Talk:Third Way (centrism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mussolini removed from list[edit]

Mussolini's Third Way is mistakenly defined as a centrist policy in this article. As we know, the term 'Third Way' has been applied to more than one spot on the political spectrum (see Third Way (France), Third Position, Third Way (UK), and so on and so forth, ad nauseam), thus there is room for misinterpretation. To quote from the source used as reference to present Mussolini as a centrist third way politician:

Bull, this is exactly what Fascism claimed to be. There is nothing new in the concept of "Radical Center" or "Third Way". It was what Mussolini and the Italian Fascist used to describe Fascism, after they split from the Socialists. Ditto National Socialism, not "Marxist Socialism, nor Capitalism. Anyone espousing this bears watching, closely.

(talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It evolved into a new political and economic system that combined totalitarianism, nationalism and anti-communism, designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system (the "Third Way"). This was a new capitalist system.

That most certainly is not "centrist".

Same problem with the mention of Obama. The article that was linked had nothing to do with centrism, but with the balance of organizing and leading through government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The ref specifically cites Barack Obama as third way. I'm in Australia, and even I know the primaries are over. Get over it, now. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Timeshit, if you read the reference, you'll see that what the article refers to as "third way" is not what we are talking about here. We don't care for Australians telling Americans what our politicians are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we Americans have a long standing love for outsider accounts of our politics, from de Tocqueville to Christopher Hitchens, so feel free. We'll still let you know when we think you're wrong, of course. For instance, I added more on the Obama debate below, you might want to give it a read. :) --Thomas Btalk 12:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More detail is needed[edit]

The so called third way is an ideology which had a tremendous effect on the policies of centre-left governments around the world for the last two decades yet the examples given of their actions are pretty minimal. I added a pretty substantive section about the history of "third way" politics in both the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party I feel that it gives better insight into the kinds of policies adherents to the third way usually advocate and what effects they have had. I think a much more informative section should be devoted to explain the policies of Tony Blair and his so called New Labour government as they were also very influential, not just on Britain but much of the western world, for better of worse. (Canadianpunk77 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd[edit]

A typical Labor government in Australia, driven by factionism to throw the nations money at endless social agendas. In no way Centrist whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Muammar Gadaffi[edit]

I believe Muammar Gadaffi refers to his politics as the third way. Worth a mention?

Tony Blair[edit]

does anyone know sources about Blair and his third way?

Blair's Third Way is inspired from the theories of Anthony Giddens, British sociologist, from works like Beyond Left and Right (1994) and further works questioning the nature of modernity. To be honest, that was what I was expecting to find in greatest detail in this page since it is the most popular incarnation of Third Way politics (although some might say that it is arguably Continental European corporatism). Third Way (disambiguation) contains more information on Blair's Third Way and Anthony Giddens than the article it directs to, which is ridiculous. BTW Third Way and centrism are not the same and I'm uncertain if Giddens would appreciate that. Jeshmir (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Radical Middle merge?[edit]

Probably not a good idea, third way is much broader, radical centrism is only one of the many variations of it. Besides, both articles are long enough to merit their own article space. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, a Centrist?[edit]

I think not. He, if anything was a Liberal(in the American sense) and had to contend with a Conservative Congress. Thus he was forced to moderate his views.-- 13:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Bill's views seem to change after Newt ttook over the House. The House came up with ideas, Bill lessen them after (and got the credit). When he did have ideas, they seem to flop (i.e. charge Microsoft with monopoly charges. The Tech bubble pop soon after). -- March 17, 2006

Bill Clinton is most definitely a third way politician. The problem is that the third way isnt centrism and its wrong for centrism to appropriate something that is very different. Jeshmir (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Clinton was forced by a growing Republican majority to moderate his views. He backed off on tax cuts, signed the Telecom Act of 1996, but NEVER supported decentralizing government. If anything, he wanted more Washington bureaucracy. Consider his calls for socialized health care, etc. That's a U.S. liberal. "Third Way" is not a term that applies to U.S. politicians often. --Andy, Oct. 25, 2006

Bill Clinton claimed Third Way policies, and they claimed him. You can't meaningfully discuss Third Way without him. Thomas B 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Way is a centrism because it embraces market mechanisms in pursuit of traditional social objectives. Bill Clinton did just that with all his reforms, like workfare. Moreover, he did support deregulation in various areas, most notably the banking system: You can dismiss all of his moderatism as simply bowing to Republican pressure, but that's more conspiracy theory and caricature than historical fact. Thomas B 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate here over whether Clinton was a Liberal or a Third Way Centrist arises because we forget that Thirdwayism is not an ideology. It is a political maneuver and it should be treated as such in the article. Left-wing and right-wing are not very meaningful as terms used to describe ideology but at least they have the benefit of being terms that are seldom used for political gain. After all no politician wants to say "I am on the left" or "I am on the right". To say that of ones self is to admit that you do not share the views of John Citizen. To say "I am a centrist" or "I am all about the third way of politics" is an effort to associate yourself with the mainstream views of the country you seek to represent. Yes OF COURSE Bill Clinton is a left-wing (or liberal as you say over there) politician. If for no other reason than because his most significant opponents, the Republicans, sit on most issues to his right. Yes OF COURSE Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Jean Chretien and Kevin Rudd all enjoy and actively encourage being described as "Centrist" or "Proponents of the Third Way". It allows them to wedge their opponents into adopting difficult policy positions and to claim they are in touch or have the ear of the people and brand their opponents as extremists. This is an article on Politics. Can we please have more of the healthy cynicism and skepticism that belongs in an article about Politics? Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course Clinton is a centrist. He has economic right views in a historically left of centre party. Next please. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh Timeshift! I enjoy your brief and insightful rebuttals!! Bill Clinton is either a centrist or a left-winger depending on how you want to define those terms. It isn't important. What is important to the general discourse of politics and to this article in particular is that those involved in writing about politics remember that politicians have an enormous political motive for convincing the electorate that they are "Centrists". If Bill Clinton managed to sell the idea that he was a centrist what does that mean he managed to convince us of his Republican opponents? That they are extremists or radicals on the fringes of ideology? That is precisely why he does it. Thirdwayism as it is described in this article is a rather meaningless philosophy on how a state should be run. Thirdwayism is a synthesis of socialism and laissez-fair doctrines you say? Well that is pretty meaningless: every political party in the developed world (certainly USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia) with a chance of winning government have understood the importance of that synthesis for at least the last 50 years. We ought to have at least some reference in this article to the fact that aside from being a rather meaningless philosophy for running a country it is much more importantly a very useful tactic for winning elections. Ryan Albrey (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to make judgements. Gough Whitlam didn't implement left wing economic policies (infact he slashed tariffs by 25 percent across the board after 23 years of Labor being in opposition) yet I wouldn't for one second call him Third Way. Yet i'd apply that to Hawke and Keating. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, you get no arguments from me on that. But I am not really talking any longer about who should be regarded as thirdway and who should not. My initial point was simply that who is centrist and who is not is always going to be a very highly debated (to the point that it is nearly unresolvable) issue because of the fact that this middle ground is such valuable territory to occupy in politics. I would like to have more in this article that makes reference to the fact that it is far more important to Blair, Clinton, Rudd that they be perceived as "centrists" than any policy reality. They may or may not be centrists but the perception of their position doesn't necessarily have to exactly match the reality. We can start by finding a reference that talks about how thirdway or centrist politicians are, in the recent politics of the developed world, highly highly highly electable. From there we can go on to say that as a result of this, debate over who is thirdway and who is not will naturally be highly contested. Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexa McDonough, a Centrist? No, no, no...[edit]

She's what is discribed here at wiki as a democratic socialist (with an arguement for social democrat), and definetly not a centrist! Every election she ran on she kept redefining what was "rich" in Canada. I believe she started at $60,000/yr and by her last election she worked her way down to $40,000/yr (and the avg wage in Canada is around $32-35k). She never fought for decentralizing anything, and only gave lip service to fair trade when it became the new "thing" for socialists to attack free trade with. Quite literally, she had fought against free-trade her whole time as leader then some musician (maybe Bono) says the term Fair Trade, and suddenly the next day she admits Free-trade is okay.. when it's fair trade. Ah.

She should be removed in this list. Just because she was a socialist party leader during the Clinton/Blair years doesn't make her politics the same.

It's interesting though that to many in her own party her views were seen as being rather centre-left and close to those of Tony Blair. That uneasiness over her political position was one of the catylists that forced her from the leadership in 2003 and brought Jack Layton to power. After which he promised to keep the NDP away from the "mushy middle". (Canadianpunk77 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

What the hell does this mean "She should be removed in this list. Just because she was a socialist party leader during the Clinton/Blair years doesn't make her politics the same." Tony Blair was the leader of a former socialist party, but the Democratic Party USA (with a history of varying ideologies ranging from rightwing populism to social liberalism) has never, ever even been close to being socialist. (Canadianpunk77 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Can someone explain?[edit]

This article misses the point--Third Way is more than centrism or a compromise: It values a smart and effective integration of Left and Right politics.

Centrism is usally associated with watering down or compromise: Third Way is, at least in it's intentions, not this-- it's an integration that creates an entirely new entity with strong values placed on effectiveness as well as social progress- free market and social responsibility working together rather than as they have been traditionally polarized-- and therefore eternally at odds with each other. Avoiding the paralysis of polarization, Third Way instead marries Left and Right into a hybrid politics of social responsibility and economic practicality, with a great deal of focus on practical application. 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From intro:

The Third Way is a centrist political ideology that, at least from a traditional social democratic perspective, usually stands for deregulation, decentralisation and lower taxes.

Why is this "Third Way"? Isn't this just "Conservative"? I honestly cannot tell from the article what would distinguish the two. Someone help me out. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In terms of US politics deregulation and decentralization are conservative party lines, and lower taxation is politally ambiguous as liberals push for lower taxation for thos in the lowest income brackets but higher taxation for middle and upper income wage earners while conservatives push for lower taxation accross the board. I think Clinton is a strange choice to state as espousing conservative ideology, but the very unregulated dot-com rise was on his watch -- a bit too unregulated as would appear too be the case after it came to light most of the dot-coms did not return any value and went bust. I am having difficulty making any sense of much of this article. 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to ask: I think the "Third way" is mostly intellectually bankrupt (and the authors of this article apparently feel the same way, as it has some major NPOV problems). But the idea is that the traditional "big government" leftism of the past has been in significant part a failure, and ought to be replace by a new recognition that, while government has a role to play (i.e., not the slash and burn of Thatcher and Reagan), it ought to be a smaller and more dynamic role. RadicalSubversiv E 17:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what separates this from being "conservative", or maybe what's now being called "paleo-conservative"? Is it the fact that some liberals don't want the conservative label? If you really aren't sure, is there someone else who may be able to help? And thank you nonetheless. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the alleged distinction is that proponents of the third way do not want to indiscriminately tear down government in favor of the free market, preferring to find a middle ground which makes use both of market mechanisms and some government activism, most often through incentives of various kinds. RadicalSubversiv E 01:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can see that. And I suppose this is only referring to the economy and size of government, and not social issues, where people may still be liberal or conservative. Thanks for your help. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Radical middle, Neoconservative and neoliberal, to which it is closely related. Sam Spade 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the welfare state is the Third way. The ulimate aim of democratic socialism was not the welfare state. It was the complete nationalization of the whole economy so that the means of production were controlled by the state. After the fall of communism people realized socialism wasn't working. The solution: keep the free market economic system but temper it with a social safety net and extensive regulation. This is of course exactly what was happening already. However it marked a significant ideological shift. Up till this point all social democratic parties in Europe had been committed to achieving complete nationalization of the economy (at least in theory). The third way was simply a matching of the ideological ideas of democratic socialism to the actual reality. I don't consider this ideologically bankrupt. As a matter of fact I consider all other ideas to be far more ideologically bankrupt since they have no relation to reality.

Your concept of the welfare state as the third way is flawed, especially since it (the welfare state) developed mainly in the era where communism was thriving, not after the fall of communism. But I see where you were coming from, however you seem to be describing Scandinavian Social Democracy. Jeshmir (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I moved this page here, and intend to move Third way (disambiguation) to Third way. Comment here or @ Wikipedia:Requested_moves#20_October_2005 as you like. Sam Spade 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It should remain where it was. It is incorrect to say that the Third Way is neo-liberal, when it is as equally social democratic. Indeed, if anything, it is an offshoot of social democracy (or a "renewal", according to some adherents). Some even claim it to be post-ideology. But again, it is incorrect to pigeonhole it as "neo-liberal".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
But it is very obviously neo-liberal. It is social-democracy, as a liberal adaption of socialism, coming full circle and returning to liberalism. Indeed, if there is anything that the Third Way resembles it is classical liberalism - Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, for instance, clearly stand in the tradition of nineteenth-century liberalism.
It is not obviously anything. The Third Way has its origins in social democracy, not the other way around. According to its devisors, it's a re-merger of the the two great schools of thought: socialism and liberalism. It is neither exclusively. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what we name this page, that can be sorted out. But Third way can't redirect here, there are far too many interpretations of the term. See Third way (disambiguation). Sam Spade 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why can't it stay at Third way? Is there any real need to move the disambiguation page? It is difficult to think of any other clause for this article other than the generic "(politics)". But as you pointed out, there are many interpretations of the term, and most are political. However, those other interpretations are discussed under different terms, so maybe "(politics)" is acceptable afterall. But I think the primary topic disambiguation was fine to start with.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel strongly that it is not. This particular usage is really more a cryptic way of saying "neocon" or "neoliberal" than anything, and is a very misleading place for third way to directly link to. Sam Spade 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can compromise on that, can you compromise on moving the disambig page to Third way? Sam Spade 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It makes sense, actually, given this is no longer a primary topic disambiguation.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


File:Third Way Emblem.svg
Third Way Emblem

In order to include this we need a verifyable authoritative/reliable source that links the image to the article topic. WAS 4.250 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even show up correctly for me... I only see a transparent square. —Nightstallion (?) 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Somchai Phatharathananunth?[edit]

I'm all for incorporating negative perspectives, but right now the "criticism" section citing Somchai Phatharathananunth is almost as long as the rest of the article! Could someone (ideally more neutral than I) see if it could be trimmed down? Thanks. Drernie 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a rewrite of the criticism section. It was extremely difficult, mainly because the person who originally contributed the information failed to provide some key points of the arguments of Somchai and instead went on to describe in detail, the workings of a liberal capitalist state - which for Somchai and the contributor were somewhat less than good! I briefly glanced at his book in my uni library and have to say its more a general criticism of Thailands democracy than anything serious about Third Way governance. Anyway I have tried to summarise his only argument in regards to Third Way, in that it encourages social movements to support human rights abuses - a poor argument (with very little support) in the first place, however I think the edit is neutral, especially since I have given a criticism of Somchai to balance the paragraph - namely that his example is limited only to Thailand. Feel free to edit if its still too long etc LordHarris 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your making it more NPOV. My larger concern is that it mostly seems a criticism of Thailand, without any strong tie to the rest of the article. Plus, it is still painfully long. I'd be tempted to replace it with 1-2 sentences summarizing his argument (with a citation), and perhaps a link to Human_rights_in_Thailand, which seems a more appropriate venue for these facts. But, I don't know if that is just my bias. Anyone else have an opioion?Drernie 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is mostly a criticism of Thailand. To be honest I dont think its entirely relevant to this article and from the brief glance at the book - his ideas dont seem mainstream enough to be a critcism of the theory across the board. In many ways it might be best to delete the whole thing - unless someone wants to summarise it more concisely etc.LordHarris 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Defining "third way"[edit]

There is obviously no perfect agreement on what the "third way" constitutes, but for a century or more it has been understood by many to mean a mixed economy. On this basis it has been criticized by many capitalist intellectuals. In the Criticism section I have cited a few of those critics. Nicmart 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The critcism section is massive compared to the rest of the article - theres barely an information on what third way actually is, how its implemented, policies/lawsetc. Instead we have a large criticism section of a subject thats barely explained in the first place. Perhaps you would care also to expand some of the ideas on what third way is? As Im no expert on the subject. LordHarris 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid point. The criticism section isn't too large, but the rest of the article needs some fleshing out. It's a bit confused on what even constitutes the "third way." Nicmart 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the people writing here. I am a total outsider to politics, so I can definitely not contribute to it. I was just diverted here when having a look at social democracy, and after reading the whole lot, I am even more clueless than before about what the Third Way is. From what I am able to read here, it seems to be the best of the best, or put in other words, everything which is not bad from socialist and neoliberalism. My impression after reading this is that the Third Way is just a marketing word with no meaning at all, but just saying "we are doing something else" in order to keep people entertained. If the real meaning of the Third Way is everything which is not pure neoliberalism nor communism, then I don't see the point in even trying to define it, or even using it. In that case, the article is spot-on. If it is not an intellectual-marketing act of masturbation, then the article is definitely missing its content. It should be dramatically shrinked and summarized ( the summary is surreal ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) i cant believe anyone on this list is considered centre. theyre all solidly right wingers from solidly right wing countries. canada, australia, usa, britain. i think the definition would be coming from the far right because wikipedia is an american website and most people editing this are from countries like canada, britain, and australia, all right wing capitalist countries, so you probably wouldnt get much of an argument from most of the audience. however, if you were to go to a real left wing country in south america, then theyd probably place guys like bill clinton, and tony blair as moderate right wingers, as opposed to someone like ron paul who is to the far right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2352423D (talkcontribs) 19:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and Mussolini?[edit]

I don't believe it is appropriate to lump these two into the intro along with FDR and a handful of random world leaders of past and present. In fact, I think the author had a political agenda by using it, especially evident by using the Cato Institute as a citation. I'm speculating that this is an attempt to compare FDR to Hitler, something that is intentionally done on many wikis. Speculation aside, it shouldn't be there. The two fascist dictators are hardly defined by their "centrist" economic philosophies. They are defined by their extreme social philosophies as well as their imperialist war making. Likewise, the term "Third Wave" should hardly be characterized as a philosophy unusually held by arguably the most notorious figures in modern history. I wouldn't be surprised if people ranging from George Washington to Saddam Hussein shared this economic philosophy to some extent. If one were to list leaders (current and historical) who share this economic ideology, the list would be thousands of pages long. Bill Clinton and Tony Blaire are significant for resurrecting the term amid a recent period of partisan rhetoric within US and UK politics. It would make sense to list them in the intro. Two fascist dictators, not so much within the broad context which it was written. 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the fascist movement presented itself as a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, and that movement has been all too influential; so if the article is about people and movements that present themselves as offering a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, there ought to at least be a mention of this fact. I see there's a reference on the disambiguation page to a "Third Position" which seems to be some kind of neo-fascist term. The difference between mentioning that the term was/is used by fascists, and listing every world leader who's ever proposed a socialism/capitalism synthesis, is to point out that the term is so vague, it can refer to any economic ideology from Nazi Germany to modern France, China, or America. Conversely, if we don't mention the fascists here, readers will get the false impression that "Third Way" consistently refers to modern capitalist/socialist hybrids. In fact, even calling the article "Third Way (centrism)" encourages that impression. Why not rename it "Third Way (ideology)" and explain that it's meant a wide range of things, while still having room to explain that Mussolini's Third Way is very different from Tony Blair's?
Alternatively, I propose that we rename an article on "Famous Politicians" to "Famous Politicians (good)" and then not have an article about the bad ones. 8)
-Kris Schnee (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the third way?[edit]

This article really should focus much more on what the Third Way actually is, rather than on examples and criticisms. Only the first paragraph offers any sort of description, and that is incredibly brief and vague. It could be used to describe any Centrist philosophy or ideal, and there is nothing in the article that actually distinguishes the Third Way from those other centrist philosophies. I'd like to know more about Third Way to find out whether or not it is similar to my own ideals, but there just isn't enough information in this article. Uniqueuponhim 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a coherent definition of third way that can be separated from examples. From my sense, it just describes politicians who move parties historically on "the left" of their nation's relative political spectrum to "the right". Canadianism (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


"...funding cuts led to a massive decline in the quality of healthcare services..." (under 'Canada'): this needs verification and, especially, citation. I am neither pro- nor con-Liberal, but this is clearly POV. What is 'massive'? 20%, 80%, 8%? How is 'decline' defined? Was there, say, an 18.2% increase in average wait times for hip-surgery for person aged 45-65 (as a fictitious example)? And if so, was this perhaps happening G8-wide and had nothing to do with domestic political policies? In fact, how is 'quality' of health-care even defined, anywhere, let alone here?

If studies themselves can not be referenced, at least statistical reports should be, such as those issued by Statistics Canada. Failing that, references should noted to articles on quality of health-care, published in major Canadian newspapers during the time-period being referenced here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talkcontribs) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead of article[edit]

I'm thinking it's better than rather add individual leaders of parties, we should be adding simply the parties. In the 21st century, it's obvious that the major centre-left parties of first world countries have all moved further to the right to the point of third-wayism. Australian and UK Labor, US Democrats, not familiar with Canada but i'd presume so, etc etc. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone have a reference for the following: Robert Putnam, Ian Winter (Latham cites Winter's "Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia" on p. 13 of the Latham diaries), and Mark Lyon are amongst a range of academics who have recently contributed key academic theory on the subject. Before adding it back to the article, can someone please add a citation and also explain the latter section - who is Latham, what does page 13 of his diary have to do with Third Way. Are these significant academics with published works - if so lets establish their notability. Thanks. LordHarris 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


If you actually read the source for Obama being third way, you will notice that it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. There is no source provided that says Obama is adherent to this. Contralya (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political 'third way'." - the source/ref clearly states his leanings toward the 'third way'. Excuse me if i'm cynical in seeing this as a cheap tactic to get an accuracy tag at the top of the page. Removed as there is no substance given to the tag adding. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Read through the article. It is talking about a third way with regard to RACE.

"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political "third way." He saw it as an alternative to what he viewed as false polarities-the civil-rights movement's integrationist goals versus black nationalism, and the antagonisms between community organizing and traditional politics. "

It has absolutely nothing to do with economics. YOU are the one who needs to read through it. It has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Third way in this wikipedia article is about a third way as opposed to socialism and completely free market. Contralya (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the third way and cites Obama as third way. Discuss rather than revert. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a simple matter. Obama is listed as following this philosophy, whereas the listed source does NOT have anything to do with this article. Contralya (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives.
Which source are you referring to? Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the people who made that article that is used as the source [1] didn't know about third way (centrist philosophy), they are VERY clearly talking about civil rights and not about this philosophy. Read the quote I posted above. There is no source stating that Barack Obama follows this philosophy. The person who used it as a source made a mistake. References to Obama adhering to this should be removed UNLESS a real source can be found. Contralya (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The third way, in its most common usage, and how it is used on this article, is essentially Triangulation. It is a tendancy of all centre-left/social democrat parties and leaders around the world - the US dems, UK labour, Aus Labor, NZ Labour, you name it. I fail to see what point you are making unless you are causing trouble for the fun of it. Timeshift (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't understand. Third way, as in this wikipedia article is:

"political philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its proponents."

See, it is about the role government should play in an economy. Now, from the source, is this:

"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political "third way." He saw it as an alternative to what he viewed as false polarities-the civil-rights movement's integrationist goals versus black nationalism, and the antagonisms between community organizing and traditional politics. "

It is clear that the subjects are entirely different. If you read through this wikipedia article and read through the source, it is apparent that the people who wrote the source didn't know about the philosophy talked about in the wikipedia article. The source for Bill and Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, DOES talk about this philosophy. Again, it is simply that the writer of the source for Obama didn't know about the subject of this wikipedia article. This article is about a political and economic school of thought, not generic triangulation. Contralya (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you want the subjects to be entirely different. But unfortunately there isn't much difference at all, the same third way is being referred to. A list of leaders who would come under the Third Way banner, and the Triangulation banner, would be very similar. The article must and does cover. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry that you cant wrap your head around this. It is a specific economic philosophy. What YOU are talking about is covered in the article centrism, but this is not that article. Another thing: the Clintons have called themselves third way[2], but Obama HAS NOT.

"That is why Hillary and Sid Blumenthal, her fawning New Left Machiavelli, call their own political philosophy the politics of "The Third Way." This distinguishes it from the "triangulation" strategy Dick Morris used to resurrect Bill Clinton's presidency."

There you go, not triangulation. I am sure that if other people looked at this they would understand. Contralya (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

US Dems, UK Labour, Oz Labor, NZ Labour. All centrist/triangulation/third way. Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. The quote I used said it is not triangulation. And this "third way" philosophy does NOT apply to the entire party just because a prominent member follows it. I think we need other people to look at the evidence I have provided. There is no source presented that says that Barack Obama follows this economic philosophy, if there is one, add it to the article, if not, than the article needs to be corrected. Your claim that the entire party is based on this philosophy is not supported by any source. This third way is in the Democratic party, but not all democrats follow it, just like Libertarianism is in the republican party, but not all republicans are libertarian. Again, here is no source claiming that Barack Obama follows this economic philosophy. I am sure that any admin that looks at the source and compares it to the article would agree with me. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this. Just ask someone else to look at this (and not just some friend that will agree with you just because, but someone objective) maybe even an admin. Read through all of my evidence.

This is clearly not about economics: [3]"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political "third way." He saw it as an alternative to what he viewed as false polarities-the civil-rights movement's integrationist goals versus black nationalism, and the antagonisms between community organizing and traditional politics. "

The Clintons, who define third way as it is in the article itself, look at this from the source: [4], "That is why Hillary and Sid Blumenthal, her fawning New Left Machiavelli, call their own political philosophy the politics of "The Third Way." This distinguishes it from the "triangulation" strategy Dick Morris used to resurrect Bill Clinton's presidency."

If you look at this evidence and still don't believe me, than you are not willing to be convinced. I am not going to waste any more time correcting you, I have already presented my evidence and proven that you made a mistake. It's no big deal, no-one is going to hold it against you. Lets just correct the article and be done with it. Contralya (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of waffle and crap. I still disagree with you, and without others having participated in this discussion, seems we're at a bit of a stalemate, doesn't it :) Timeshift (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Contralya has presented a complete and clear argument that is irrefutable. Your ignorance and obstinance are the only problem. There is no stalemate here, just your dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and a questionable edit history. Fascinating. Timeshift (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Omama and Rudd are similar are they not? Rudd:

Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all. We are not afraid of a vision in the Labor Party, but nor are we afraid of doing the hard policy yards necessary to turn that vision into reality. Parties of the Centre Left around the world are wrestling with a similar challenge—the creation of a competitive economy while advancing the overriding imperative of a just society. Some call this the "third way". The nomenclature is unimportant. What is important is that it is a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives represented opposite. It is in fact a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives.

Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been on the page in a while, seems it's gotten a bit hot. Let's see if I can add a third voice and muck everything up. My take: The Moberg piece isn't talking about Third Way in the sense of this article, Timeshift, you're really stretching with that. That being said, Politico's Ben Smith offers a better snippet, more on point (dealing with economic policies). Phillip Adams in The Australian is a better source on Obama's role as a mediator between two extreme political philosophies, and how that evokes other Third Wayers. I think Adams might be overreaching, but that hardly matters (my thoughts are just original research, and the source is clearly claiming Obama is Third Way in the sense of this article). The Politico post is stronger, on point AND soundly argued, just a bit short and bloggery for the typical cite. At the very least, these sources taken together create a trend that warrants reference. I'm with Timeshift on the ultimate conclusion (though we apparently didn't get here on the same train). My impression: a little source cleanup wouldn't worsen the article, so long as Obama sticks around. --Thomas Btalk 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - If Obama is staying in the intro, he could stand to be included in section on the United States as well. --Thomas Btalk 12:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's still a {{citation needed}} tag in front of Obama. If no one can provide a source, it should be deleted per WP:V. Khoikhoi 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cites are above. But a tiny minority won't accept the validity of it. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
But is this article referring to centrism or a different kind of Third Way? The article is called "Obama's Third Way" and it also mentions a political "third way" -- but this doesn't necessarily equate to the centrist philosophy of Clinton, etc. It is indeed a third way, but it may not necessarily be the same thing as the radical center. And this article doesn't mention Obama at all. Were there any others? Khoikhoi 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A bit of WP:OR there. Essentially, Obama puts out a non-partisan, encompass all people image and policy direction. He has labelled himself third way in a political sense, it is hard to imagine any other way it could be taken. Timeshift (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Clearly selective editing.

Ottre (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not selective editing to call Obama third way when cites above say third way, and your quote says nothing about the third way. Use the talk page rather than removing what is clearly true. Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Added refs. Something is disputed so it has a fact tag on it, and discussion is being had here. There is no justification for the removal. Timeshift (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons require high quality references. Content does not satisfy WP:RS, therefore deleted. Ottre (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The biological reference restrictions are designed to limit "sensationalis[m]" and "titillating claims about people's lives," neither of which applies to a sourced analysis of political philosophy. --Thomas Btalk 11:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Your article doesn't even begin to contravene a biographical account of Obama's early years. Deleted. Ottre 10:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want a high quality source, let's use Zakaria's November 5th article from Newsweek, "Obama's Third Way," which discusses the intellectual legacy from Blair and Clinton, is obviously talking about the Third Way we're discussing in this article, is from a reputable source, is well argued, presented by one of the most intelligent and prolific commentators of our time, who happens to be the editor of a major publication, where it was originally presented. --Thomas Btalk 11:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's been no response in weeks to this suggestion, so I'm including the Zakaria link. --Thomas Btalk 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed economy[edit]

This is just a new name for a thousands year old idea that rejects the extreme positions that claim it is useful to maximize government control or minimize government control over the economy. See Mixed economy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Mixed Economy" is a descriptive term while "Third Way" is a normative stance, but you're right to note the similarities. --Thomas Btalk 11:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Way as they key reason why anti-status quo revolutions never took place in Western Europe and North America[edit]

Would it be too far fetched to say that the reason why anti-status quo (e.g.: communist) revolutions never occurred in North America and Western Europe, is EXACTLY due to the Third Way? For example, governments and companies began to yield to labour unions, rather than trying to squish them? (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second way = second world?[edit]

One of the links towards the end of the article reads second way, but goes to second world. Is this intended as a joke or is it correct, and if so should the context of the link make it more obvious it is correct. (The joke I am assuming is that if Second way = second world then presumably Third way = third world, as some sort of imputation that Third Way politics is going to end in economic disaster somehow) -- (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is an example of mixed metaphors. The collapse of the "Second World" did lead to a reexamination of political thought and the emergence of a "Third Way", but correlating Second World to Second Way leads to an obvious, but erroneous, correlation between Third World and Third Way. A response to this criticism is appropriate and necessary. Failing that, the link (and maybe even the "Second Way" verbage) needs to be deleted.

Page makes too many generalizations[edit]

The "Third Way" means something different in Europe than it does in the US because the center of European politics is much to the left of the center in US politics. Bill Clinton's "Third Way" was not a path between socialism and capitalism--only right-wing propaganda asserts that.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Way Socialism?[edit]

I first came across the term Third Way describing a trend of thought that sought to find a more radical democratic socialist position between social democracy and communism.

As I remember it it overlapped with elements of the Eurocommunism and was heavily influenced by the possibilites opened up by the reforms in the Soviet Union under Gorbachev.

It does not belong in this article but I feel in the absence of an article on the topic a note clarifying the difference would be helpful.

--Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 11:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Devolution in the UK[edit]

I see the UK section cites devolution to Scotland and Wales as an example of a Third Way policy. How can this possibly be, when it was a long-standing Labour commitment that Blair simply inherited, and that had been supported by every party leader since Harold Wilson? By all accounts Blair was not even particularly enthusiastic about it, but he realised he had no choice. I don't really see what devolution has got to do with the left-right spectrum anyway - it's about decentralisation and perhaps about small 'n' nationalism, but it could just as easily be implemented by a socialist, conservative or centrist government. Sofia9 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


None of the source call the "Third Way Centrism, although centrism is a possible third way, e.g., the German Centre Party was seated between Conservatives and Liberals. Could someone please provide a source for including centrism in the title. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama AGAIN[edit]

The article about Obama being a "third way" President was written the day after election day and it is now clear to everyone in America that he has his own left-leaning political views. No one can dispute that, and your only fooling people who read this article by including the link. Let people embrace his left wing views or attack it instead of hiding them to the rest of the world by calling them "third way". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you're so right wing you consider anyone who isn't a communist, that doesn't mean they actually are. --DraconianDebate (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Blatant disregard of NPOV guidelines[edit]

"The financial crisis of 2008 has demonstrated that Third Way economic policies, as fundamentally neoliberal as they are, could not weather the global economic collapse, further discrediting the movement as a true 'third alternative' to traditional right and left ideologies." has been removes from this article for violating NPOV guidelines, and for not having a source as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DraconianDebate (talkcontribs) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst you're right, WP:OR is the key issue more than WP:NPOV. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still learning VS

Democratic socialism or "traditional" socialism?[edit]

There is a dispute going on in the lead over whether we should use the term from that single source, or by the many more sources in the article, use democratic socialism.

First of all, "traditional" socialism is a very dubious term, which is not used in academic sources. What does it mean? Its anyone's guess, and that is not acceptable.

Secondly, according to the article and sources within the main body, the third way is a reconciliation between capitalism and democratic socialism, not any other kind of socialism, especially not such an odd term as traditional socialism.

I suggest we stay with what was established here for over a year. If users want it changes, then they need to create an argument for that and get consensus. Not me, who is defending the original version. ValenShephard (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional socialism means government ownership of the means of production. Regardless of what the article says, the source says "traditional forms of socialism." Democratic socialism would be considered a third way. You're being pretty disruptive by reverting my changes when I put in the the term the source uses. Rapidosity (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The source says "The idea of a Third Way between, or perhaps beyond, traditional forms of socialism and capitalism.." It doesn't say anything about democratic socialism. That would be a non-traditional form of socialism. You're committing academic fraud by representing the source saying it says something that it doesn't. Rapidosity (talk)
Did you read any of my argument? Have you read the article itself? There are other sources in the article which mention it being linked to democratic socialism exactly. When writing a lead, you dont have to attach tons of sources. You are making a summary of the article, and you can use information which is sourced within to do that. You dont just stick strictly to the one source attached to it. You are making changes, so YOU have to explain and get consensus first, not me. Until you do this, the article will stay the same. If your edits were not controversial, then it would be ok, but they are. ValenShephard (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, how can you argue that the third way has any traditional socialism in it? That is simply untrue. By your defition: public ownership of means of production. Does the third way want that? Absolutely not. If you read the article you would understand. The third way doesn't mess with capitalism, they advocate a welfare state not even nationalisation. For example, famous third way governments have privitised alot. Third way is not between socialism as you know it, and capitalism. Its between social democracy or democratic socialism and capitalism, It doesnt mess at all with the ownership of means of production. You need to get this. ValenShephard (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What?? I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am not saying the third way has traditional socialism in it. I'm saying, as the source says, that the third way is something OTHER than traditional socialism and capitalism. Social democracy would be a third way. Rapidosity (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Even the source you added is backing up what I've been saying. It says "Put at its most basic the Third Way is something different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism..." It's saying democratic socialism is a third way. The third way can't be between capitalism and democratic socialism if democratic socialism is a third way. And it says "the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism" "Top down socialism" IS traditional socialism. That's where the government owns the means of production. That's what he third way is NOT. Rapidosity (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you understand what you are saying. You don't understand socialism. Top down socialism is not traditional socialism, socialism is a movement from below. That is original research on your part, an assumption. We can't assume anything. Because the source is not clear on what "traditional" socialism is, we have to use another source, like I have. You still haven't addressed my argument that if you read the article (have you done this?) you will see that the third way is close to social democracy and liberalism, not traditional, or top down, or whatever socialism.

This quote: "Put at its most basic the Third Way is something different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism..."

Shows that the ideology has admiration for liberal capitalism and democratic socialism. Which is what you have been trying to change in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you not read? Are you just quickly glancing over my text? Why do you keep responding as if I'm saying something totally opposite of what I'm saying? Go back and read our discussion. And YOUR source says "Top down socialism." Rapidosity (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't get too personal. You didn't understand the quotes you showed me. The quotes say that the third way admires both free market capitalism and democratic socialism. And that is what you have been trying to change. The original writing said that, and the source backs it up. Have you read through the article and got a better understanding of what the third way is? ValenShephard (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand the quotes I gave you. You're really lost here. Let me try to explain to you the basic concept. The third way rejects both laissez-faire capitalism and state ownership of the means of production, centrally planned economy (also known as traditional or top down or classic socialism). It's an attempt at a compromise position in between the two. See? So it takes elements from both an blends them into a "third way." Rapidosity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC).
Top down, or classic socialism are not real terms. You cannot use them because they are not used in most academic sources. The source refers directly to the ideology admiring democratic socialism. Why can't you accept this? It admires democratic socialism and goes against state socialism. Why cant you reconcile this? ValenShephard (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why can't you see that you're saying the same thing I'm saying??? I'm also saying it rejects state socialism. That's what "Third Way approaches are commonly viewed from within the first- and second-way perspectives as representing a centrist compromise between traditional, "top down," socialism and capitalism" MEANS. It is saying the third way reject state socialism. If it "admires democratic socialism" then it is not rejecting democratic socialism. Rapidosity (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Democratic socialism does NOT support state socialism, a command economy. Rapidosity (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I have a discussion with you when you dont have a good understanding of what you are talking about? The third way takes from the free market and from democratic socialism. What is wrong with this accurate statement?

You're still not understanding what it is. A third way is a rejection/compromise of laissez-faire and a command economy (classic socialism, traditional socialism, top-down socialism, Communism, state socialism, whatever you want to call it). Democratic socialism would be an example OF such a rejection/compromise. I just put a source in the article for democratic socialism being a third way philosophy. The source says "Democratic socialism is sometimes referred to as a 'third way' to distinguish it from capitalism, which leans heavily toward the market model, and communism, which leans heavily toward the command model." If democratic socialism IS a third way, then how can the third way be a compromise between laissez-faire and democratic socialism? It doesn't make sense what you're saying. Rapidosity (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Democratic socialism is not an example of the third way. Are you confusing it with social democracy? Democratic socialism is much more left wing than the third way, which is a centrist ideology. How can a left wing ideology be an example of a centrist ideology? ValenShephard (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that the definition in the lead represents the source. See Bobbio's Left and Right.[5] Presumably lots of ideologies could be seen as third way. Blair's third way was just a middle ground between the old social liberal paradigm and the new neoliberal one. Thatcherism with a human face. Part of it included repealing Clause IV but in reality Labour had abandoned socialist policies decades before. TFD (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, its from this kind of knowledge that I believe the third way, in reality (maybe not their own conception), is only a compromise between liberalism and social democracy, or democratic socialism (which has become much less radical and more like social democracy in the past 20-30 years) at best. ValenShephard (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "western" marxism =/= "classic" marxism(gulaguism)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Democratic socialism refers to policies that strive towards socialism through democratic means - not to social democracy. I think the source presented is highly dubious as it disagrees with basically all the sources used in the article on Democratic socialism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

it´s center-left and not "third way"[edit]

  • Keynesian economics, Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini

keynes(1930´s) was a plagiarist of mussolini(1920´s).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As a novice to this word I do not understand so perhaps more details are needed.[edit]

The dictionary defines it as a political policy that is neither Socialist nor Conservative, but combines aspects of free-market capitalism with egalitarian social aims.

It is capitalist and not socialist so it doesnt advocate the state owning the mean of production. I understand that but what does not conservative mean and what does egalitarian social aims mean? Is it social justice capitalism? Welfare capitalism? Neo-liberalism economically and liberal socially?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talkcontribs) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Third Way social democracy into this article. It is not clear how these two topics are distnct, as most literature uses them interchangeably and mostly as one topic. It is theory construction (WP:OR) to make two topics out of it. RJFF (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Merge the articles. Dnm (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
yes merge. "Third Way" is generally explained as a centrist development within Social Democracy in the 1990es.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. Third Way social democracy is distinct from Third Way liberalism in the United States. Third Way social democracy declares itself to be socialist (Tony Blair has called it "ethical socialism") while Third Way liberalism supports reformed capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: You know that we write Wikipedia from a neutral POV. It is not relevant how the actors and protagonists (e.g. Blair) see the issue themselves, but how independent, third-party scholars analyse and assess it. --RJFF (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
So you are insinuating that Blair could be dishonest when he calls what he advocates "ethical socialism". You need reliable sources to demonstrate this. Also remember, that discussion at the Socialism talk page and at a neutrality discussion board, has not yet been able to arrive at an encompassing definition of socialism - what is known is that encompassing definition of socialism is not the common stereotypical definition of public ownership of the means of production - because the original socialists Saint Simon and Fourier never advocated that, and modern socialists like anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe have advocated a socialist form of private property.--R-41 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that you had edited for quite some time and would know Wikipedia guidelines. We adher to NPOV and persons tied to the subject or actors of a movement (like Blair) are first-party, and never independent third-party sources, no matter whether we believe them to be honest or not. This has nothing to do with honesty, but only with POV, because the description of political ideologies and currents is not an exact, natural science, and there is no absolute truth here. --RJFF (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about the definition of socialism with you, but about whether or not Third Way social democracy and this article treat basically one and the same topic. And the sources indicate so. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
R-41, as you have started the article Third Way social democracy, you are basically its sole editor, and you are the only to oppose the merger, could you please explain what - in your view - is the topic of that article, what is the topic of this article (Third way (centrism)), how can the two be delimited, and why is it untenable to merge the two? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all "Third Way (centrism)" is an inaccurate name for the article. The movement is led by centre-left progressives. A more accurate name would be "Third Way (centre-left)" If it is going to be included, it has to account for the variation of economic policy positions between the social liberal Democratic Party of the United States under Clinton and the social democratic and liberal socialist Labour Party of the United Kingdom under Blair. Their policies are related but distinct, Clinton officially supports capitalism, Blair officially supports ethical socialism. The Labour Party openly supports a greater sphere of public enterprise in the economy than the Democratic Party of the US does. They both agree upon centre-left, fiscally responsible progressive politics.--R-41 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please get me right: just because some supporters of Third Way have a social-democratic background, and others don't, it is not two distinct topics. Third Way basically is a variant of social democracy, so there is no point in having an extra article on Third Way social democracy. It is quite redundant. If we have an article on Third Way social democracy, then what is the topic of this article? --RJFF (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I support a merge. Seems silly having this article; Third Way is a type of social democracy. --Peter (Talk page) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the article could be easily incorporated into the United Kingdom section of this article, which is lacking currently. --Peter (Talk page) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I will agree to a merger if the article is appropriately renamed Third Way (centre-left politics) and that the intro be specific that Third Way is about centre-left progressivism.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Who holds you from editing the intro and posting a move request? But this has nothing to do with the merger discussion. The only question in the merger discussion is whether or not both articles cover one and the same subject that should be treated in one article. And this is the case. --RJFF (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: I would say that the bracket title is unnecessary as this is the primary topic - 29,290 views in the last 3 months vs. 916 for Third Way (India) + 386 for Third Way (France) + 641 for Third Way (Israel) + 1,064 for Third Way (Palestinian Authority) + 1,826 for Third Way (UK) + 1,095 for Ulster Third Way + 117 for The Third Way community + 1,339 for Third Way Magazine + 2,598 for Third Way (think tank) = 9,982 for all other articles together. So this articles gets viewed three times as often as all other articles under this title together. This indicates that this is the primary topic. --RJFF (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I would support a move to Third Way, as this is the primary topic. This also has the bonus of not immediately labeling Third Way as either centre-left or centrist. An adequate hat note link would be: . Simple. -- Peter Talk page 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


  • The third way transformation of social democracy: normative claims and policy initiatives in the 21st century. Oliver Schmidtke Ashgate, 2002 - 252
  • The third way: the renewal of social democracy. Anthony Giddens. Wiley-Blackwell, 1998
  • Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way. Flavio Romano. Routledge.
  • Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century. Steve Bastow, James Martin. Edinburgh University Press, jun 1, 2003·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename article to "Third Way (centre-left)"[edit]

As I have noted earlier, Third Way is promoted as a centre-left progressive doctrine by its adherents. It is a response to the neoliberal monetarist condemnation of state interventionist economics. Therefore I am supporting that it be renamed (and in affect on Wikipedia, moved to) "Third Way (centre-left)".--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Move article[edit]

No consensus to move. --RA (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third Way (centrism)Third Way – I propose that this article is simply moved to Third Way. As discussed, "the third way" can just as easily be described as cente-left, even if it is intended to be a compromise between capitalism and socialism. Simply be titled as Third Way leaves a lot more room for a discussion of what this means and I'd hope the article can be edited to explain this.

A quick Google search of the term shows that this article tops the results, followed by a BBC news article on the ideology and after that a link to the UK political party. Using stats, it is clear that this article is by far the most visited (compare 10,000+ views to the 222 views that the mentioned UK party's article got last month [6]). It seems unnecessarily cumbersome to have a postfix added after the title when this article is by far the most visited.

I also propose adding to this article a hatnote similar to:

The last link would be the current Third Way article renamed.

I hope other users will agree that a rename is needed. -- Peter Talk to me 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support [update: conditional see below] - but "way" should not be capitalized per WP:MOS unless it is the dominant common form, which I think is unlikely but haven't looked into it.Cupco 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Third Way is capitalised as a common noun. Somewhat comparable to "New Deal". See:

All use "Third Way", capitalised, throughout.

Additional citations in the article use capitalisation. And Giddens (the man who effectively coined the phrase) titled his book "The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy" -- Peter Talk to me 20:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Third Way is already a disambiguation page with a dozen or so articles on it. I see you propose to move that to Third Way (disambiguation). So I think you need some indication that people are looking for this article more than all the other articles combined. You can measure that with http://stats.grok.seCupco 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move (new attempt)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

– In my understanding, the last move request only failed because no one showed that this page is looked for more often than the other meanings of "Third Way". I will do this now: According to, this page has been viewed 37,659 times during the last three months, compared to 702 for Third Way (India) + 427 for Third Way (France) + 578 for Third Way (Israel) + 1,178 for Third Way (Palestinian Authority) + 1,391 for Third Way (UK) + 872 for Ulster Third Way + 181 for Third Way (Belarus) + 725 for Third Way Magazine + 2,715 for Third Way (think tank) = 8,769 for all other articles together. So this articles gets viewed four times as often as all other articles under this title together. It clearly seems to be the WP:Primary topic. RJFF (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Both this and the previous nomination clearly show that this is the primary topic. I would add that many of the other entities called "Third Way" are derivative, i.e. they are organizations that purport to offer a political Third Way. —  AjaxSmack  01:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The use of the term "Third Way" currently is widely used to refer to the movement described in this present article.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

left-right dimension and third way[edit]

I understand that this talk page is not really in use (although it's an oversophisticated thing for me why), but i just have to add a few thoughts, hoping there are people following this page.
The whole discussion seems to be quite speculative. The tendency is not having basic knowledge about third way, and it has an extremely narrow and partisan (leftist) bias.
Third way is a rich and incoherent field, consult Steve Bastow, James Martin (2003): Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century, Edinburgh University Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)