Talk:Social liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics / Liberalism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Liberalism task force.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Social liberal parties[edit]

A number of parties have been added to the list of social liberal policies with either no sources provided, or sourced only to the parties' websites. None of these websites claim that the parties are social liberal and would not be good sources in any case. Several of the parties listed appear to be social democratic, for example the Social Democrat Radical Party of Chile, which is a member of the Socialist International. Others may be nationalist or agrarian. See WP:V: "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." Please do not re-add without reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree in countries like Spain, two minor parties are listed with a Spanish nationalistic ideology whilst the only part that is a member of the Alliance of European Liberal Democrats is Democratic Convergence of Catalonia. Hope this gets updates soon. I would delete the two parties listed as irrelevant besides the fact that I doubt that socio-liberal is the right definition of their ideology.

Regarding my additions[edit]

The Four Deuces keeps deleting the parties I’ve added. The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal. The article on the People’s Justice Party does not state that the party is socially liberal, but I felt that the party’s centre-left policies, together with its status as an observer member of the Liberal International, make it a social liberal party. In addition, the Australian Democrats is described as a social liberal party. I don’t understand why that keeps getting deleted.

I feel that liberal parties that champion state intervention to tackle social evils such as poverty (like the Orange Democratic movement of Kenya) are socially liberal, since tackling inequality is a key aim of social liberalism.

Also, I’m not sure whether D66 of the Netherlands can be described as a social liberal party. I say this because in its 2006 manifesto, which I read on the English language version of their site, it spoke out against state intervention, saying that government is not a “happiness factory” while also championing reductions in the welfare state. To me, that seems more like classical liberalism than social liberalism, since the latter champions expanded state welfare.

Finally, the Centre Party describes itself as a liberal party, as noted in that link I added.

User:zictor23 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NORN#Social liberal parties because your edits violate WP:NOR. Also parties may be "socially liberal" but not "social liberal" parties, while social liberal parties historically were not necessarily socially liberal. TFD (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, which explains how sources are used for backing up statements in articles. Ideally you should find an article about social liberal parties. For example, before you mostly deleted it, the section said, "Examples of successful European social liberal parties, which have participated in government coalitions at national or regional levels, are the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, D66 in the Netherlands, and the Danish Social Liberal Party in Denmark."[Kirchner, Emil (2000). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–7]

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles, because anyone can put anything into an article. Also, party websites are primary sources and are not acceptable for classifying them.

Arguments could also be made that the Australian Democrats are a green party or left libertarian populist party. One could argue that the Radical Civic Union is a social democratic party, because it is a member of the Socialist International, as is the Colombian Liberal Party. For us to weigh the evidence and make a call is synthesis.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Resposne from zictor23[edit]

I see what you mean The Four Deuces. I never meant to go against any Wikipedia policies, btw. One thing I would like to know is exactly which liberal parties in mainland Europe support interventionist policies such as an expanded welfare state to combat poverty like the Liberal Democrats here in the United Kingdom. The European parties I added were the only ones I saw which I think could possibly be described as social liberal e.g. supportive of expanded welafre progarmmes, amongst other interventionist policies. My sceptism of the D66 party stemmed from the fact that its manifesto of 2006 spoke out against state intervention and called for reductions in the Dutch welfare state. Perhaps since then, though, its shifted to the left. If you like, I can post you the link to their manifesto on this page here.

Also, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of PRI, is not a completely socialist party. In fact, for most of its years in power, the presidents came from the conservative wing of the party. Presumably, it still has a socialist wing, which is probably why its a member. I could be wrong, but I think that the Colombian Liberal Party and the Radical Civic Union contain both liberals and socialists in their ranks, which is probably why they are members of PRI. I suppose there are parties that can be described as both liberal and social-democratic. Perhaps the radical civic union is one of those.User:zictor23 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Klaus von Beyme claimed that most parties in Europe could be divided into broad ideological families, but that the classification became more difficult in other parts of the world.[1] Social liberal parties are a subclassification of liberal parties, but few writers have attempted to list them. Generally what unites liberals is stronger than what divides them, so their parties will contain elements of various strands of liberalism. Also, almost all other parties have been influenced by liberalism to some degree. Both Conservatives and Labour for example adopted first social then neo-liberal policies after the war, yet are not described as liberal parties. Both social and conservative liberal parties have also alternated in the type of liberalism they support. Policies however are not the main criteria for classifying parties. Notice that although D66 has become less interventionist, that is true of all parties and it is still distinguishable from the conservative liberal VVD.
But the best approach is to use sources that clearly classify these parties rather than doing so ourselves.
TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary, popular use of term 'socially liberal'[edit]

Hello TFD, on 1 May 12 you removed a section I added to the lead of this article with your explanation given as “Remove extensvie off-topic discussion from lead”. Before I start I would just like to acknowledge the considerable work you have done to making this article as comprehensive as it is, I’m sure this would be a far less worthy article without your intervention. However I would disagree with your removal of my input (perhaps not surprisingly!) and would be grateful for further discussion. I do not see the subject as being off topic. Searching for the term “socially liberal” in wikipedia redirects you to “social liberalism” - until this re-direct is changed I therefore see input on the use of the term “socially liberal” as correctly sitting within this article. I believe that the contemporary, popular understanding of the term “socially liberal” is as an adjective used as my edit outlined (to precis for those that didn’t see my edit someone who is described as socially liberal believes government should minimise legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals - see history for full edit). Nowhere else in this article is there a description / explanation on what I believe is the contemporary, popular use of the term “socially liberal”; it therefore appears worthy of conclusion.

With this in mind I would appreciate an explanation of why you believe my edit was off-topic. DistractionActivity (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "social liberalism" is fairly common, "socially liberal" much less so. If I encountered that phrase, I would guess it described someone who partied a lot. In any case, you need to find a good academic source for your proposed addition. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Rick. Thanks for your input. The term "socially liberal" is common enough that The Economist uses it to describe British politicians (please see my original now deleted edit) - I think an international publication (average weekly circulation 1.5 million according to Wikipedia) probably satisfies any criteria as to how common the term is. I agree that a good source needs to be found to support the proposed addition (although I would question that it needs to be an academic source - I'm arguing that the term is in popular use and means something specific in popular use, so any reference would need to be of popular (not necessarily academic) use). Actually a source I'm leaning to at the moment is http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal ; which I think is a fairly good example of the popular use of "socially liberal" by a pretty well established institution (whether of course you agree with what they say being besides the point). Your reply does take me a little off the question I posed to TFD however; which was that the edit was deleted because it was "off-topic" not because it was wrong - I'm more interested in whether it is off-topic or not at the moment; my position remaining that as "socially liberal" redirects to this article it is not. DistractionActivity (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that social liberalism may refer to being socially liberal and added a link at the top of the page: "Not to be confused with cultural liberalism".[2] However I thought that the addition on to the lead was too lengthy and not supported by the source, which uses the term "socially liberal" and provides no definition. A Google Books search shows one of the first ten hits (Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is corrupting our Future) using social liberalism to mean cultural liberalism.[3] Unfortunately if does not describe the term. Can you find any source that explains this meaning? I don't think the example of use of the term "socially liberal" is helpful unless one can find a source that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals. One may be socially active but not a social activist. TFD (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually asked why you thought my edit was "off-topic" as this is why you stated my edit was removed. Instead of answering whether it was "off-topic" or not you instead say that it was removed because it was "too lengthy" and not "supported by the source." Sorry to labour the point, but when someone goes to the trouble of penning something and someone else removes it, it is a little bit frustrating for a reason to be given which when challenged appears not to be the reason and is not explained further. My frustration clearly is not your concern however, and I won't mention it again! So to start afresh with your points. "Can you find any source that explains this meaning?" - I take it you don't think the Adam Smith institute constitues an example of popular usage of "socially liberal" from which the meaning is apparent? Onto the more interesting question I think you raise: you think it is not "helpful" to include an explanation of the term "socially liberal" unless one can find a source "that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals." I differ in my conclusion as to whether this is helpful, and I will attempt to explain why using your example regards activism. I agree entirely that one may be socially active but not a social activist. At the moment though if I search "socially active" in wikipedia I am quite rightly not taken to the (social) activist page, proving your well-made point. If I search on "socially liberal" (an article which does exist, unlike socially active) I am however taken to the "social liberalism" page. I suspect that plenty of people might consider themselves "socially liberal," but are not signed up to the ideology of "social liberalism" (Boris Johnson I suspect being one) - continuing with your excellent example lots of pople would consider themselves "socially active" without considering themselves (social) activists! I'd like to propose a compromise - the "socially liberal" redirect is pointed at "cultural liberalism"? I do actually mean that as a constructive comment, let me know what you think. DistractionActivity (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) It was off-topic because it provides an extensive description of a topic different from the subject of the article. I think it violates no original research to find examples of the use of the expression "socially liberal" and develop a definition. If it is a notable concept then there should be a definitiion somewhere. It is in the nature of language that writers often modify nouns and adjectives with adjectives and adverbs and that does not necessarily imply a new concept.

There is a "socially liberal" page which redirects here, and links out to half a dozen articles.[4] My view is that this is an example of over-linking and the page should not re-direct to this article, and probably be deleted. On the other hand, if you can establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic then you can turn the re-direct into an article.

(Find sources: "Socially liberal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

There is also social libertarian, which used to re-direct here but now for some reason re-directs to libertarian socialism. Social libertarianism is defined on p. 243 of Libertarianism Defended.[5]

TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with your statement that the socially liberal page should not re-direct to this article. I am shortly to drop off the net however so have no time to "establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic" - although my edit was actually to establish that "socially liberal" was not synonymous with "social liberalism," so as long as I succeed in doing that I feel no onus to prove the genuineness of socially liberal or otherwise - so in short I will not turn the re-direct into an article. If you do not believe there is a better place that "socially liberal" should re-direct to then I would have no issue with it being deleted. Are you happy to do this as the more experienced Wikipedian, or would you rather me (I will first need to find out how to do this, not having done it before)?
I don't intend to answer your no original research point as, well hopefully a solution has been arrived at, and life is too short to argue every matter you disagree with. DistractionActivity (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I set up a deletion discussion here. TFD (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. DistractionActivity (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Social liberal parties[edit]

We need sources to include parties showing that they are generally considered to be social liberal parties. An editor added back a number of unsourced additions, saying, "Added various parties Note: The Liberal Party of Canada is a predominantly centre-left liberal party, whic it supports, and has supported in the past, interventionist social policies. That makes it a social liberal party".[6] Curiously the last leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, who wrote a biography defending the views of Isaiah Berlin and books and articles defending the Bush administration's war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, targeted assassinations and indefinite detention of suspects, recently wrote, "The NDP are not liberals in a hurry, and we are not a party of the left. We are a free enterprise party, and they are big-government social democrats.... We’re not and never have been the party of big government."[7] TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a reference has been added for Democrats 66.[8] However, source makes no mention of social liberalism and does not attempt to categorize parties at all. TFD (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada are more of a catch-all centrist party, certainly more so during the height of its powers, not a social-liberal party in itself objectively speaking. D66 would count as centrist social-liberal party by most indicactors.--Autospark (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that most of the parties that I added which were later deleted, such as the United Democrats of Cyprus and the Sammarinese for Freedom of San Marino, were social liberal parties. They are liberal parties which support interventionist policies to promote social equality, which is social liberalism. It surprises me how RJFF and others keep deleting these additions. I read RJFF's message to me and I understand his argument, but I still feel that most of the parties I added were social liberal.[[User:zictor23|zictor23] (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If one source says the United Democrats of Cyprus is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality" and another says a social liberal party is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality", one cannot say that the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party. One needs a source that says "the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party". The fact that no one who has written about the party or about social liberal parties has made the same conclusion you have makes your conclusion questionable. TFD (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

More on social liberal parties[edit]

Generally we need to be very careful here, with this article: there haven't ever been that many social-liberal parties, whether currently active or historically speaking. The list of active liberal parties in this article is overflowing already with organisations that weren't wholly or explicitly social-liberal in character.--Autospark (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need a source that says which parties are social liberal, and explain the source. TFD (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, centre-right liberal parties (such as the Swedish liberal parties, or Flemish Open VLD) which happen to have social-liberal factions or elements don't belong on the list.--Autospark (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I find it to be over-categorization. While there is consensus about which parties are liberal, sub -categorization into conservative and social liberal parties does not have consensus, and parties may waver between the two. It would be better to say "'x' says that a,, b, c, etc. are social liberal parties". TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Social Liberalism" the book[edit]

Just discovered that there is a print-on-demand book titled "Social Liberalism" that reprints this article and, apparently, consists entirely of reprinted Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is social liberalism?[edit]

I've been doing some reading about social liberalism, and it seems to be a popular term (the leading book with that title equates social liberalism with love of porn) rather than an academic term. There is no article with that title in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics nor in Safire's Political Dictionary. Everyone seems to agree that it means support of civil rights and the provision of government services, such as public schools and public health. Beyond that, it is used by its supporters to mean a government that protects the weak and by its opponents to mean a government that hates the rich. I think, especially in the lead, we should only include what is common to most sources, instead of the laundry list of things social liberals support. "Solidarity"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It IS an academic term. Just one that is misused in popular speech as a synynom for social progressivism.--Autospark (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The topic of this article has several names and each of these names can mean different things, although social liberalism is the most common one. This book review provides a good brief definition. The book reviewed, The Ethical State?: Social Liberalism in Australia, while primarily about Australia, provides a detailed explanation of the subject and could be used as a source.[9]] Unfortunately only the first 25 pages are available at Google Books. I don't think that civil rights and solidarity are major components. TFD (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Rüstow[edit]

In the article it is claimed that Alexander Rüstow first proposed the German version of economic social liberalism. In the citation doesn't verify this claim. The phrase "Social liberalism" exists in the source only once: “...but in the end the Colloque Walter Lippmann was united in their call for a new liberal project — a project that still needed a name. ‘Liberalism from the left’ was one idea; others were ‘positive liberalism’ or ‘social liberalism.’ But the term on which the participants actually agreed was ‘neoliberalism’ — Rüstow’s original recommendation.” page 19 According to this citation Rüstow is a proponent of neoliberalism and this is something completely different than "social liberalism". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, here I see history repeating. We had all that in the German version of Wikipedia two years before. With one side claiming that early German "neoliberalism" (today rather called Ordoliberalism) were basically a liberal project and the other side claiming it for Chicago style libertarians. The truth seems to be somewhere in between, as early Chicago economist such as Simons and Viner tended to draw on German Ordoliberals and 'sociological neoliberalism' (soziologischer Neoliberalismus), but Chicago School under the influence of Hayek, Friedman and Director later took a sharp turn at some point in the postwar-era as described by Rob Van Horn [10] and Philip Mirowski. The same later happend to German neoliberalism / ordoliberalism. It is rather futile to argue what neoliberalism is (and has "always" been): social liberal or neoconservative / libertarian, as long as those historical developments are not acknowledged. Of course politicized users of Wikipedia on both sides of the State-Market divide do not want to acknowledge these changes and the respective literature, as they fear that their clear-cut ideology will be challenged...--Olag (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mont Pelerin Society brought together liberals of different opinions, including ordoliberals, Austrian economists and the Chicago School. Ordoliberalism shared similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state, but we would need a source linking the two to include it in the article. Our current usage of the term "neoliberal" arose in the 1990s. TFD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Here some sources for "similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state": [11][12] --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually the sources do not mention the United Kingdom at all. Also, the quotes are out of context. Notice that Wilhelm Röpke's Political Economy says on page 131, "he was prepared to accept old-age pensions, unemployment relief and sickness insurance 'as parts of a sound system of provision in a free society'. The question for Roepke was the degree, organization and spirit in which they operated." That was the same approach taken by the Liberal Party (UK) in the 1906 reforms. Note too that the terms used by both to describe themselves were "new liberal" and "neoliberal", both used to distinguish themselves from 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, TFD, but Mr. Mustard is also right in pointing out that the vision of the early "neoliberals" was different in that they mostly believed not in an extensive welfare state, but in the market as a promotor of social equality. However, their early, pre-1960s conceptions of the Market were fundamentally different from later Chicaco School positions (Hayek went back to Freiburg in 1962). Rather than in laissez-faire or deregulation, they strongly believed in the dismantling of corporate power and in clear rules set and enforced by a strong, but "lean" and impartial state. But as said, we, Mr. Mustard, some others and me, discussed these problems and developments so extensively and with so little result in the German Wikipedia, that I am not willing to continue about the same questions here. It comes to no good... Actually at the moment M. M. is blocked in the German Wikipedia, because he said that I were a "friend and protector of trolls and users committing citation fraud". And, I have a hard time to take such things seriously ;-)
Best regards,---Olag (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Liberal Party (UK) did not believe in an extensive welfare state either, and in fact resisted its extension as supported by fellow Liberals Keynes and Beveridge and implemented by the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the politicoeconomic factors of social liberalism?[edit]

It seems like theirs no satisfactory defined set of beliefs regarding social liberalism. Earlier revisions claimed that it was liberalism with social justice but many assigned as social liberals never talked about or hint social justice. What about proclaimed social liberals who are skeptical of social justice? Many thinks assigned to social liberalism like an expansive welfare state, "civil rights" (whatever that means), government regulation, and intervention should be more assigned to progressiveism. Many early social liberals seemed more like classical liberals who thought things like workers rights, economic democracy and a basic social insurance would be a good combination to political and economic freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.61 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems a strange post. You start by saying earlier versions equated social liberalism with an "expansive" welfare state, but go on to say in your opinion social liberalism believes in "basic social insurance". But surely these are two extremes of the same belief, that the government should have a safety net for the disadvantaged. And asking what "civil rights" means just shows you were not alive in the 1960s, or you wouldn't have to ask. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your post is incoherent. TFD (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See also[edit]

WP:SEEALSO says, "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Since the items listed under Social liberalism#See also appear mostly to duplicate links already in the article, I will remove the section unless any reason is found to keep it. TFD (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Social liberalism and left liberalism: one and the same?[edit]

A user recently deleted (which I then brought back) a link to a liberal organisation which stated that social liberalism is also known as left liberalism. I'm not sure why that link was removed.

User:zictor23 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Left-liberalism is not a common term, and there are more common terms used as a synonym for social liberalism. Also, left-liberalism is contextual. Before the Second World War, left-liberals in Europe opposed the welfare state, which was a major policy for social liberals, while the right-wing National Liberals supported it. Mises and Hayek were prominent "left-liberals". TFD (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Social liberalism in Germany[edit]

The text says that German social liberalism first culminated in Progress Party. Sorry, but that's nonsense! The Progressive Party opposed any social reform such as Bismarck's social legislation, which they denounced as state socialism ("Staatssozialismus"). This is probably a misinterpretation of the German term research left-liberalism ("Linksliberalismus") by British authors. In the German research literature, this term is generally used to separate some parties from national liberalism. The National-Social Association of Friedrich Naumann was the first liberal party in Germany, which established requirements for social reform. Then began other left-liberal parties to deal with the social question, especially the Free-minded Union. Both parties merged in 1903. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The text explains how social liberalism in Germany differed from that in England, it "included strong opposition to the welfare state, which they deemed state socialism.... The term "social liberal" contrasted these parties with the more conservative and classically liberal, such as the right-wing of the National Liberal Party...." TFD (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But "social liberalism" isn't a common term in German historiography. To describe this ideological trend the term "left-liberalism" is almost used. That are two different research concepts! 141.30.217.137 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the statement that the National Liberal Party would represent a classical liberalism does not apply. It was precisely the Progress Party, which advocated classical liberal values like the realization of the "legal state​​". In fact, the National Liberal Party prohibited the implementation of these values by their cooperation with the Conservatives. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you are reading the section properly because it does not make the claims you say. The existence of social liberalism in Germany is well documented in Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927), pp. 265-270, and Mises wrote about it in "A Critique of Interventionism" (1929). Neither of those writers were English. While the National Liberals co-operated with the Conservatives, they broke with them over protectionism. In any case articles must be based on sources, not personal interpretatin. TFD (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the section very thoroughly! I also do not deny that there was a social liberalism in Germany. But it did not exist as shown here. As already indicated above, German historiography almost uses the term "left-liberalism" or "liberal left" to describe the politics of Progressive Party. After the turn of the century Friedrich Naumann (National-Social Association) and Theodor Barth (Free-minded Union) were the first left-liberals who established requirements for social reform in their party programmes. Only then some historians use the term "social liberalism". My descriptions are not a personal interpretation! They rely on the two relevant general works on the history of liberalism in Germany: Dieter Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland (1988) and James J. Sheehan's Der deutsche Liberalismus (1983, translation of: German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century).
By the way, not the National Liberals broke with the conservatives, rather Bismarck broke with the National Liberals to establish an alliance with the catholic Centre Party ("Second Reichsgründung"). After that, the National Liberal Party moves to the right and a small group split off to found the Liberal Union. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot access the relevant parts of the book. However I have Snell and Schmitt's The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914.[13] It says, "...according to left-liberalism, the empire must be democratized excluding socialism and inroads must be made on the SPD's labor constituency.... Throughout the imperial era they encouraged the growth of patriotic, procapitalist, Progressive unions to counter the socialist labor movement. This effort began in 1868 when the liberal economist Max Hirsch, and Franz Duncker... established the German Worker Associations (Deutsche Gewerkvereine)..... The Gewerkvereine pledged themselves to work for "the raising of the working class [through self-help] on the foundation of the existing social order," and they accepted the aims of "social justice" and "political freedom and [local and provincial] self government."" (p. 311)
This source appears to show that this approach was mainstream in left-liberalism. While Naumann's approach is closer to English social liberalism, De Ruggiero and subsequent writers identified the party's attempt to help the workers help themselves and not rely on the welfare state as social liberalism. Do you agree they took this approach and if yes, then what do you call it?
TFD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What the author describes were not the aims of the liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine"). "Self-help" was the ideology of the ​​cooperatives, which were founded by Franz Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch in the 1840's. The social policy of Progressive Party (and its successor organisations: Free-minded Party and Free-minded People's Party) was also based on this concept: the workers should unite in cooperatives and help each other to improve their living conditions. Is this the answer of modern social liberalism on social question: "self-help" without any welfare state element? Naumann's National-Social Association took a different approach: legal protection of the freedom of association for workers, including their freedom to strike; introduction of unemployment insurance; expansion of the state poor relief etc. This corresponds more to the notion of the modern social liberalism. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is how the sources, for example, Richardson's Contending Liberalisms, pp. 36-37,[14] describe it, using De Ruggiero as a source. TFD (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Richardson is a political scientist and not a historian. I think this the reason why he misinterprets German "left-liberalism" as "social liberalism". Trade unions and cooperatives are not the same. First are (political) organizations of workers, which try to achieve their interests (safety requirements, reducing working hours, collective agreements etc.), while second are (economic) associations of people, in which they help each other to improve their social-economic situation. The liberal parties saw themselves as protector of common good and not as representative of special interests of certain social classes. Therefore, the liberal parties did not support the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, because these organizations fought for the special interests of working people. They merely promoted the formation of cooperatives, because these associations based on the idea of self-help ... I'm going to correct the text in the next few days, today I don't have any time. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The chapter by Richardson was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997), has appeared in two academic books by him and is used as part of university political science courses. The section on Germany is supported by Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927) which even today is considered the foremost history of liberalism ever written. De Ruggiero was a professor of the history of philosophy in the 1920s, a prominent Italian social liberal and later minister of education. You cannot just dismiss this because you happen to disagree. You need a source that supports you. BTW according to the sources, the liberal unions did not fight "for the special interests of working people", which would be contary to liberal ideology. TFD (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Richardson is political scientist and not a historian, he describes the evolution of political thoughts and not historical processes. I studied both disciplines and know the differences between them - but that is of secondary importance. The De Ruggiero's work is nearly 100 years old and a overview on European history; apropos it is not quoted by any leading German historian, neither Lothar Gall, Thomas Nipperdey nor Hans-Ulrich Wehler. (Note that Theodor Mommsen's Römische Geschichte (A History of Rome) was even honoured with the Nobel Prize in Literature, but nowadays no one quotes it anymore.) Without doubting the reputation of both you cite I think that the works of Langewiesche and Sheehan are more reputable sources in this special case, because they are much more up to date and focused on German history. In Sheehan's German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century please read chapter 10 (pp. 153-155, illustrates the resistance of leading liberals against the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, and the ideas of "Socialists of the Chair" like Lujo Brentano), the other relevant sections are unfortunately not available. By the way Langewiesche's work was also translated into English: Liberalism in Germany.
To your criticism: But you know that trade unions are organizations which are fighting for the interests of working people, no matter on which ideology (liberal, socialist or christian) they based? Therefore my descriptions are not contary to liberal ideology: The liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine") fougt for the special interests of working people on the foundation of the existing state order, and not in the in the spirit of socialist trade unions ("Freie Gewerkschaften") which wanted to eliminate the monarchy and establish a new regime.
But the dicussion moving further away from the goals: I only want a clear distinction between "left-liberalism" and "social liberalism". I am preparing a revision of the section for discussion. Many greetings from Germany 141.30.217.137 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am having difficulty following your arguments. You say that Naumann's party (founded 1896) was the first social liberal party but then say the liberal trade unions, which existed from 1868-1933, were social liberal. Only they weren't because "self help" is not social liberalism. I wish you would read the sources presented in the article and that I mentioned here. Classical liberalism had not addressed the social issue, which English social liberals addressed through the welfare state. But in Germany it was addressed through encouraging self help. You do not have to accept this narrative but that is what multiple sources say and you need to provide a source that says they are wrong. TFD (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are ignorant! It is really amazing that you mean the 10 lines about Germany in Richardson's overview article which based on a five-page illustration in De Ruggiero's nearly 100 year old overview about history of European liberalism are more relevant than the two pertinent studies of Langewiesche and Sheehan on history of German liberalism! If both authors are such experts in German liberalism history, I am surprised that neither the German historians nor the American Sheehan quote them. I posted a source you can check: Please read German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, chapter 10 (espec. pp. 153-155). In German version there are also relevant chapter 11 ("Die liberale Wählerschaft und der Triumph der Interessenpolitik", espec. pp. 205-206, shows defiance attitude of liberals towards representation of special economic interests and reasons for resistance againt liberal trade unions in Progress Party) and chapter 14 ("Die liberale Linke und das harte Brot der Oppostion", espec. 241-243, shows the absence of socio-political demands in program of Progress Party). In Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland chapter IV/5 "Antisozialismus - Sozialpolitik - Liberale Gesellschaftsbilder" (pp. 187-200) summarizes the defiance attitude of imperial German liberals towards social policy.
Please finally realise that liberal trade unions were not based on "self-help", but on organisation of employees into unions to fight for their rights. Trade unions of all persuasions, from liberal to socialist, are political oranizations and no private self-help groups! Meanwhile "self-help" was the idelogy of the ​​cooperatives. Neither liberal trade unions nor cooperatives were mainstream like Richardson implies, but they found relatively few supporters among the liberal politicians. Although these approaches had been, but they were no more than a marginal note in history of German liberalism without any mass foundation or fixation in programs of liberal parties. This is also evident in the fact that the liberal "Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine" had about 100,000 members in 1910, while the socialist "Freie Gewerkschaften" organized more than 2.5 million people. And yes I really mean that was Naumann's National-Social Association was the first social liberal party in Germany, because they were the first who fixed social policy issues, such as expansion of the social state, legalization of freedom to strike or profit-sharing to employees, in their party program. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
________
Here are some relevant parts of the two German books which I mentioned above, Thomas Nipperdey's standard reference work on history of Imperial Germany, and a dissertation on Free-minded Union which also refers to the previous positions of German left-liberals. My English skills are not good enough to translate it adequately. Please use Google Translate or PROMT Translator and you will get a rough overview of the situation in 19th century Germany.

Edit: 141.30.217.137 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Same question, I guess[edit]

I have pretty much the same question that has been asked several times on this page. I thought that "social liberalism" favored Same sex marriage, relaxed laws on activities between "consenting adults", drug usage; that sort of thing. I thought that "fiscally liberal" included (US) National Health Care, not caring whether the budget was balanced or not to achieve "more important" goals, etc. Howard Dean was often described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." As governor, he always balanced the budget, while favoring medical care bills that did not unbalance the budget as well as SSM. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article, nor the above discussion, seems to indicate this. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding, there are two different meanings of 'social liberalism': 'Social liberalism' in the American sense refers to (American) liberal (Europeans would say: progressive) stances on social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage etc.), as opposed to social conservatism. 'Social liberalism' in the European sense means (European) liberalism with a social component (this can mean to advocate more welfare than classical liberals (who could be considered fiscal conservatives in the US)) European social liberals may (but must not necessarily) support fiscal policies that would be considered fiscally conservative in the US. I believe that you referred to 'social liberalism' in the American sense, while this article seems to be about 'social liberalism' in the Euopean sense. Should we add a note to avoid future misunderstandings? --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there are two different adjectives used, depending on the meaning of 'social liberalism': 'socially liberal' vs. 'social-liberal'.
See also: Modern liberalism in the United States#American versus European use of the term "liberalism" --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Good summary, Mr RJFF:in essence, social liberalism in the American sense is a synonym for social progressivism, and social liberalism in the European sense are liberals who support the social state and social market economy.--Autospark (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate a note or (less desirable) as see also or something to distinguish between the two. For the record, we are talking England, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc. The fact that we interpret certain phrases in other languages to these terms gives us flexibility on how we treat them IMO. In other words, we are not forced to translate a term in German or French or Italian literally, if it is confusing/ambiguous in England, Australia, South Africa, etc. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Active social liberal parties and organizations" section[edit]

This section contains a large amount of inaccurate party choices (parties that are centre-right liberal), and should be pared down significantly. Ideally a section called "Active parties and organizations with social liberal factions", or similar, containing broader liberal parties that are proven to have social-liberals in them. I've said this before, but there aren't, or weren't ever, many political parties that were wholly social-liberal parties. I'd struggle to cite a dozen legitimately, in all honesty.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

a sentence ought to have at least a little bit of content[edit]

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation.

Which is trivially true because liberalism, or any of its negations, is meaningless in the absence of society. Could this sentence be made to look less vacuous? —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How about, "Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should support the general welfare of society."? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Justice Party (South Korea)'s ideology: Social liberalism?[edit]

정의당은 사회민주주의 지향과 진보자유주의 지향을 함께 담고 있다. 진보자유주의는 유럽식으로 표현하면 사회자유주의이다. — Source: Polinews, Date: 25/08/2013

(in Translation: The Justice Party is social democracy and progressive liberalism-oriented political party. The progressive liberalism is expressed in terms of social liberalism in Europe.)

@117.53.77.84: See the part of original source. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't write on the Justice Party here unless they regard themselves as a socially liberal political party. For now, they regard themselves as a social democratic political party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It is your private opinion. See the Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations section. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a sock puppet of the above IP user who were involved in an edit warring. But I found his position is more reasonable, thus support his view.

  1. I don't think the cited Polinews article is a reliable source. Haven't heard about the newspaper, and when I visited their site it feels like a one man's news/blog media. And it's not clear which part of the cited article support User:Idh0854's argument. S/he need to provide at least one reliable source with proper translation (if the source is in Korean).
  2. Also, I've checked the linked Korean Wiki article for this topic. Here, they clearly listed NPAD(Ko: 새정치민주연합) as a Social liberal party of South Korea, not the Justice Party. (I understand that Ko Wiki isn't a reliable source, but wanted to proved that even in another wiki project no one support Idh0854's opinion. There had been no edit warring on Ko wiki project regarding this particular problem.)
  3. Moreover, User:Idh0854's edits even contradict with his/her own edit from 23/05/2013 on the Ko Wiki article. In this edit,User:Idh0854 didn't list Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011) as a social liberal party of SK, per se. Rather, s/he reverted another IP user's edit. But it is clear that Idh0854 had no problem with listing the Democratic party as the only social liberal party of SK at that time.
  4. New Politics Alliance for Democracy is the only successor Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011), and Justice Party (South Korea) was founded 21 October 2012.

As far as I'm concerned, it is User:Idh0854 who's been repeating unconstuctive edits. If we say that the Justice party positions itself on center-left, then the newly founded NPAD should be called a center or center-right party. Then how we gonna call the current ruling Saenuri Party? If we say the Justice party's ideology is social liberalism, then it would be difficult to portray SK's political landscape. --Seonsaengnim (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Saenuri Party is center-right party, sir. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)