This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The arguably misnamed article History of the term "liberal" is a content fork of Liberalism and should be merged in. While the title suggests this is a philological study of the word liberal, the article's actual content is more in line with history of liberalism, with the etymological content only recently added. In any case, it should be merged into Liberalism. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 04:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the new template at the top because I am quite certain that at least the first sentence of the article is a summary of american liberalism and not liberalism in general. Perhaps we can find a better way to put things in perspective. Basically, the issue is that the definition of liberalism outside America, mostly, is the same as " classical liberalism". So, there can be a huge deal of confusion regarding the reference to the defense of egalitarianism. Maybe we should straight that out in the first paragraph. Maziotis ( talk) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the template since there was no reason for placing it there. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I see little American bias in this article, although American liberalism has been very influential worldwide, not just in America. I would also take umbrage with the claim that liberalism outside of the United States is "mostly" understood as classical liberalism. It depends on the continent, it depends on the region, and it very often depends on the particular country. In North America, liberalism is traditionally understood to be social, progressive, secular, feminist, and leftist, at least in the popular imagination. The variations begin in Europe, where it gets really complicated, often because a single nation has multiple liberal parties that represent different sides of liberalism. Take Moldova, which has three significant liberal parties, as an example. Two of the parties support classical liberalism and the other one supports social liberalism. The Netherlands is another famous case with influential liberal parties, one (D66) supporting social liberalism and the other (VVD) supporting classical liberalism. In Britain, liberalism is understood to belong to the center-left political tradition. In France, it has often been center-right since the late nineteenth century. As I said, Europe is tricky. Liberalism has been rather amorphous there. In recent times, it's been used as a progressive force by right-wing movements opposed to the expansion of Islam in Europe. There are also variations in Latin America, largely caused by neoliberalism. Before the rise of these neoliberal economic movements, liberalism in Latin America had much the same meaning as it did (and does) in North America: a social and progressive ideology that attempted to change and to modernize the world. This meaning has been turned on its head in some Latin American countries, although not in all. Witness the likes of Honduras, Columbia, and Paraguay, all nations with very powerful modern liberal parties. In Africa, liberalism is relatively new, and because the continent is generally conservative, liberalism is virtually exclusively viewed as a progressive ideology and movement. We also see major variations in Asia, which has large liberal parties on both sides of the liberal ideological spectrum. In short, liberalism is understood differently in different parts of the world....BUT (very important but) Rick is also generally right in emphasizing the common themes and ideals that bond all liberals together, modernists and classicists. Those ideals -- support for constitutions, support for free and fair elections, support for democratic governments, support for free trade and free markets, support for human rights and civil rights, and support for environmental protection -- transcend any boundaries within the liberal sphere. UberCryxic ( talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't neoconservativism a form of positive liberty? Historically many neoconservatives are former socialists or social liberals that now advocate active and aggressive promotion of liberalism in foreign policy. I am talking of neoconservatism its true sense, not the buzz-word neo-con being thrown around. Should it be added to the See Other section?-- Exander ( talk) 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking this article should actually just be a disambiguation page. It looks like various kinds of liberalism are being conflated and it's very confusing. The disambiguation would be between political liberalism, social liberalism, classical liberalism, economic liberalism, etc. All Male Action 04:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
10:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)It seems to me that the idea that the various forms of liberalism have "entirely different meanings" is a pose. All liberals, for example, favor freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, representative democracy, trial by jury, and so on. Their differences usually have to do with the conflicting roles of the federal government -- when the government acts to increase the freedom of some, it may be forced to act to decrease the freedom of others. For example, when slaves were given freedom, the slave owners were deprived of their property. But even the most extreme liberals in any variety of liberalism still are in favor of freedom, as contrasted to the original enemies of liberalism, who favored the existing class structure, the absolute authority of the church, and the devine right of kings. Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Rick Norwood 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In the US, "Liberals" are the "Left". In Latin America, "Liberals" are on the "Right". In Europe, "Liberals" are "Centrist". The key question is - What accounts for this diversity: different strands of what is caled "Liberalism" or simply vagaries in the history and national politics of these countries? Giorgioz 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with those who think it should be just a disambig page. What people in different parts of the world usually refer to as "Liberalism" have wildly different meanings. I also don't think there is such a common bond of "freedom". So-called-Liberals Social-Democrats from North America emphasize positive freedom and, consequently, a great degree of state-tutelage, whereas most "Liberal" Liberals from around the world staying true to the tradition of Classical Liberalism emphasize negative freedom and absolute opposition to all forms of coercion, including from the state. It's naïve to think that American "Liberals", just because they came to be called as such for historical reasons, are still in the fold. Most have adopted a light version of Social-Democracy a long time ago. Just think of an experiment where American "Liberals" were transported to Europe and tried to join Liberal parties there: they would immediately be shunned by most as excessively interventionist and instead be advised to join one of the various Social-Democratic Parties. The only "Liberals" inside the American left who would be considered "Liberal" in most of the world outside the US are the "Moderates" / New Democrats. Apart from that, the two groups are now irreconcilable, in world terms.
Justice III 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rick and others; this should not be a disambiguation page. It traces the development of liberalism in general and contains a lot of information that the other articles could just not very easily incorporate. Likewise, there are some foundations of liberalism which are not questionable, as UberCryxic already mentioned. -- Cie lomobile talk / contribs 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Justice III's phrase "worthy of the name" shows a strong POV. Rick Norwood 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I used the phrase with the meaning "fit to be called as such in world terms". No offense or POV intended, sorry if it made you upset. Let it be known that I have ammended the comment. Now PLEASE let us stay on topic. You responded to 4 words, not to the arguments... Justice III 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Having simply one central article suggests that differences are minor and can be explained with a few notes, when in fact they are not, and a detailed explanation of each concept can be given in their respective articles. When a word has diverging socio-historical meanings the best way to deal with it is to have a disambiguation page. You can still talk succintly about the differences in the text that follows the links, and there will be no more illusions about a unitary definition of "liberalism". Just see the following examples that this article should follow: Radicalism, Revisionism, Anti-Stalinist left. Justice III 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The current page should stay as it is. Besides, in a way, it is a disambiguity page. Unlike typical disambiguity however, it goes further to explain why there are many branches of liberalism. The reason why branches of liberalism have different meanings is the evolution of liberal thinking. This article describes that evolution. Regardless, any liberalism, like has been mentioned earlier, has a central, ultimate theme. All branches of liberalism have the same end but different means of achieving that end. __earth ( Talk) 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Justice, your arguments are based on a very restricted, very narrow and very POV view of freedom (and yes I do realise I just said "Point of View view".) Part of this view is that the involvement of the state and freedom are two fundamentally opposed things, this is NOT what Classical Liberals thought (as much as you can classify "Classical Liberals" as having said one thing.) Most Classical Liberals were utilitarians who argued for the involvement of the state in areas that private interests are unable to provide. The difference is that Modern Liberals see more areas where private interests are deficient. Slizor 11:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that, coupled with recent developments in in European social-democracy, is precisely what makes American Liberalism another name for American Social-Democracy. Justice III 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why, by your reasoning, the differences between Socialism and Libertarianism should also be "minor"(!), as their claimed heritage comes from the same background as the one you mentioned. The problem is that you are reading too much into a name. FDR associates chose the name "Liberalism" for post-1929 policies because it suited their purposes and avoided linking them to Communism, not because Liberalism has to do with pork-barrel spending. If we must define ideologies based on the names people in specific countries gave them, we should even include the Colombian Liberal Party, which is a full member of Socialist International, as "Liberal"! The choice of the name in America was arbitrary. Why do you think Classical Liberals had to regroup as "Libertarians" in the US? Because they knew that their name had been hijacked by Cryptosocialists and that the two groups didn't have anything in common. Contrary to your claim, there is no continuity between the Old Liberalism in 19th c. America and modern crytosocialist "liberalism". Only a bunch of registered Democrats Wikipedia editors could argue so. Have you ever read the same definition in encyclopedia Britannica, or any such non-wiki encyclopedic definition of liberalism? There's even mention there of this illusion of continuity as the great "myth" of American "liberalism". So, get real, it is just a word. There is no continuity of thought, and the only views shared by American cryptosocialists and "outside world" liberalism are those espoused by most political groups today (liberty, democracy, equality of opportunity, etc., etc. It's very easy to find any two groups with these views in common and claim they must be linked.) Besides, it is a completely Americocentrist view to reduce the picture of modern liberalism to certain American stereotypes of "liberals" who are in fact (crypto)socialists. The two (unrelated) groups must be clearly distinguished if you want info on Liberalism in Wikipedia to be taken seriously. Justice III 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Justice III is far too unfamiliar with liberal history for me to even attempt a cogent response, but needless to say the foundational principles outlined above are what give liberalism its unique status and provide a compelling reason to give liberalism its own article. Just for a brief word, however: per Rick, there is continuity in liberal thought and ideology. This "cryptosocialist" talk erroneously presumes that liberalim was transformed into socialism or communism simply because it was influenced by them. UberCryxic 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well...mostly by Locke, and in the 17th century. There were several others who laid the groundwork before Locke, but he identified and coalesced the main features of liberal ideology. Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke, but that in no way constitutes "founding" liberalism. UberCryxic 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I can agree with that somewhat. The United States is, in many ways, the first liberal democracy. I just question how that means Thomas Jefferson "founded" liberalism. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he was one of the first to apply liberal principles in forming a nation-state? UberCryxic 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your initial statement, but not with your interpretations and conclusions. Preferrably, we should be able to derive virtually all liberal principles, including those of political liberalism, from the foundations of liberalism as a whole. In that sense, all Jefferson did was to, again, apply the principles that had been worked out before him. In terms of political movements, those of the French Revolution were far more significant than what Jefferson did in the US. It was the French Revolution that essentially led to the explosion of liberalism as a sociopolitically viable alternative. UberCryxic 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter what came first in light of the earlier statements in my last paragraph. All liberal principles should be derived from a core set of tenets. "Founding" liberalism can only happen once, and it happened with Locke (mostly; again, I emphasize that other people also had a "foundational" influence upon liberalism even though we can't say that they "founded" it). In terms of political movements, the French Revolution made liberalism prominent, even though the American Revolution came first. Furthermore, the American Revolution was liberal in the sense that it was about (mainly) liberty, but the French Revolution widened the scope of what liberalism meant, making it universal (ie. that it belonged to everyone, among other things). UberCryxic 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
but the French Revolution widened the scope of what liberalism meant, making it universal
What? Talking about all persons having unalianable rights is not universal enough?-- Flix2000 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not turn this article into a mere disambiguation page leading to multiple, seperate varieties of liberalism. Liberalism may be a varied phenomenon, but it is a single historical phenomenon in the sense that the later branchings do have their root in the original spread of liberalism. For liberalism to be studied as a proper historical concept it must be studied as a whole phenomenon, starting with the historical roots, before branching out to study more specific flavors. The same holds true for conservatism, communism, authoritarianism, anarchism and any other "-ism" you can think of. -- Molon Labe 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation. Aside from the etymology of the word, classical liberalism has almost nothing to do with the meaning that the word carries within the United States and more to the point, to the context in which pages usually link to this one. I went through and cleaned up many dozens of links recently, switching them to modern American liberalism and didn't even make it a significant portion of the way through the full list. The fact is that liberalism has become a euphamism for left leaning or often simply Democrat in US English. I remember it being explained to me as a synonym for progressive when young. The fact that the present usage slowly evolved from a reference to classical liberalism is interesting, but mostly as a historical note. Naturally that isn't true for the rest of the English speaking world (or in Germany where I live --- where the Liberalen are the furthest right of the mainstream parties and closer to classical liberalism). However, it's that sort of ambiguity that disambiguation pages are for.
The bits above about things that all liberals have in common has little relevance to modern usage. As a political ideology, those ideals are things that every significant political body pays (at a minimum) lip service to in the western world. As such no one would use the expression (in the modern west) "I am a liberal." in reference to those qualities; they would almost certainly be establishing themselves as being aligned with the European right or the American left. Scott.wheeler 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It Seems to me most of the confusion in this term comes from Americans who are constantly told the Democrats are Liberals, when infact by the rest of the worlds standards it is a Social Democratic party, not a Liberal party? 121.44.35.80 ( talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As a non-partisan Independent, I was struck by the fact that "Conservatism" has an elaborate section called "Psychology" which implied that one could only be a conservative if you were descended from Neanderthals and abused in childhood. Yes, that is an exaggeration of the content, but that "Psychology" section is a clear "plant" by movement liberals to discredit conservative concepts as being due to emotional reactions, rather than rational and academic thought. In actuality, I have seen much more emphasis in political literature on the "psychology of liberals", with the idea of "liberal guilt" being used to explain the preponderance of liberalism amongst wealthy celebrities who have been the beneficiaries of lucky breaks. I am not proposing that any of the above concepts - of either side - are accurate, just that the Wikipedia presentation seems surprisingly slanted, especially given that the "criticism" section of Liberalism is astonishingly short, consisting of one obscure and difficult reference, which seems to be present simply so that someone can claim that "yes there is a criticism section". This is quite amazing, considering that biographies of minor pop stars or sports stars, whose lives have no impact on society other than entertaining people, have big Wikipedia stamps " THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE SLANTED ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 ( talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Cyrus was busy too with a blatant propaganda campaign throughout the Babylonian Empire, winning support for what were presented as his liberal policies. The Greek historians tell us that he treated Croesus with kindness and respect and certainly his generosity in his treatment of local priests in Asia Minor won him a reputation for clemency and religious tolerance." Joan Oats, Babylon, 1986.
Liberals are often accused of spending more than conservatives, but the federal budget is a matter of record. Every president spends more than the one before, liberal and conservative alike. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course, provided you get to pick and choose who qualifies as a "true conservative". But an awful lot of people who self-identify as conservative, starting with George W. Bush, have in fact spent a great deal of other people's money. As for redistributing the wealth, the greatest redistribution of the wealth in history took place during Bush's administration, see Income inequality in the United States. Liberals are not trying to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. They're just trying to slow the rate at which the wealth is redistributed from the poor to the rich. Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
From George W. Bush's official biography at www.whitehouse.gov
"...he earned a reputation for his bipartisan governing approach and his compassionate conservative philosophy, which was based on limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control."
One big problem in trying to make Wikipedia articles informative is that liberals try to turn this article into "everything I personally like about liberalism and nothing I dislike", while conservatives try to turn it into "everything I personally hate about liberalism and nothing good." Neither approach is appropriate.
Similarly with the meaning of "conservative". One meaning is "to conserve the class structure". And the word conservative has never meant "to decrease the size of government". But Bush, while he in fact worked to increase the wealth and power of the upper class, paid lip service to "limited government". And Carl Rove used Orwellian techniques to try to change the language, and replace ideas with slogans. Thus my occasional posts on how words are used by people who know what they're talking about. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I tagged the "Neoliberalism" section as POV. The sources for the section are a Die Welt editorial and the Fraser Institute. The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Only one subset of liberalism - social liberalism - considers egalitarianism an important political goal. Classical liberalism, neoliberalism and others emphatically do NOT. Therefore, including egalitarianism in the broad definition of liberalism is patently wrong. Only those political goals on which ALL strains of liberalism agree - individual rights and liberties and equality under the law - are to be included in the broad definition of liberalism.
Egalitarianism needs to be mentioned as important to social liberalism later on in the article.
Do not automatically revert edits and then invite others to the talk page. This is against the wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.21.45 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"(thats just untrue and not at all generally accepted. Britain was a democracy long before the US (what with the entire reason for the revolution being British democratic rights not extending to the col)"
Britain was (and is) a monarchy. The United States is not a democracy, but a republic. (...and to the republic for which it stands...) Representative government and liberalism usually go hand in hand, but they are not synonyms.
Most political scientists consider America to be the first modern liberal state because it explicitly rejected the class system still common at the time in most European states. A case can be made for Switzerland as the first modern liberal state. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately "suggestions for further reading" cannot substantiate specific claims. Yes, the article has 49 footnotes. This is not much. In comparison to subjects in a similar vein and with a similar scope it is conspicuously on the low-end. Libertarianism has 3 times as many footnotes, capitalism, neoliberalism and libertarian socialism all roughly twice as many. Consider the following example of a paragraph explicating the ideas of Adam Smith:
The Scotsman Adam Smith (1723–1790) expounded the theory that individuals could structure both moral and economic life without direction from the state, and that nations would be strongest when their citizens were free to follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to state-granted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated "laissez-faire" government. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, he developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interest and an unregulated social order. In The Wealth of Nations, 1776, he argued that the market, under certain conditions, would naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the heavily restricted markets that were the norm at the time. He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which could not be entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing individuals from using force or fraud to disrupt competition, trade, or production. His theory of taxation was that governments should levy taxes only in ways which did not harm the economy, and that "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He agreed with Hume that capital, not gold, is the wealth of a nation.
I count about 11 explicit claims in the paragraph about what Smith is supposed to have believed - yet! -there is not even one footnote, not even one reference substantiated by the work of Smith himself. Many of these claims being made about Smith views are far from being uncontroversial. Consider the views expressed in the introduction of this article and in the above paragraph that Smith can considered an advocate of laissez-faire. A modern day liberal and Smithian like Amartya Sen does not think as much..."Smith viewed markets and capital as doing good work within their own sphere, but first, they required support from other institutions—including public services such as schools—and values other than pure profit seeking, and second, they needed restraint and correction by still other institutions—e.g., well-devised financial regulations and state assistance to the poor—for preventing instability, inequity, and injustice. If we were to look for a new approach to the organization of economic activity that included a pragmatic choice of a variety of public services and well-considered regulations, we would be following rather than departing from the agenda of reform that Smith outlined as he both defended and criticized capitalism." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22490. A recently well-received intellectual biography of Smith by James Buchan argues that "A close reading of The Wealth of Nations and other good evidence shows that Adam Smith was no doctrinaire free trader...He believed that government should be involved not only in educating but in entertaining the public. The words laisser faire or laissez faire appear nowhere in his work. Though he deplored British commercial policy in Ireland, the Americas and India, he thought the solution was not independence for those countries, but federation with the mother country." (Buchan, James. The Authentic Adam Smith : His Life and Ideas, W.W.Norton, 2006, p3). In "Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century" the influential historical sociologist Giovanni Arrighi writes, "As Donald Winch has authoritatively argued, Smith's description of political economy as a "branch of the science of a statesman or legislator" and of his own contribution as a "theory" or set of "general principles," concerning law and government is an accurate characterization of his intentions and achievements. Far from theorizing a self-regulating market that would work best with a minimalist state or no state at all, The Wealth of Nations, no less than the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the unpublished Lectures on Jurisprudence, presupposed the existence of a strong state that would create and reproduce the conditions for the existence of the market; that would use the market as an effective instrument of government; that would regulate its operation; and that would actively intervene to correct or counter its socially or politically undesirable outcomes." (Arrighi, Giovanni. Adam Smith in Beijing. Verso Press. 2007. p.44). If only this case of a cavalier and disinforming portrayal of Adam Smith was just an isolated example...unfortunately, in my opinion, it is not. BernardL ( talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I would think that the best reference for a statement that "Adam Smith expounded..." would be the writing of Adam Smith. Of course, the best reference for "Followers of Adam Smith believe..." would be a secondary source. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There are any number of serious problems with the lede. It is wordy. It jumps to American politics too quickly. It argues with itself. I am going to try to improve it, using major standard references and books by respected academic authors. Help is always welcome. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on the first subsection, mainly adding references. The next section, "Variations", seems to be almost entirely about political squabbles in America today, and as so has no place here. That subject is covered in Modern American Liberalism. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The next section, "Comparative influences" is very badly written, and the information there really belongs in the next section on the development of liberal ideas. I'm not at all sure that "Development of thought" is a good title for that section. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Rick Norwood, what you're doing to the intro is definitely not an improvement. You deleted all mention about the changes in liberalism from the laissez-faire ideas represented in the early liberalism to the interventionist ideas of later liberalism, as if it has been one constant set of ideas. I see you even changed the header of the article saying it discussed the "development" of liberalism with your edit summary "change section title from the awkward "development of thought" to a more descriptive title" just so you could give the impression that there was no development of change in the ideas over liberalism's long history. Also, you've put an exclamation from Martin Luther King say "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last" as if that represents liberalism in such as a way that it should top the article? Talk about POV! Good luck keeping that there, even without my help in deleting it. You've destroyed what was a much better intro. Introman ( talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Encyclopedia Britannica presents its article as an historical narrative, with the various schools described as they emerged. It does not have a Variations section. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done some more work on the article, mainly adding references, but also moving sections around so that the organization makes more sense: lede, origins, philosophy, politics. Much more work remains to be done. The next long section, beginning from the picture of Benito Juárez, has no references at all! Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Introman has added the following tag to the lead
with the notation POV intro tag. See discussion. I assume he is referring to your statement about the changes in liberalism from the laissez-faire ideas represented in the early liberalism to the interventionist ideas of later liberalism. So here we have a concept that allowed modern science, democracy, the rule of law and world trade, among other things, to develop and you think that the lead should point out that there is a significant division between liberals who for example thought that federal meat inspection was a good thing and those who were opposed?
Alright, how do you think it should be phrased?
The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Although you may find the second paragraph "bizarre" it reflects mainstream thought on modern American ideology. Your conversation would be more helpful if you were familiar with the subject. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read and added references to the article up to the section titled "Modern liberalism". The part of the article from "Modern liberalism" on is more than twice as long as the first part, which seems disproportionate. My goal now is to shorten that part, remove repetition, and provide organization and unity. Help is, as always, greatly appreciated. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to pause after just three sentences in the "modern liberalism" section. I'm not comfortable doing this alone. Maybe The Four Deuces would be able to help? The rest of the article is a jumble, jumping back and forth between 1776 and 2009. After the rise of communism, it seems to me, should come the section on the Great Depression, but in the article as it stands that comes much later, after some theoretical sections on American politics. It seems to me we need to bring "modern liberalism" up to the present day, while avoiding both the Scylla of too much American politics and the Chyribdis of ignoring America entirely. Discussions of various forms of liberalism should follow, in a section of their own. Comments? Suggestions? Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to take a shot at writing it? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've slowly worked through the section on the Great Depression, moving most of the arguements for or against various economic theories to later in the article, since they effectively brought the story of the history of liberalism to a grinding halt. The next two sections, beginning with Totalitarianism, have no references at all! I'm willing to tackle them, because I think somebody needs to read the entire article, from beginning to end, and add references. But help is, as always, welcome. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
"The political history of the 20th Century can be seen as a cold war between liberal democracy and communism, though other enemies of liberalism, fascism and more recently Islamism, have also struggled for dominance." - I don't think it's correct to say that all Islamism is an enemy of liberalism, but I'm not sure how to change the sentence. Conservative Islamism? Islamofacism? Some of Islamism? Most of Islamism? It's too complex to put in a couple of words, as it includes fascists (bin Laden), theocrats, and royalists (caliphists?). Any suggestions?
DrStockmann (
talk) 11:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[6]
According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality."[7] In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook".[8] In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism."[9], of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an extreme example.
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.[10][11][12] Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals. Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America,[13] founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[14], that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[15]
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, suitable for a free man) is the creed that holds that individuals should be free. This belief echoes throughout history, from the revolt of the Roman slave Spartacus to the famous words quoted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last".[neutrality disputed]
The beginning of modern liberal thought is usually credited to John Locke, who wrote, in 1690, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]. During the Age of Enlightenment philosophers and political leaders alike began to reject many of the foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary aristocracy, established religion, and economic protectionism. [2][3][4] In their place came a belief in the dignity and worth of individuals.[5][6][7][8][9]
Liberalism holds that the only legitimate form of government is one that respects the liberty of its citizens, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[10]
Governments influenced by the Enlightenment include those of The Netherlands, Switzerland, England, Poland, and France. The first nation to be founded on liberal principles, without a monarch or an aristocracy, was the United States. The American Declaration of Independence includes the famous phrase (based on Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[11][12]
Today liberalism is the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as freedom of speech and government by consent, principles accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.[13]
However, liberals do not agree on other things, such as on the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty.
User The Four Deuces has put in an unsourced or wrongly sourced statement while deleting a properly sourced statement. That's the reverse of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I deleted the statement "All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law" which was sourced to the 1947 "Oxford Manifesto" [4]. The reason I deleted it is because , first of all it's not true that all liberals are in favor of democracy, not sure if they all would support "liberal democracy," but also because you can't source a claim about "all liberals" by a primary source like that of one group of people describing themselves. However, The Four Deuces has put the line back in. I think he's unjustified in doing this, for the reason I just stated. I also added the line "However, liberals do not agree on other things, such as on the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty, which I sourced by Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion To Contemporary Political Philosophy. Eds. Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit. Blackwell Publishing, 1995. pp. 291-293. Rick Norwood deleted that. So, Norwood is putting back in the wrongly sourced and deleting the properly sourced. Introman ( talk) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the statement that all liberals believe in democracy is like the statement that all triangles have three sides. However, I understand L0b0t's point -- politics is not mathematics, and when we talk about politics, we probably should avoid the word "all". Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read this: Oxford Manifesto. No, they're not speaking for all liberals. Nobody is. Nobody can. But they are a major group of liberals who came together to set down the liberal principles they had in common. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I can look for sources, but they do not just represent people meeting at Oxford in 1947. The Manifesto represents the founding principles of the Liberal International to which individual member parties must subscribe. Members of Liberal parties must also subscribe to these principles. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, suitable for a free man) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed". [1]
Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. [2] [3] [4] John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." [5]
In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th Century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy. [6] The American Declaration of Independence, includes the words (which echo Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." [7]
Today, most nations accept the ideals of freedom. [8] But Liberalism comes in many forms. According to James L. Richardson, in Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power, there are three main divisions within liberalism. The first is elitism versus democracy. The second is economic; whether freedom is best served by a free market or by a regulated market. The third is the question of extending liberal principles to the disadvantaged. [9]
(out) I think it is good. Economic liberalism is only briefly mentioned, but liberalism is such a broad concept that it has sufficient coverage. It does by the way show the diversity of liberal thought, e.g., elitism v. democracy.
There are other things that might be considered in the lead. The class basis of liberalism, the conservative reaction, socialist views of liberalism, etc. But it is best kept brief and these other ideas can be developed in the article.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Note how Rick Norwood takes out what's said in the first line of the current intro: "Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals." This is the main problem. He and Four Deuces are obscuring that liberalism does not refer to just one monolothic doctrine, but includes varieties. Introman ( talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence in the last paragraph of the suggested lede, and provided a reference. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You say "obviously, all these political philosophy concepts and terminology is new to you." When I was in college, I had a close friend who was a Libertarian, so I have heard all these "philosophy concepts and terminology" many, many times. Hearing them over and over doesn't make them right.
The Four Deuces and I have provided many quotes, which you ignore.
You say that "Freedom from restraint means the government isn't stopping you from doing what you want as long as you don't harm others." Most people, I think, would take "freedom from restraint" to mean freedom to run wild, to form a mob. If you want to say that liberalism means that the government doesn't stop you from doing what you want as long as you don't harm others, I strongly agree.
In that sense, modern liberalism allows us to do many more things just because we want to than classical liberalism ever did. We can stay home from church, vote even if we don't own property, read sexy books, and criticize the president. Classical liberals passed laws against those things. The main thing George Washington was allowed to do that I'm not is grow hemp.
The introduction I propose discusses varieties of liberalism. It makes sense to discuss commonalities before you discuss differences. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Introman: You keep saying that if only we understood the point you were making, we would agree with it. We do understand the point you are making. We don't agree with it. It is not, as you seem to think, self-evident. It is a minor view, held primarily by Libertarians. You have been asked repeatedly to cite a mainstream source. You have had pointed out to you repeatedly the problems with sources you cite. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Since only one person here objects, I'm going to post the lede proposed above and move on. There is still a large part of this article that lacks references. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Introman has two points, one of which I agree with, the other I do not. His point that I agree with is that liberalism has changed over the years. The lede says that. It should be elaborated in the article. The point I disagree with is that the primary interest of liberals before the 20th Century was free trade, and that the primary interest of liberals today is welfare. I also disagree that freedom for individuals depends on freedom for corporations, but that's another story.
L0b0t: I'm going to be working on the part of the article that deals with varieties of liberalism over the next few days, and would be delighted to have your help, and the help of anyone else who is willing to use standard sources. I suggest that we structure that part of the article using Richardson's three categories.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The Four Deuces: I hesitate to rely too much on Louis Hartz because he is writing specifically about America. You know much more about this than I do. I hope you'll write that section in the article.
Introman: You have expressed these views many times, but have never offered evidence. It doesn't help you to keep saying the same thing over and over. You need to find a major writer who agrees with you. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Introman: Your quote is about modern American liberalism. This article is about worldwide liberalism throughout history. The information contained in your quote certainly belongs in the article, but not in the lede. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(out)Introman, this is what Schlesinger wrote:
Here is what you wrote:
Schlesinger was claiming that the main split in American liberalism was elitist/democratic (he took his interpretation from Hartz but called the split conservative/liberal), not between pro- and anti-laissez-faire. His claim is totally different from the one used in Encyclopedia Britannica on line.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) EB may be mainstream but it's still a tertiary source. The problem with them is that there are no footnotes to the sources of their information and no literature commenting on their opinions. How do we know that they are right? Because they are Encyclopedia Britannica. And the other source you provided (Schlesinger) contradicts them. So please find a reliable secondary source. If the statement in EB is true this should not pose a problem. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) It seems that there is now general agreement on the current lead. [7] While this may change, it is unhelpful to make major edits unilaterally without discussion. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)