it's a tough call. I think it's fair to say that the root of liberalism lay in protecting the rights of man, and the definition of what comprises those rights and the priority in which they must be protected has been a moving target over the years. Currently that definition has strayed so far from the original that another political ideaology has found room to occupy the vacated territory: libertarianism. Bjsiders 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the liberal FDR who first introduced the idea of a social safety net to help Americans "get back on their feet" but now every first world government, liberal and conservative alike, has embraced the idea. The current US administration, which calls itself conservative, has expanded welfare more than any previous administration. And it is fairly clear that any politician who tried to cut welfare would commit political suicide.

Some European countries have laws against hate speech. So does Canada. We are discovering just how foolish that is, as the laws are used to prevent Jews for protesting the murder of Jews. American, thank goodness, still has freedom of speech.

But most of the issues that make headlines have nothing to do with economic conservatism. Spending is so out of control nobody even wants to talk about that. The issues that make headlines are Creation Science v. Evolution, Global Warming v. Big Oil, criticism of the War in Iraq v. belief that the war is going well, homosexual marriage, and abortion. The liberals tend to be on the side of science and freedom, the conservatives on the side of big business and religion. Rick Norwood 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is the wong word to use. Liberals favor considerably less economic freedom than cnservatives do. The liberals are not in favor of everything 'good' (the people, the scientists, the oppressed). What you're essentially saying is that conservative is flat out against fredom which is patently untrue.

No. Liberals favor economic freedom, but argue that the concentration of wealth and the merger of corporations creates less rather than more economic freedom.

Virtually everybody in the West pays lip service to freedom, but I think that those conservatives who favor economic freedom have made an tactical error in using the Christian right, who generally oppose freedom, to win votes. Rick Norwood 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you define economic freedom? The freedom to keep what you have? The freedom to spend your money as you wish? The freedom to make your own economic decisions? The freedom to buy, own, and resell property? What is economic freedom? What are economic rights? If you look at economic freedom as a matter of having the liberty to do make and spend money without state interference, American liberalism is pretty far from it, with American conservative orbiting little closer. American government is rife with policies designed to encourage or punish specific economic behavior with taxation. We don't want people to smoke, so we tax the hell out of cigarettes. Is that economic liberty? We want people to own property rather than rent, so we let homeowners write off interest, but not renters. Is it economic freedom that people who can't afford a home or who have poor credit are punished by not being able to write-off part of their domicile expense? No, neither philosophy even remotely resembles economic freedom by any conventional definition. Both abuse the power of government to try to manage the economy, influence the economic behavior of citizens, and encourage and discourage specific personal decisions based on a code of morality unique to each philosophy. Bjsiders 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying my best to keep this short, the free market has historically been plagued by the concentration of wealth. Adam Smith understood this problem, and accepted the need for a graduated income tax. If you were a 95 lb. weakling on a beach with a 250 lb. bully, you would want the government to restrict the bully's freedom to kick sand in your face, to insure your freedom to enjoy the beach in peace. But I agree with you that current governments go way too far in trying to micromanage, instead of just keeping an eye on the multinationals. If you think things are bad here, try some South American countries. Rick Norwood 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

factually incorrect

ER MD, please explain whether you are saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica article is factually incorrect, or whether you are saying that the statement in question is not supported by the article. Rick Norwood 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

haven't checked this article in a while. Rick did you read the encyclopedia link? its clear that the person who wrote the section did not understand it, but the statement that liberals embraced monetary policy of Friedman is not true. The encyclopedia even says it. I presume that the person who included it was not familiar with the topic. ...and that is the whole problem... people who are writing about subjects that they have no idea about. I'll admit that I;ve done it a few times...hell, I rewrote the "shock and awe" to get rid of bias. :) ER MD 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad to get that cleared up and move on. Rick Norwood 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner, please explain whether you are saying that Samuel Gompers did not say what the quotation in question claims, or, if not, what fact you are asking for? Rick Norwood 21:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Write it as a quote, with quotation marks, you know("...", these). Then provide a cite. A list of unrelated quotes, of differing timeframes to a prove point doesn't qualify as a style of writing. I'm not sure what it is, are you? Scribner 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The description of the American liberal ideal, which is not a quote, is supported by the quote, which you can read by clicking on the footnote. That is how articles are written. Rick Norwood 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The section titled Philosophy of American liberalism was a nonsensical sentence, which was follow by a few unrelated quotes. Are you saying that is how articles are written?? Scribner 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You characterize a favorable description of liberalism as "nonsense", which leads me to wonder where you get your ideas about liberalism. Would you care to share the source of your ideas on the subject? Rick Norwood 13:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick the section is a leading sentence with three unrelated quotes. Again, it mars the integrity of this article. Read the beginning of the section above of this one, the editor says exactly the same thing. Scribner 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scribner that the section needs work, but just removing the entire thing is inappropriate and unhelpful. I'd like to take a crack at it but the damn thing keeps vanishing so I have to go crawl through the history to find a copy of it. Please stop just removing shoddy content. Improve or flag, don't erase. Bjsiders 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been flagged for some time, two flags and a site tag. It'll be a challenging section to write. I disagree that all content must be kept. That isn't correct The largest part of editing is removal of unnecessary content. Scribner 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say all content must be kept. I said there's no reason to remove this content if people are willing to work on it. I said that removing it is inappropriate and unhelpful to that goal. If you disagree, then I guess keep on blankin' whatever content you decide is "unnessarry" [sic]. Bjsiders 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People weren't working on the section. It's been flagged for NPOV, NOR and cite problems. I believe Rick wrote it, and had no intention of changing it. And, if I can't re-write it with the data provided then I will remove the section, after discussion. I'm not prepared to wade into a section titled, Philosophy of American liberalism. If you're able to write the section then TIA for taking on the task. Scribner 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed the discussion part, since you tagged the section on 6/14 and spoke not a word about it on this talk page that I can find. Next you removed one particular sentence on 6/20, again without any discussion with anybody that I can find. You then blanked the whole section out at 21:21 on 6/21, after which Rick Norwood began a discussion about it. The "discussion" consisted of you saying the whole thing was a bunch of nonsense and blanking it again. If your criteria for "discussion" is one summary judgment from yourself on the value of a section, I suggest that you spend some time with a dictionary before making any further edits. Bjsiders 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I placed a FACT tag on 6/14. The tag was removed without a citation being provided.

Once again, in good faith: If you're able to write the section then thanks in advance for taking on the task. Scribner 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I said, "you tagged the section on 6/14." I still don't see where you discussed the section before blanking the whole thing out. Thank you for giving me some time to work on it, it's going to be pretty difficult to write a good section like this without cheerleading for liberalism. I think the quotes will provide most of the framework for the section, I intend to mostly let the thinkers of liberalism speak for themselves. Bjsiders 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would like help in the rewrite, I'm willing to help. On the other hand, if you would like me to sit this one out, that's fine, too. The reason I left the section almost all quotes, except for the brief intro, was that Sribner objected to any connective material as "weasel words". I think your idea of some connective material but as a framework for quotes is the best format. Rick Norwood 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the critisms need to be applied to the consrvative page AS WELL!

There is one, though whether it continues to exist is currently under mediation. Rick Norwood 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of liberalism: this is uber-POV

The philosophy of American liberalism is a celebration of the common man, and a recognition that honest, hardworking, law abiding Americans contribute more to society than kings and princes. This appears to be more of a sales pitch for liberalism than anything else. Yes, maybe it does explain what liberalism is, and the [{Founding Fathers]] would probably have agreed with it, as shown by the extensive list of quotes underneath. But it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It reads like a quote, and should either be marked as such (i.e. as someone's opinion), or deleted. I am not bold enough to go right ahead and delete it, but I'm going to add a new intro to this section that's a little less POV. Walton monarchist89 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been a subject of discussion both here and in other articles. Some think that a section should just quotes, with little or no commentary. Others think that you need some summary, which you then support with quotes. Certainly the sentence you cite would not be acceptable if it were not supported by a quote.

Another subject that has come up from time to time is whether encyclopedic writing should be flat or exciting. As I read Wiki policy, the Wiki gods like exciting writing. On the other hand, there are those who go through the articles (noted most recently in the features article Krazy Kat) replacing interesting writing with dull writing under the impression that pedestrian prose is more encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a re-write of this section that incorporates quotes and historical fact. I'm trying to do this such that it's not basically a term paper, which is difficult. Give it some time, please. I'm not an "American liberal" by the current definition so it's hard for me to capture what that section needs to say. Bjsiders 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel's edit

I like what you have done with the first two paragraphs. Made one minor correction. I hope you plan to work on the awful third paragraph as well. Rick Norwood 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I also think there is more work to do even on just the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job. I tried to shorten it slightly, but found very little that wasn't essential. The only other change that I considered but didn't make was to shorten the description of libertarian principles. I don't know if we should do that or not. Rick Norwood 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Interesting to note that Ted Kennedy is listed as the last/ most current liberal torch bearer as it were. Isn't there somebody younger who could be considered a liberal? --Neanderthalprimadonna 11:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many. Here is one: Barack Obama. Rick Norwood 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a liberal ever say this?: "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq." Implying that God is what "we" worship isn't very "American liberalistic."--Neanderthalprimadonna 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wellstone died young. Obama has the makings of a leader, I agree with Neander that he's a somewhat moderate liberal. (I don't see what God has to do with it, though. MLK Jr. was certainly a liberal, and a preacher.) Nancy Pelosi is certainly a liberal leader, but has not so far quite got the "aura" of a charismatic leader (which non-liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton has, so it's not a matter of gender), just an organizational leader. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Most American liberals are Christians. People such as Ann Coulter, who claim otherwise, are lying, as a little mathematics can easily show. If, as Ms. Coulter claims, all liberals hate Christians, then we have a nation that is roughly 50% Democrat and roughly 80% Christian, which brings the total up to 130%. I am sick to death of politicians who say, "Vote for me, because I'm more Christian than the person running against me." No real Christian would say this. Rick Norwood 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke

The defining characteristic of liberalism is that it's pro-liberty?? Absurd. Between liberal crusades against economic freedom and free speech, I'm not sure what's left! How can you possibly justify making such a statement? Salvor Hardin 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has the slightest understanding of American politics knows that American liberalism is about enforced equality and multiculturalism much more than it is about liberty. To state that being pro-liberty is the defining characteric of a liberal is ridiculous. That's like saying that being pro- environmental protection is the essence of being a conservative. Salvor Hardin 09:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is all a queston of who you believe. If you believe what liberals say and do, then liberals are in favor of liberty. If you believe Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, then liberals hate America and hate Christianity. This article reflects what liberals actually say and do. No liberal that I know of has ever been in favor of enforced equality. But I am sure that some liberal nut case somewhere has expressed that opinion, and that Rush and Ann have trumpeted this extreme nut case as what all liberals believe. No liberal that I know of is in favor of enforced multiculturalism. But liberals are in favor of permitted multiculturalism, and a bait and switch game that many conservative commentators play is: if you want to permit something, then you must want to require it. No, that's not the way it works.

But Wikipedia is not about opinion, it is about facts. The Democratic Party platform is, I think, a fair statement of what American liberals believe. It doesn't cover everything, but it covers the basics. And I take the Republican Party platform as a fair statement of what Republicans believe, though I don't think it expresses any of the concerns of Libertarian Republicans. So, those platforms are not just my opinion, they are statements that major Democrats and Republicans have signed on to. The ball is now in your court. Show me your best source of a statement by a liberal who calls for enforced equality (as distinct for equality under the law, which I assume you also agree is correct). Show me a statement by a liberal who calls for enforced multiculturalism, as distinct from permitted multiculturalism. Rick Norwood 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is SCOTUS a good enough source for you regarding enforced equality? Affirmative action forces inequality to achieve equality. That's hardly pro-liberty.

Regarding enforced multiculturalism, maybe Salvor Hardin misspoke. Closest I can come to that is a school requiring all students take African American history, which still isn't enforced multiculturalism.--Scribner 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Salvor Hardin, I remind you that this is an encyclopedia. It's purpose isn't to argue the merits of a topic, but present a topic. This isn't the place for political discussions. Unless you can come up with a reason why liberalism is not being portrayed correctly, I'm removed the Disputed claim. The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to dispute a topic, but to present a topic. BTW, if you want to be take seriously, don't use headings such as "This is a joke." Griot 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the merits of a topic. I am saying that the definition of American Liberalism presented in this article is absurdly wrong. My understanding of liberals comes from liberals themselves. The Democratic Party platform reflects the ideology well? Very well, let's take a look at the Washington State Democratic Party Platform. First of all, the word "liberty" does not appear anywhere in the preamble. Not looking too good for your position.

Under "education", we find:

"Publicly funded education at all levels, preschool through university, which strengthens our democracy and our ability to compete in the global economy;"

Nope, no liberty there. Just a tax-dollar funded bureaucracy that everyone is required to go to.

"We oppose: Charter Schools and vouchers;"

So the Democrats are explicitly against liberty here. Again, not looking too good for you.

"Strengthening the Growth Management Act and supporting neighborhood and community planners in their efforts to protect our quality of life;"

Which allows the state to take property away from landowners without compensating them for it. What were you saying about liberty?

"Support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;"

Which isn't exactly pro-liberty.

"Support the global vision of the United Nations;"

In other words, a decrease in liberty for the USA.

"That the United States, as the wealthiest country on the globe, has responsibility to provide proportionate assistance in international and poverty crisis situations;"

In other words, it's the government's job to spend our money for us? Anti-liberty.

"Fair trade among nations based on sound environmental principles, worker rights and welfare;"

In other words, "we want to curtail liberty".

"We oppose: Privatizing, outsourcing or off-shoring of governmental public services."

In other words, "We want government as big and controlling as possible"

"We support: Establishment of a comprehensive national healthcare plan, (as in HR 676: universal single payer healthcare) similar to Medicare and available to all, regardless of age or employment;"

So... the complete annihilation of liberty in the health care market.

"Food, shelter, medical care, education and jobs are basic human rights;"

Which can all only be provided through coercive taxation. Hence, all of their "basic human rights" are anti-liberty.

"We oppose discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, military insurance, licensing or education based on race, religion, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, size, political affiliation or national origin."

In other words, they want to make (or keep) private discrimination illegal. So much for liberty.

It goes on and on. I can't find a single pro-liberty plank in the entire platform, except possibly where it refers to the Patriot Act. Salvor Hardin 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me a statement by a liberal who calls for enforced multiculturalism, as distinct from permitted multiculturalism. - Rick Norwood

In San Francisco school district a few years back, they instituted a rule that X amount of literature studied had to be from non-white authors. Also, check out the Wiki article on Lowell High School (San Francisco), and you'll see a prime example. This is enforced multiculturalism, isn't it?

Mr Hardin, No that is not enforced multiculturalism. If that did happen, surely the thought behind it was to ensure that many points of view (including those which white heterosexual Christian men could never accurately portray) are presented so that children have broader horizons or a better understanding of the world in which they live. I'm sure that the people of San Francisco are getting the education standards desired from their elected school board. On your dispute with liberty: Liberty quite simply means freedom. Whether that is freedom of speech, reproductive freedom, freedom of religion or any one of a multitude of freedoms, clearly liberals advocate fewer restrictions and are more understanding of views with which they disagree than conservatives.(e.g. The ACLU fighting for freedom of speech & assembly for white supremacists. Has a conservative group ever fought for gay rights or compassionate/intelligent approaches to crime?) In fact the only restrictions I've never heard liberals (as a group) call for are when the common good trumps individual freedom, i.e. gun control laws and seat belt laws (which prevent unnecessary deaths and health care expenditures). If you can't see where intelligent, thoughtful people could repudiate each of your claims about liberals (unless you're intentionally being ridiculous), I don't see how we can resolve this ourselves. mp2dtw 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how a "compassionate" approach to crime is necessarily "intelligent" and in support of liberty. I don't want compassion for criminals, I want them locked way so they can't infringe on my freedoms any further than they already have. By, like, killing me or stealing or damaging my property. That's how the system of natural law works. We believe that rights and liberty may only be suspended by a speedy and fair trial. I'm all for making sure criminals get speedy and fair trials, but not to the point of throwing out valuable evidence - FACTS and TRUTHS - that are necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendent, due to a procedural error by an investigator. Why is it unintelligent to approach crime in an impassionate manner? The Court ought not to be influenced by compassion but rather by law. Why about the simple freedom to keep what is mine? Like the money I earn? What about the freedom to articualte my political point of view on a college campus? There are places in this country where I could get suspended or disciplined from a college for simply looking at a woman in a manner that makes her uncomfortable. That's your "liberty" at work. Bjsiders 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about what you want. This is about how words are defined. If a compassionate approach to crime were always intelligent, then I would have only said 'compassionate' rather than 'compassionate/intelligent'. mp2dtw 00:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Salvor Hardin and others

The reason we can say truthfully that liberals favor (among other things) individual liberty is that a core belief of American liberal ideology holds that in some cases revoking one individual liberty might enhance general, common freedom to a greater degree. For example, drunk driving laws exist everywhere even though they remove a minor freedom from the motorist, because even if he does not care about the danger to himself, he poses a lethal threat (death being the ultimate revocation of personal freedom) to everyone else on the road. Background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases are an extension of this principle. On the other hand, you never see Democrats in Congress arguing that the Constitution should be amended to ban guns entirely, since most believe this freedom lost would outweigh the safety gained.

Also, a major part of present-day liberal ideals are founded on the principle that in a capitalist society (which most liberals strongly prefer to Communism), the wealthy and well-connected minority have more means to act at their disposal for their self-benefit, and have a greater ability to infringe on the freedoms of the less powerful masses, if left unchecked. For example, the National Labor Relations Act limits the freedom of employers to fire or threaten employees who wish to form unions, but taking this right away from them enhances the liberties that the workers enjoy -- the right to organize without fear of losing their jobs -- and these freedoms benefit more people, and are more crucial to their lives, than those which management loses. I do not wish to debate whether this reasoning is correct or not, but it is why liberals see themselves as defenders of individual rights. Of course, liberals also seek to protect individual rights in cases where they do not believe shared freedoms are expanded by restricting said rights. Examples would be opposition to the PATRIOT Act, defending the right for gays to marry, and (sometimes) legalizing marijuana.

For a more full analysis of how American liberal policies contribute to personal freedom rather than detract from it, I strongly recommed reading John Rawls' Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. I don't expect that they will convince you to abandon libertarianism and become a bleeding-heart, but it should disabuse you of any notion that liberalism is essentially fascistic (and of the idea that it is the same thing as Communism and socialism). Andrew Levine 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bjsiders. While I sympathise with your anti-crime views, and want dangerous criminals locked up, should, for example, George Bush be jailed for smoking marijuana? The problem with people who are "tough on crime" is that they are almost always a lot tougher on crime committed by poor people than they are on crime committed by rich people, and they generally support jail time when other methods of reducing crime have proven more effective. The question is, should the main goal of law enforcement be to reduce crime or to punish criminals, when these two goals come into conflict. Most of the criminals in US jails are there for drug related crimes, and murderers are set free after an average of six years to make room for drug dealers with manditory sentences. I would much rather see people who kill, rape, and steal locked up, and drug education programs replace jail time for drug users.

As for your comment on loosing your job for "looking at a woman", I know a few cases where people have gone too far in "protecting" women. On the other hand, I know a large number of sexist pigs, so there is something to be said on both sides of this issue. Rick Norwood 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

List of American Liberal Thinkers

I'm a bit curious about this list. Last year I added Robert Reich, who I think is an exemplary contemporary articulate liberal. His name has since been deleted and replaced by the Brothers Kennedy and numerous others who I would never think of as "American liberal thinkers", which to me implies intellectuals with original thought regarding innovative policy and the ability to effectively convey it. I'm surely not the most well-read person on Wikipedia regarding American History, but I don't think that modern American liberalism can be applied to any pre-civil war president or politician. Knowing what little I do, I wince when people refer to President Lincoln as a liberal.

While I'm tempted to remove Noam Chomsky, even before Thomas Jefferson & Benjamin Franklin, because he isn't a liberal, I'd like to hear what others (particularly those who delete Robert Reich but let Chomsky stand) think. He would never refer to himself as a liberal. A liberal has much more faith in capitalism than Noam Chomsky and isn't as much of an absolutist when it comes to civil liberties or foreign policy. On the other side, Bill Clinton is not a liberal either. Anyone with some knowledge of their ideologies, policies and accomplishments could easily argue that Nixon was to Clinton's left. Clearly, Nixon was no liberal.

I think this list lacks continuity. Before adding Clinton, Chomsky, Jefferson, I'd consider real liberals who were more thoughtful rather than mouthpieces (like JFK) for liberalism. My list would omit most of those on the page and include Hubert Humphrey, Robert Reich, William O Douglas, Alice Walker, Maggie Kuhn, Paul Wellstone, Earl Warren, Maureen Dowd, Henry Wallace and Katrina vanden Heuvel. These are people who've thoughtfully advocated and advanced liberal policy or ideas.

Before I start deleting/adding, I'd really like to hear thoughts of those who agree & disagree with me.mp2dtw 05:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. This article covers American liberalism from the time of Jefferson on, and the list is, if anything, too slanted toward modern American liberals. Also, I think "American Liberals" would be a better title for the list.

I like the list of people you want to add, but think it may be too long. Why don't you pick what you consider to be the most important people on the list, and add them. I can't say nobody will object, but I won't. Rick Norwood 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is a leftist, not a liberal, and they're not the same things. Of the people you want to add, I'd suggest that we might want to avoid Vanden Heuvel, who as part of the Nation crowd probably calls herself a "progressive" in that obnoxious way Nation people tend to do, and would identify "liberalism" with the right (I'm not sure of this, but this seems like a tendency of the kind of political views I've generally associated with Vanden Heuvel). Maureen Dowd seems dubious, as well. I don't know who Maggie Kuhn is, nor anything about Alice Walker's political views. Humphrey, Reich, Douglas, Wellstone, Warren, and Wallace sound good to me. Of the curernt list, I'd remove all the people earlier than Dewey, as the term "liberalism" as a specific political ideology is pretty meaningless in the 19th century. I'd remove Clinton, Truman, and TR as well. In terms of the rest, I'd suggest we change the title of the list to be "American liberal thinkers and politicians" or some such, because I think it makes sense to include the Kennedys, for instance (and certainly Ted Kennedy, who is kind of the Dean of American Liberalism at the present time). Adlai Stevenson might be added, as well - I think he's a much better type of 1950s liberalism than Truman is. john k 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Am making changes.mp2dtw 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article stands it addresses modern american liberalism, i.e. social liberalism. If you mean to include classical liberal thinkers, the article will have to be substantially rewritten to remove references to modern american liberalism and include a section on the divergence of progressive liberalism from conservative and classical liberalism in the late 19th/early 20th century.Mrdthree 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln maybe a modern liberal(Im not sure) but if its restored it needs a citation tag on it. Mrdthree 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern American Liberalism?

This article began as Liberalism. The various national liberal movements split off from there. And one point, this article was split into American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. I'm not sure what happened next, but it seems to have unsplit, and it also seems that a lot of material from before the New Deal got lost in the process. In any case, we need something by a historian about liberalism before the New Deal. Rick Norwood 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article addresses modern american liberalism not american liberalism. It is an essential distinction because american liberalism has diverged in meaning from european liberalism. Non-americans think liberalism is something more like libertarianism than modern american liberalism. Plus, in america liberalism prior to 1850-1870 is a shared tradition of the liberal and conservative wings of modern american politics ( democratic-republicans split into democrats and republicans). Modern american liberalism is called social liberalism historically in america and outside of america (vs. conservative or economic liberalism). Mrdthree 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed there is also a Modern American Liberalism page. Are both pages necessary? Is pre-1860's american liberalism different from classical liberalism, if so should it be a subsection of classical liberalism or some other section? Its too confusing for me so I am done. Mrdthree 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the term "liberalism" ever even used in the 19th century in the US to refer to a political ideology? There were certainly writers who expressed ideas similar to what European liberals were saying at the same time, but that's not the same thing at all. john k 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heres a (non-American, Brazilian) politically mobile thinker (apparently he went left-->right-->center p.36) thinker's classification of things[10], Lets not get rigid or exclusive about taxonomies though, I dont know enough. I'll check OED Or some other references for usage of liberal. Mrdthree 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OED (subscription) says 'liberal'[11] first used in a modern political sense after 1801 (the word is older-1300s) and liberalism [12]as a political idelogy after 1818. By 1850s the quotes sound pretty familiar (JS Mill). Mrdthree 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Found quote:"The advance of liberalism... [encourages] the hope that the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821. ME 15:308 [13] Mrdthree 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

\

Jefferson using the word "liberalism" does not mean he was referring to the political ideology liberalism. john k 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the comment by Mrdthree above, I now know that Modern American liberalism still exists. The split was a compromise with several contributors who claimed that modern American liberalism isn't liberalism at all.

To answer john k's comment, modern liberals consider Jefferson the founder of political liberalism, just as modern liberals consider Locke the founder of philosophical liberalism. Modern liberals and classical liberals agree on so many things: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, government by laws not by men, fair and open elections, and so on. And yet, the classical liberals seem to focus on the one point of disagreement -- whether or not it is proper for government to support the general welfare of citizens. Rick Norwood 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a more accurate way to say that is the classics vs moderns disagree on whether or not it is right that a government enforces what it determines to be the general welfare of citizens. I think few people would argue that, in principle, making sure all citizens of a nation have basic health care is somehow "improper." What a classic liberal might object to is the idea that government should enforce such a policy through legislation and pay for it through additional financial burdens on the citizenry, and tell people what their welfare is going to be. Many classic liberals (including myself) find the idea of government support of general welfare to be proper and palatable. We find a government mandate of what shall constitute citizen welfare, and laws enforced to make us all conform to the government's notion of citizen welfare, to be onerous, and not in the vein of the liberty of man to order his fate as he wishes. As did Jefferson and many other founders, we distrust government and wish for it to dictate our decisions and lifestyles as little as possible. So if somebody is impoverished and needs government assistance to see a physician, almost all people will agree that such assistance is "proper" to bestow upon the hypothetical citizen. Bjsiders 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate whether modern or classical liberalism is better. It is just that in the US at least, both parties are for big government and welfare, and in fact vie to see who can spent more money faster. Where the parties differ has a lot to do with freedom, and not much to do with welfare. Rick Norwood 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not a classical liberal party. It is a conservative party. There is a difference. A classical liberal party would be something like the Libertarian Party, but not necessarily as extreme. Republicans are influenced by classical liberals in some economic matters, but the average republican is not classical liberal but a conservative. Economizer 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where Rick called present-day Republicans "classical liberals." Andrew Levine 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, I didn't. And wouldn't. Rick Norwood 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clinton, etc.

… More centrist groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) would contend on an equal footing with liberals for control of the Democratic Party in this time. The conservative-liberal alliance of the federal level Democrats lasted through the 1980's, but declined in the 1990's when more conservative political figures sided with the Republican party.

In the late 1980's and 1990's, there was a reappearance of politicans to held liberal views. Bill Clinton, then state governor of Arkansas was elected to office in 1992 as the 42nd president of the United States and re-elected in 1996, was the first baby boomer to hold presidential office. He was a liberal when it came to social services and civil rights, but less focused on big business and the military. On the contrary, President Clinton worked out divisive issues with conservative colleagues and his primarily Republican administration, the two parties brought on a balanced federal budget and Clinton's legacy was an economic boom of the late 1990's referred to America's longest period of prosperity.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "The conservative-liberal alliance of the federal level Democrats": they were pretty busy sniping at one another straight through the Reagan/Bush era, but I suppose having control of Congress in the face of a hostile presidency created a certain unity. Still, the white Southern Democrats in Congress (more numerous in those days) were swing voters on a lot of issues. I don't see that as happening more in the 1990s, it's just that Democratic congressional majorities declined and (on the House side in 1994) ultimately disappeared.

Clinton was a liberal compared to what came before or after, but, if I may be allowed a slight Yiddicism, "by liberals, he's no liberal". Consider his approach to welfare reform, or his race-baiting of Sister Souljah. He was generally perceived as the least liberal in a field of seven Democrats running for President in the '92 primaries. I'm not sure what "less focused on big business and the military" is supposed to mean here. "…referred to America's longest period of prosperity" is also a bit odd. And it wasn't that notable a period of prosperity, at least not for the average worker's wages (as against raw GDP): workers did far better in the 1960s, or even the 1950s despite the 1957-8 recession. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While workers did better against raw GDP in the sixties, the GDP grew so rapidly that workers in the Clinton era had lots more "stuff". Rick Norwood 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Coemgenus edit

Good edit, Coemgenus. Rick Norwood 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction is too long

THe introduction is too long and needs to be cut somewhatMrdthree 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's what comes of trying to please everybody. Do you want to cut it, or shall I make the attempt? Rick Norwood 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

IT is well written and if that is your handiwork then by all means edit away. I have some thoughts about changes (I think half to a third can be moved into the body) but it looks like a bit of work so I will keep to the sidelines for few days. Mrdthree 06:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given it my best shot, also corrected some grammar and one misattributed quote. Comments and improvements are appreciated.

Rick Norwood 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Equality of outcomes" characterization

24.61.212.145 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro classifies modern-day liberalism under social liberalism, described later in the graph as concerned with "equality of outcomes." However, that may be a framing of liberalism rather than an accurate description, laying it open to the attack that individual merit does not matter to social liberals. Is the description well sourced?

Social liberals would not regard unequal outcomes as the government's problem, provided there is equal opportunity through access to basic education, health, etc., . However, social liberals do take persistent and widening inequality of outcomes between groups as a sign that there is perhaps not equality of opportunity to begin with, since if there were, you would see social mobility by meritorious individuals from all classes. That's different from seeking equal outcomes as an end in itself.

It might be more accurate to replace "equality of outcomes" with "equality of opportunity through government-created infrastructure": "Libertarianism is rooted in what many libertarians call classical liberalism, support for a laissez-faire economic policy, minarchism, and an emphasis on equality of process, in contrast to social liberalism's concern with equality of opportunity through government-created infrastructure." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.212.145 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006.

I tend to agree with this comment. "Equal opportunity" is a very standard piece of social liberal rhetoric, and while mitigation of extreme inequalities is also often part of the social liberal program, equality of outcomes simply is not. Programs like Social Security are, indeed, intended to reduce economic inequality, but by no means are they an attempt to eliminate it. I'll give a day or two to see if there are any (reasoned) objections, but, if not, we should make this edit. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this. Andrew Levine 12:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Rick Norwood 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - this adequately dulls distinction. By 'government-created infrastructure' are you talking about roads and bridges and such? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2006.

No, but I guess that means the wording was vague if you read it that way. Above all, it means publicly funded education. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberals and New Liberals may draw distinction on the purpose of public school, but what difference do you draw as to a belief in establishment and funding? The Founding Fathers were certainly not silent on the importance of establishing public education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.

Lots of the people who call themselves "classical liberals" today (libertarians, basically) want to privatize education. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are either refering to a very small number of people or you may be confusing the right to offer alternatives in order to solve a problem with eliminating public education. If you are refering to vouchers and such, the funding is still publicly sourced. All that is being introduced is the notion of choice to bring market forces to bear on school performance (i.e.: customer focused).

Predominantly, to Classic Liberals / American Conservatives the notion of equality is more of 'birth rights' ... inalienable or 'natural' rights. There are two basic notions of equality here: 1) in the eyes of God and, 2) under the law. These two principles are the cornerstones of equality of opportunity and America's founding documents. The role of government here is limited, blind, and subject to the will of the majority.

Heading into the 20th century, New Liberals / Socialists were breaking from these Enlightenment precepts of liberty. Men like Beveridge carried the argument that "Liberty means more than freedom from the arbitrary power of Governments. It means freedom from economic servitude ...". The great diffence then, was to reembrace government ... and redefine its role to one of doing good works like eliminating depreviation and unemployment through measures such as social insurance, free health care, minimum wage and Keynesian management of the economy (i.e.: the Welfare State). Government should therefore be bigger, more powerful, interventionalist on behalf of classes or other subsets of society (e.g.: redistributional economics), and justified in doing so through nullification of the majority as needed (e.g.: activist judiciary).

So, long story, but the notion of outcome in the discussion of equality is uniquely New Liberal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

Request move to "United States Liberalism" or "Liberalism (United States)"

This article does not refer to "American liberalism" as all encompassing of North America and South America, but rather, it refers specifically to the United States. (comment added by User:Bjerko September 17.)

The adjective form referring to the USA is "American". It is not without other meanings, but this is its primary meaning in English, which is the language we are working in. The term "American liberalism" is reasonably commonly used (though it usually refers to what we have called "Modern American liberalism"). These other forms that you propose generally are not. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that this has been discussed extensively above. Rick Norwood 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oxford comma

The comma after the second-to-last term in a list is called the Oxford comma. William F. Buckley is one of many who prefer the comma, noting that a conjunction (and) should not replace a separator (the comma). Strunk and White recommend the use of the Oxford comma. "In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last." Rick Norwood 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Oxford comma is generally preferred in the United States, and denigrated in the Commonwealth. As such, I suggest that this article, being about the United States, should use the Oxford comma. john k 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

"...The United States was founded on classical liberal republican principles...." and similarly worded "matter-of-fact" statements in this article = POV; therefore: tagged. --Fix Bayonets! 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why people tag such obvious statements as POV, but references are easy to provide. The Federalist Papers is a good place to start. Rick Norwood 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is only POV if you define "liberal" by modern standards, but "classical liberal" clearly denotes that it is not the liberal that is in use today. Therefore, removed tag (that statement which you provided is also now referenced). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Passage regarding "framing"

I deleted the wildly biased statement regarding "framing" of the word "liberal":

..."so that a belief in equal rights for all Americans is framed as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is framed as "soft on crime", and a belief in freedom of religion is framed as "hatred of Christians"."

This language is loaded in so many ways it's not funny. (1)If you don't support gay marriage, you're against equal rights for all Americans. Right... (2)Liberals aren't criticized for being soft on crime for their belief in rights of the accused - they're considered soft for a number of reasons such as reduced sentencing, opposition to death penalty, police funding, etc. (3)Liberals aren't seen as anti-Christian because they support the separation of church & state. The overwhelming majority of Christians support that separation as well. Liberals are seen as anti-Christian because of the way Christians are ridiculed and their religion is attacked while other religions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc) are largely ignored or revered. I also find it interesting that Ann Coulter was used as a source. If she were quoted in a criticism of liberalism, I would imagine the editor would be reverted and promptly chastised. I've left the surrounding text in place, and it gets the idea of "framing" across without the unnecessary falsehoods I took out. Thanks Dubc0724 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on framing is documented. Whether you believe that the framers are correct or that the people who document the framing are correct, it still exists. You may not listen to Rush Limbaugh or read Anne Coulter, but they exist, and their method of attacking liberalism exists. Rick Norwood 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not framing that is the problem. The problem is the way this article depicts framing. The "examples" are misleading and incorrect. Dubc0724 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Anne Coulter was quoted in the criticism of liberalism. Don't know if the quote is still there, but a while ago it was. Rick Norwood 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The examples are documented. Is your point a) that these examples do not exist or b) that these examples exist but are not framing?

Let me take your points one at a time, so that we can discuss them rationally. (1) Yes, if you don't support gay marriage, then you do not support homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. But Rush Limbaugh, in particular, frames homosexuals who want to be treated just like any other American as wanting "special rights", when in fact they are only asking for the same rights as everybody else. (2) You claim that liberals favor reduced sentencing, oppose the death penalty, and want to cut police funding. I know some liberals who do not support the death penalty. I do not know any liberals who favor the other two. I only know of conservatives who claim that liberals favor the other two. Actually, crime in the US was at an all time low under Bill Cliton. (3) Anne Coulter is the one who claims that liberals attack Christianity and favor other religions. I do not know of any liberal who actually does this. The vast majority of American liberals are Christians.

In short, it sounds like you have bought into the framing, and instead of considering what liberals really believe, accept what the political opponents of liberals say they believe. Rick Norwood 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

'Anne[sic] Coulter is the one who claims that liberals attack Christianity and favor other religions. I do not know of any liberal who actually does this.' Horseshit. I have trouble finding prominent liberals who don't attack Christians. Have you ever listened to Air America? Just this morning the "Young Turks" made fun of Christianity. Ever read the religious hatespeech at Huffington Post?

More on topic, the "examples" used in this article are still(intentionally) inaccurate and in no way do they add to the encyclopedia. For the user below who reminds us that "Wikipedia is not a forum for political discussion", you are correct. Unfortunately this article does not reflect that sentiment. Dubc0724 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick is right on target here. These examples are biased in no way; it is a fact that there are people like Anne Coulter who frame liberalism as anti-Christian, soft on crime, etc.. To claim that liberalism truly is anti-Christian is not only heavily biased, but ridiculous. Like Rick said, the vast majority of American liberals are Christian. Alas, I digress, as Wikipedia is not a forum for political discussion. I'm reverting it back to Rick's edit. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you, Dubc0724, for correcting my spelling of Ann Coulter's first name. Second, I'm not familiar with either Air America or the Huffington Post, but it does not surprise me that it is possible to find liberals who make fun of Christians, I've just never run across any of them. I'm pretty mainstream in my reading. But the point is this. "Framing" consists of finding the most idiotic, most biggoted, most ignorant conservative and saying, "This is what convervatives believe," or finding the most idiotic, most biggoted, most ignorant liberal and saying, "This is what liberals believe." Clearly, this framing of liberals has been successful enough that you can say, "I have trouble finding prominent liberals who don't attack Christians." For liberals who never attack Christians, try John Kerry (the most liberal man in the Senate according to Bush), Teddy Kennedy (really the most liberal man in the Senate), and Barack Obama (the most popular liberal in America today). These are three leading liberals, and none of them has ever attacked Christians. That fact that you think serious liberals attack Christians is proof that framing works. It is still dishonest. And, since it is a political reality, it should be reported in any encyclopedia. Rick Norwood 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Huffington, who was not long ago quite close to Newt Gingrich, is not exactly a model liberal. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)