Talk:New Deal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate New Deal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States Public Policy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Keep FDR quote[edit]

The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources. Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false" (& that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history). Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

+ 1 --Pass3456 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen and Pass3456. In fact, the objections by LesLein seem obscure, OR and Fringey. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply took a while because like others here, I have a life outside of Wikipedia (sorry Dave Dial). It is lengthy because there is so much wrong with the above statements and the block quote. I also have to repeat some information that other editors should have read before.

Original Research and “that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history”

Dave Dial should know that NOR policy doesn’t apply to Talk pages. If Dave Dial and Rjensen had checked above, they would see that I relied on a secondary source. I don’t think it’s possible to find a better one than David Currie. The book I used is part of a series that won an award from the Supreme Court Historical Society. Page 223 says:

“Surely [Cardozo] and all his colleagues were right on the facts of the case [Schechter]: to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the tenth amendment to reserve.”

Rjensen said that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. It is a proven fact that he is wrong and I am right. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion reflects what I wrote. .

My “personal reading” is really the Supreme Court’s. I think it would be unspeakably arrogant for a handful of editors to overrule multiple Supreme Court rulings.

“Obscure” (Due and Undue Weight) and “Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false"

I’ll deal with “inaccurate” part later. After I established that Schechter cited the Bill of Rights, the argument switched to claims that the 1935 decision is obsolete and the Tenth Amendment doesn’t protect individual rights. In a 2011 case, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment protects individuals. It used Schechter as a precedent. That makes at least nine people in the USA who think Roosevelt’s claim is false. I am not alone. It is Rjensen and others who are using their personal interpretation of the constitution.

When it comes to due weight in constitutional law, the Supreme Court is the 300 pound gorilla. No constitutional ruling ever used Roosevelt’s fireside chat, yet FDR’s denial gets 100 percent of the weight. That is undue weight and an NPOV violation. Use of the quote doesn’t satisfy “all Wikipedia rules.”

"The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources"

Anyone checking the NOR policy article will see that speeches are original research, like diaries and memoirs. That’s one rule violation. Everyone has had months or years to provide a secondary source.

The problem with using a secondary source that exactly repeats the block quote is that there is no doubt about its inaccuracy. The quote flips around Roosevelt’s two statements. Some other people agree with me. These are the keepers of Roovevelt's official private papers and addresses. The rhetorical question about constitutional rights starts on page 314. The part about fascism, communism, and socialism is on page 317. In between these pages, Roosevelt talks about subjects like economic security, child labor, and the NRA. Fascism and constitutional rights are separate subjects (as TFD said earlier).

The Manual of Style says the following regarding quotations:

“The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.”

The only exceptions are for brackets and ellipses. The style manual says, “Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.” The block quote does exactly that.

The block quote violates the manual of style. A misquote repeated from a secondary source is still a misquote.

FDR’s block quote violates the rules on quotations:

“Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.”

Roosevelt’s claims are obviously false, unless the Supreme Court and his private statements are wrong.

The block quote violates another quotation rule:

“Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.”

The fireside chat uses a rhetorical question. This violates NPOV. While historical figures like Roosevelt don’t have to comply with NPOV, especially when they’re dead, editors quoting them do. NPOV says the following regarding quotations:

“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”

The dispute is heated now; it must have been white hot in 1934. Roosevelt’s denial was in a major address. I don’t recall Bush or Obama giving major speeches denouncing the truthers or birthers, respectively. I agree that Roosevelt’s denial is important. However, for accuracy and neutrality, it has to be paraphrased without the part on constitutional rights.

NPOV further states:

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”

So let’s quote all of FDR’s views on the New Deal and fascism. This includes his statement that he was interested in pursuing the policies of “that admirable Italian gentleman.” Let’s also include what FDR said to Harold Ickes:

"what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done is Russia and even some things that were being done by Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."

Like all politicians, Roosevelt was more candid and less biased in his private statements. Those quotes are better sourced and more accurate than the block quote. No one ever contested the statements. If they are fringe theory, then FDR is a fringe theorist on the subject and shouldn’t be quoted at all.

In Tim McNeese’s book on the Great Depression, edited by Richard Jensen (Rjensen), page 64 says, “The strict rules of capitalism took a back seat to the latent socialism of the NRA.”

That means that every part of Roosevelt’s block quote is false.

Fringey” [sic]

Over at the NRA article no editor, including Rjensen, thinks that Alistair Cooke’s line about a benevolent dictatorship is fringe theory. Rjensen apparently doesn’t think that Cooke was too old and out of touch to be paraphrased. I guess it wasn’t really all that terrible to refer to it on this talk page.

The Tim McNeese book on the Great Depression that Rjensen edited says, “The National Recovery Administration exerted almost dictatorial power over U.S. business.” McNeese didn’t say that the NRA was benevolent. I don’t think he is a fringe theorist.

Dave Dial proved that he can link to the fringe theory article; nothing else. Dave Dial should read the fringe theory article and find a source before describing George Kennan as a “conservative latter-day author” and “commentator.” Dave Dial never explained why FDR would launch a fringe theory about the New Deal. He didn’t justify his fringe theory at the admin noticeboard; quite the opposite. I look forward to Dave Dial’s explanation of how an inaccurate quotation and a few editors can overrule several unanimous Supreme Court decisions. LesLein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The NOR policy violation can be overcome, but not by using a misquote. The NPOV and verifiability violations cannot. Neither can the violations of quotation rules. If the block quote is right, then a first rate Supreme Court historian, the Supreme Court, FDR’s private statements, Rjensen’s colleague, and Roosevelt’s official papers are wrong. Those are insurmountable problems. LesLein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is that because the Court that it violated the 10th amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights, therefore it violated an individual right is OR. As the Court explained the 10th amendment is redundant because it merely restates a principle that is already in the Constitution, that the Congress has no powers other than those provided to it by the Constitution. You need a source saying that an individual right was violated otherwise your comment is original research. Since the Constitution allows states to prohibit the sale of sick chickens, the sale of sick chickens cannot be an individual right. TFD (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
+1 --Pass3456 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The ironies abound. You accuse me of doing OR in order to defend a block quote from a speech, which NOR policy says is original research. In making your claim you provide no research at all. You must have used the same source that said that "the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights" or that Roosevelt was not referring to the entire Bill of Rights. If you took the trouble to read Schechter or the fireside chat (links provided earlier), you would see that the Supreme Court used the Tenth Amendment to justify its decision and FDR told listeners to check "each provision" of the Bill of Rights.
Even though NOR policy allows OR on talk pages, I went to the trouble to find excellent sources. Besides all nine members of the 1935 Supreme Court I mentioned David Currie, an award winning Supreme Court historian. I also mentionedBond v. United States (2011). It says in part:
In amicus' view, to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. As explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
In other words, the current Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. Its decision cited Schechter. This would be pointless if it believed that the Tenth Amendment was redundant. If the Tenth Amendment was redundant, the court wouldn't have mentioned it in the Schechter case. The Schechter brothers couldn't have used the Tenth Amendment in the first place if it didn't protect individual rights.
I also checked what Richard Beeman, the leading scholar on the constitutional convention, said about the Tenth Amendment. Beeman was the main source for the Wiki Bill of Rights' subarticle on the Massachusetts Compromise. If the Massachusetts convention hadn't decided to propose an amendment resembling the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution never would have been ratified. The Tenth Amendment had a big impact for a redundancy. I have plenty of reliable sources. You need to show yours.
The Schechters weren't just prosecuted for selling one sick chicken (which they probably didn't know about according to another excellent source, Amity Schlaes). Most of the charges were for violating rules requiring "straight killing." Under straight killing customers couldn't pick the chickens they wanted; they had to stick their hands in a coop and take the first chicken to stop by. The justices laughed at the practice. If such a law was somehow enacted today, it would be struck down. Imagine going to a grocery store and not being allowed to pick the fruit and vegetibles you prefer. The 1935 was the last word on the NIRA and constitutional rights.
I noticed that you didn't disagree with any of the other examples of rule violations I mentioned (NOR, NPOV, Failed Verification, quoting rhetoric, undue weight, manual of style, etc.) Given the great concern about NOR, you should remove the block quote and Isaiah Berlin's editorial column, which is also original research.
When it comes to rule violations, the subarticle is a target rich environment. About a year ago Rjensen stated the only rule enforced consistently: "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." If we write anything that doesn't reflect well on the New Deal we're supposed to go elsewhere. LesLein (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Les, you don´t get much response because everything has been discussed excessively on this discussion page (please see the archives) and several forums [1], [2]. When editors (whatever the reason) don`t get together on something they ask for third opinion input. We did that at the fringe theories noticebard and at the original research noticeboard. All the editors were opposing your assumptions.
After convincing no one you are still posting lengthy essays full of original research and a few references to sources that don´t even briefly touch the topic. Additionally you are making wild accusations.
Let us put it straight. If you could provide evidence that the cited source is false and FDR actually never said the FDR quote we would erase it. If you could provide a historian who says that the FDR quote was a pack of lies we would add that. If you can not provide any more than original research we can only agree to disagree. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the fringe theory noticeboard, you always leave off its sequel, the admin noticeboard. Here is the key part:
SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies is an administrator. He thought the discussion at the fringe noticeboard was resolved unfairly, which it was. The consensus at the admin noticeboard was that I wasn't pushing a fringe theory. The discussion of a personal attach was referring to Dave Dial, who initiated the fringe theory nonsense. He's also engaged in wikihounding against me. The fact that you never criticized some of his behavoiur says plenty. If you still think I'm pushing a fringe theory submit another complaint. Just let me know the same day. BTW, if you read the fringe theory article you will see that it is a perfect fit for the Roosevelt block quote. It is original research (FDR is the book's author), it violates NPOV (quoting the most partisan person involved in the discussion), and it fails verification being a misquote. Unless the Supreme Court's decision means nothing, along with FDR's private statements, the claim was false.
I don't get a response because you have no valid response. The fact that a handful of liberals here and on the fringe and NOR noticeboard are overly protective towards a sacred cow doesn't prove anything. Rjensen said that the Schechter decision did not mention the Bill of Rights. It did. You said that FDR obviously wasn't referring to the entire Bill of Rights. He was. Everyone said that the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights. It does. You now say that the Tenth Amendment is redundant without explaining why the Supreme Court took the 2011 Bond case. You make these claims with absolute certainty and never acknowledge when you're wrong. All of my sources here are excellent (Currie, Supreme Court, Schlaes).
My source that the FDR block quote is wrong is unimpeachable: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Read the speech at the current reference's link or the official FDR papers I referenced earlier. Fascism and violation of constitutional rights are separate topics in the actual article, presented in a different order. I've provided highly credible sources (Feuer, Ickes, Currie, Supreme Court) that both parts of FDR's claims are false.
I don't normally spend much time on Wikipedia, so when I do write something it is when I have time to spare. Also, there's a lot wrong with the subarticle that no one has addressed (the court's Bond decision; NPOV's rule against directly quoting a participant in a dispute; the quotation rule against quoting rhetoric, etc.) I thought about how to submit a general complaint, but the subarticle has so much wrong I would have to either prepare a whitepaper or submit multiple complaints and risk charges of forum shopping. The best option would be to propose the subarticle for deletion, if that's possible. Is anyone interested in mediation or another approach? Let's think about it. If we go that way, let's schedule it in a manner that's convenient for everyone. LesLein (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The closing decision at the Admin noticeboard was "I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise." As every new user you are not really capable of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be wise to contact someone at [3] and expect rather advice than support. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New Deal or WW2?[edit]

I think most historians agree with FDR that Dr New Deal had been replaced by Dr Win the War. Most of the reforms mentioned here under WW2 were promoted by conservatives, not New Dealers. I think they should be in the United States home front during World War II article Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes and no. See comments here (including some of my own). I haven't read the current revision in the article so I don't know which reforms you mean when you say that they were promoted by conservatives vs. new dealers. And let's also remember that what we think of as "conservatives" today were isolationist pre-WWII, so it's not strictly correct to attribute pre-war buildup reforms to conservatives writ large. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I refer to laws passed after 1941 re domestic affairs. By the way, half the liberals (on domestic issues) were isolationists too, and the southern conservatives-on-domestic issues were often internationalists. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
As I mention in the reddit thread, talking about pre-war buildup vs. new deal spending is a matter of degree. Both are fiscal shocks from government spending, one considerably larger than the other. We can and should get the history right on this (see Vernon, Romer and Gordon for 3 good resources on the subject with different views), but we're still comparing two fiscal shocks. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Rjensen is correct in terms of time periods, I believe. In terms of liberals, moderates, conservatives, I do believe the political spectrum has changed/evolved, and FDR had much to do with that. Also, I think most historians would agree that FDR may have saved the nation with his programs, even omitting the results one way or the other. Many Americans in the midwest(especially farm states) were ready to give up on democratic capitalism, and many thinkers throughout America(and the world) thought it was dead and only Communism or Fascism would survive. Even before the Great Depression many farmers were gathering together and hanging sheriffs and/or judges, and if not for drastic change in Washington, Communism was already a planted seed there. In any case, here we are. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
All =I propose is this: move the following section to Homefront because it fits better there and historians don't usually call them part of New Deal :
Despite conservative domination of Congress during the early 1940s, a number of progressive measures supported by business in the name of efficiency and safety were legislated. The Coal Mines Inspection and Investigation Act of 1941 significantly reduced fatality rates in the coal-mining industry, ref>Curtis E. Harvey, Coal in Appalachia: an economic analysis /ref> while the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942 provided family allowances for dependents of enlisted men of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, while emergency grants to States were authorized that same year for programs for day care for children of working mothers. In 1944, pensions were authorized for all physically or mentally helpless children of deceased veterans regardless of the age of the child at the date the claim was filed or at the time of the veteran's death, provided the child was disabled at the age of sixteen and that the disability continued to the date of the claim. The Public Health Service Act, which was passed that same year, expanded Federal-State public health programs, and increased the annual amount for grants for public health services. ref>"Social Security Online". Retrieved April 5, 2012.  /ref> In response to the March on Washington Movement led by A. Philip Randolph, Roosevelt promulgated Executive Order 8802 in June 1941, which established the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practices (FEPC) "to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination" so that "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin." ref name="ReferenceA">The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II by William H. Chafe /ref> The Community Facilities Act of 1941 (the Lanham Act) provided federal funds to defense-impacted communities for the building of recreational facilities, water and sanitation plants, hospitals, day care centers, schools, and houses, ref June Axinn and Herman Levin, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need, Second Edition /ref while the Emergency Maternity and Infant Care Program, introduced in March 1943, provided free maternity care and medical treatment during an infant’s first year “for the wives and children of military personnel in the four lowest enlisted pay grades.” [ ] Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


I think it's probably unnecessary to have a separate page for the Second New Deal if its in-depth discussion happens on this page. Trevor1324 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Historians often make the distinction of a "Second New Deal" and so it ought to be covered. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, but the New Deal's page discusses the Second New Deal far more than its own article, so there's no real reason to have it. Clicking on the Second New Deal's article is just a waste of time, and a redirect to this article's section on it would probably be more appropriate, unless the Second New Deal article was expanded. Trevor1324 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'd oppose a merge, first on size grounds (this article is 183 KB already; and if the proposal simply envisages blanking and redirecting the other page, I'd be opposed to it as a back-door deletion), and second, as the Second New Deal had a different character (meeting far more opposition, for example) and is notable in its own right, it'd make more sense to split the Second New Deal stuff from here (leaving just a summary) and move it over there. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: In fact the same could be said of the "Recession of 1937", and "WWII and full employment" sections (the latter already mentioned above). Both could be summarized and have the excess stuff moved to the respective main articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose a merge. There's no reason a good summary section here with a separate article wouldn't be superior. This page is already long, it's a significant event with more than enough sourcing. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that solution does make more sense. I'm not super attached to the idea of merging them anyway, I just thought the current set-up was subpar.Trevor1324 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The Second New Deal section is rather short. I don´t see how it could be significantly shortened while still covering the story. I oppose the idea of a summary section. On the other hand I would not deny that Second New Deal could be a lot longer (Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote 768 pages about it) and that excess stuff would be fine for a separate Second New Deal. --Pass3456 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

-I agree strongly with the immediately above: due to the size, significance, and difference in nature of the Second New Deal, if there's any talk here about merging the Second New Deal's page wholly into the first, it can mean only one thing: not nearly enough has been written about it. There's actually something of a paradox, here: The New Deal, as a whole, certainly includes the Second New Deal (well, I'd say), and material about the 2nd phase should be on The New Deal page. However, The Second New Deal was also a distinct entity, one of the most significant and successful legislative movements, distinct from the 1933-4 New Deal in several respects,'s too big not to have a page of its own. I suppose a modestly briefer summary of the 2nd New Deal could be included in this page, while maintaining the full 'Second New Deal' page independently, but ultimately, regardless of how the chips fall down, I can't support the submerging of the Second New Deal into merely a section of the first--it was too big, too important, shifted the Overton Window so much more than the original New Deal, is relevant politically to Hughie Long's demagoguery, and, well, certainly produced more enduring political shifts, being both the point at which FDR shifted decisively to Social Liberalism (and created Social Security, did Financial Regulation properly, etc) and thus made the dominant wing of the Democratic Party ultimately Liberal AND, because of the lack of ambiguity in that shift, presumably played a role in the almost semi-formal division of the party in 1937 by going farther left than Nance Garner was willing to tolerate. It all connects quite closely to the Supreme Court fight that year, also--no, it's just too big a historical shift to be mashed into a page headlined by the First New Deal. It'd be like combining Nixon's 1971 and (much different) 1974 Healthcare plans as one subject (only this is a much larger and more important pair of subjects, to be clear). -CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is class coinciousness harmful?[edit]

Listed under harmful effects of the New Deal there's "caused a growth of class consciousness among farmers and manual workers (Billington and Ridge)[136]". Better dead than red or what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The authors do not say. That is the problem with using tertiary sources. We do not know how widely held the views expressed are or in this case what they mean. TFD (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Billington and Ridge are leading historians and so their analysis is worthy of attention. The question is not whether or not class consciousness is good or bad, it's whether significant numbers of observers said so. They had reference to conservatives (they are liberals themselves). Conservatives then (and now) decried the growth of class consciousness, liberals then ("progressives" now) emphasize class consciousness, as exemplified by labor unions, or "Move On". Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)