Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 5

message: Shouldn't this be merged with Modern Liberalism? They are essentially one and the same. Slizor 14:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agre with Rick. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: This article split off from the liberalism article, which is now being considered for a further split.  After it split off from liberalism it was further split to separate liberalism in Canada from liberalism in the US.  Given this history, I don't think a merge is likely. Rick Norwood 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The liberalism article deals with both classical and "modern" liberalism, as it should. This one is called "American liberalism" but only deals with "modern liberalism" --it just doesn't make sense. American liberalism should include classical liberalism in America. Either this article is going to deal with only "modern liberalism" or all "American liberalism" including classical liberalism. Which is it? If the former, then the name needs to be changed. RJII 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Merge? 

message: I moved the article from "American liberalism" to "Social liberalism (United States)". It is misleading to call the article "American liberalism" when classical liberalism is also part of American liberalism. Clearly, this article is about social liberalism or "modern liberalism." An alternative move would be to call it "Modern liberalism (United States)".  This type of title is a good form title to make articles for various countries. RJII 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the move, though I think "Social liberalism in the United States" would be a better title.  Have you fixed all the links?  Rick Norwood 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: To clear up these issues it would really be best to have a separate article on Liberalism in the United States (as internationally defined), which is really an eminentlty encyclopedic topic discussed in academia no end.--Pharos 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes much more sense that the current title. The current title wrongly makes it look like "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. RJII 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand me; I would say that "American liberalism" is the name of a political philosophy (or at least an appropriate name for what most American laymen just call "liberalism").  On the other hand, in addition to the article we now have on that topic, I think it would be appropriate to have an additional article on the whole phonemenon of liberalism (as internationally defined) in the United States, as I think they are certainly both rather significant topics.--Pharos 05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I could go for that. I think what eventually would happen is this article would be merged into that one. But, I disagree that "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. The name of the philosophy is "liberalism." RJII 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The title of this article was "Liberalism in the United States" before someone changed it to "American Liberalism".  If we change it back, then chances are at some time down the road, someone will change it again.  Argument through title change seems to me a bad idea, even if someone is willing to do the substantial amount of work necessary to fix all the redirects.  Yes, we have now two people in favor of a title change, but they don't agree on what the new title should be.  Let's give it a rest. Rick Norwood 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to "give it a rest." I think this is a disservice to people who are reading Wikipedia. There is no such philosophy as "American liberalism." Rather, there is a philosophy called "liberalism" that exists in several countries. RJII 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: And that really is the crux of this issue.  And I think most people agree. --Shawn 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of you folks are also misreading my suggestion.  I am distinctly not saying that we should retitle this article Liberalism in the United States; I am rather suggesting a new article that would probably use that somewhat confusing title.  I strongly disagree with RJII's negation of the concept of "American liberalism"; of course it is a very important political current in the US, and the article as it exists covers that topic quite admirably.  But I also think that a separate article on the whole history of Liberalism (as internationally defined) in the United States is warranted.  Look, I took a whole required undergradute course on that specific topic; believe me there is plently of discussion in the academic literature.--Pharos 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to that I agree. --Shawn 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's do it. Let's create Liberalism in the United States. RJII 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's start it at Liberalism in the United States/temp for now, and when we've made some progress on it in a week or so, we can work out reorganizing all of the redirects.--Pharos 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: I put a couple tags up. I put one in the intro requesting a source for the term. And then a disputed tag later in the text where it says "...progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism" and presents two sources for the statement that don't even mention the term "American liberalism." RJII 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A google on "American liberalism" produces seventeen million hits.  For starters try www.americanliberalism.com. Rick Norwood 12:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have provided two new references at each point requested by RJII, one strongly liberal, one strongly anti-liberal.  I can provide about 16,999,996 more if needed. Rick Norwood 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still not clear. Can you find any source that explicity says "American liberalism" is a philosophy. There is liberalism in American, but I don't think there is a philosophy called "American liberalism." RJII 15:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear that no amount of evidence will change your mind, and equally clear that your point of view has no support.  I think we will have to agree to disagree.  Rick Norwood 19:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't "agree to disagree." Please provide evidence of any source that gives a definition of "American liberalism." RJII 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that RJII has consistently proven that there is no budging from his position.  American Liberalism, as it were, incorporates parts of all forms of Liberalism.  This article explains current trends in the U.S.  If you want information on Classical Liberalism, then I think your concerns are best addressed at the Classical Liberalism article.  It seems to me that you think everyone is out to get you.  We're just all trying to work together to be more accurate.  After a while, aggressive editing kind of ruins it for the rest of us.  Shawn 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are out to get me? What?? All I'm doing is requesting a source for the term. I'm doing what any concerned responsible editor should do. I want to make sure this is not original research, because I've never heard of a philosophy called "American liberalism." All liberalism in American is not social liberalism, so this article is very strange to me. You really need to stop assuming bad faith. Wikipedia policy asks you to assume good faith. I'm also trying to "work together to be more accurate." If you assume bad faith of others, then you're not doing your part. I'm sitting here asking for sources, and you're accusing me of "aggressive editing"???  I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm DISCUSSING and putting in citation requests where appropriate. And, don't assume bad faith of others and don't make personal attacks. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Everything must be sourceable. See (Original_research). RJII 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't assume bad faith, I suppose misplaced passion.  And there is not a policy against that.  What I am trying to say is that you come off as very hostile, as if everyone who is not on your side  is trying to give you the short end of the stick.  You always talk about "Social Liberalism."  The fact may be that this article emphasizes Social characteristics, but that is the major component of American Liberalism.  Like I said, I am not going to try and convince you toherwise anymore because you don't seem like you can compromise.  Thanks for your passion though.  --Shawn 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for terminolgy

message: I'm still trying to understand the gist of this article. The first sentence mentions "modern liberalism" as a synonym for "American liberalism." But, there is an article "modern liberalism". Is it a synonym or not? If it is, then why does this article treat "American liberalism" as a unique philosophy? Why would all modern liberalism be American liberalism? America does not have a monopoly on modern/social liberalism. RJII 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you would be happier if it was named "liberalism in america"?  Unless you think that liberalism is not a philosophy, stop whining.  American Liberalism is nothing more than a new, evolved derivative of Enlightenment/Classic Liberalism.  It is a grown up version of liberalism.  One that recognizes the harsh realities of unchecked liberty and free markets, because it exists in the country that most whole heartedly adopted such a system.  If you want to write about classic liberalism, go do it in that article.  Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what you're actually talking about is "modern liberalism" or "social liberalism" --or what American's simply call "liberalism."  "American liberalism" is not a philosophy. RJII 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Liberalism in America, or American liberalism.  They synonymous.  Just as Nationalism in Iceland would be the same as Icelandic nationalism, in my opinion.  Whether or not this is a specific Philosophy is irrelevant.  This article is not the identification of a specific philosophy, but an encyclopedic documentation of the liberal movement in the US.  You are getting a little too caught up on semantics, i think. --Shawn 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but then I come across statements like this in the article: "Herbert Croly (1869-1930), philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism."  That clearly says that "American liberalism" is the name of a philosophy. And, the sources at the end of the statement are very dubious. The first one is a link to an apparently copy of an old version of a Wikipedia article  (never mind that it doesn't even mention the term), the second source does not mention the term , the third source mentions "modern American liberalism" (which implies that there is also classical American liberalism) , and the fourth source uses the term but really informally --it's clear he's talking about modern American liberalism . Something appears very wrong with this article. If there is indeed a "progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as American liberalism" then there should be a source somewhere explicity defining the term. But, no one can come up with one.  RJII 20:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to stop trying to convince you of the merits of this article because you will never be swayed and you clearly do not have any regard for other opinions.  I really hope this was a misunderstanding but it ruins the fun of Wikipedia when there is someone who constantly refutes everything you say. --Shawn 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't handle disagreement then Wikipedia is not the place for you. To hell with "the fun of Wikipedia." It's more important that the information is accurate. I'm very much open to being swayed. You lose your patience way too easily. Everything on Wikipedia should be challenged. It's the only to way ensure accuracy and NPOV. And, you really need to stop with the personal attacks. This is your second warning. Maybe you think it's "fun" to insult others. But, it's the kind of fun that Wikipedia has a policy against. RJII 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken from my last comment, "I really hope this was a misunderstanding."  I am not, and never will attack you. Anyways, I hope to you and moreover to others who are trying to improve this article that a concensus is reached and that there is an improvement in quality.  Thanks, everyone.  --Shawn 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that I "do not have any regard for other opinions" is a personal attack. Obviously, I have a regard for other opinions or I wouldn't be discussing things here. I would simply be reverting things in the article. RJII 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: modern liberalism

message: The new list of American liberal causes seems to phrase things oddly.  For example, liberals generally support environmental legislation, but not necessarily "more" environmental legislation.  In many cases, all that is needed is for current laws which are not enforced to be enforced.  In other words, the latest version of the list seems to be trying to spin the list.  I'm going to try to unspin it.  Torque is cheap.  Rick Norwood 21:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am offended that you are accusing me of being a "right wing vandal" because I removed opinionated words you added to this article. Please do not insert your personal opinion into articles. It is not OK to imply that judges only overturn "outdated" laws, or that all wealth disparity is inherently unfair, or that capitalism is inherently greedy. All these are your own opinions. I suspect that you're an impostor of User:Nikodemos. Why did you change accounts? Did you lose your password? Rhobite 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I brought the question of judicial authority here for discussion.  I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who wants judges to have the power to ignore the law and precedent.  On the other hand, the founding fathers, mindful of the excesses of power, clearly wanted the courts to balance the power of the executive and judicial branches.  How can we phrase the liberal point of view on this issue, so we don't sound like the fools conservatives make us out to be? Rick Norwood 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, there is no "liberal point of view" because judicial theory is much different from political theory.  --Shawn 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  judicial authority 

message: Salvor Hardin has misstated liberal views without references.  First, while communists believe in equality of wealth, few if any American liberals believe any such thing.  The disagreement between liberals and conservatives is this: should the rich be taxed so that the poor have their minimum basic needs met.  Second, to endlessly qualify statements is unnecessary, since at the outset the paragraph says that this is what liberals believe.  Rick Norwood 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, at least to the part about qualifying every statement. --Shawn 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement "should the rich be taxed so that the poor have their minimum basic needs met." is a biased, liberal way of framing the issue.  Conservatives would say that taxation leads to the needs of the poor NOT being met.   Salvor Hardin 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conservatives would say that taxation leads to the needs of the poor NOT being met."  No, that's Libertarians you are thinking of, not Conservatives generally. Rick Norwood 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov was a liberal! 

message: What in the world?  American liberals, beginning with FDR, have disregarded the US constitution as much as possible in favor of a body of activist judicial ruling.  It seems to me the burden of proof for making such an outrageous statement falls on you.  Salvor Hardin 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To give just a few examples, if it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, the Christian majority would have voted this a Christian nation long ago.  As it is, four states ignore the constitution and require anyone seeking public office to affirm a belief in a supreme being.  And your supposedly activist judges affirm that children can be forced to swear that the United States is "under God" and that it is ok to put "in God we trust" on our money.  If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, rich Republicans would have jailed liberal newspaper editors, instead of just labeling them as communists.  If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of the right to assemble, the government would certainly have killed more than just four of the anti-Vietnam War protesters.  If it were not for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, I would proabably be in jail right now.  The nonsense about "judicial activism" overthrowing the constitution is something invented by conservative talk radio, not a serious point of view.  You can look up for yourself how many of the supposedly "activist" Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents -- a clear majority. Rick Norwood 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Republican ≠ conservative (in all cases). Plus, judges rule how they want, not how the person who appointed them wants. Sorry, back to wikibreak. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rick, your worldview is absurdly paranoid and unrealistic.  Your understanding of the constitution is hopelessly muddled.  I don't even know where to begin.  Salvor Hardin 05:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional government? 

message: :There was a young man from Japan
:Whose limericks never would scan
:"The reason," he said
:"With a nod of his head
:"Is that I always try to cram as many words into the last line as I possibly can."
American liberalism is a political current of modern liberalism in the United States that is arguably descended from classical liberalism in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but rejects absolute free-market economics in favor of an economic system in which the government intervenes where it considers freedom to be threatened by bribery, trusts, monopolies, or the concentration of wealth and supports a social welfare system.
This is a bad sentence on several grounds.  First, it is too long.  Second, a sentence should not argue with itself.  Third, it is not at all clear what the subject of the final clause is.  Please, if you want to argue that American liberals are really a pack of socialists, that belongs in an "arguments against liberalism" section. Rick Norwood 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support of a welfare state is essential to any definition of American liberalism. I don't think any modern American "liberal" will deny they support a welfare system. RJII 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: This article needs sourcing bad. RJII 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few sources.  Please add more as needed. Rick Norwood 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Normally I don't engage in this article, but adding sources information is not allways according to wikipedia standards. The article should be well balanced and not eventually be dominated by anti-American liberalism information, even if it is sourced. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added ONE source that is anti American modern liberalism, because there is a dispute whether it was it was influeced by American classical liberalism. Certainly that deserves mention in the article. RJII 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to Bush, he is a Free Market/Free Trade Neo-Conservative who is socially conservative and economically liberal by classic definition of the Says, Cobdens, Smiths etc.  Modern American liberalism is a result mostly of the New Deal coalition which put Republican Progressives of the Theodore Roosevelt stripe together with Democratic Populists of the William J. Bryan/Woodrow Wilson stripe together into a coherent philosophy the perpetruated the economic system of America minus protective tariffs and plus social legislation in favor of working men and women such as Social Security - that brought Southern Dem's (who now reside mostly in the Republican Party) along by not touching the civil rights issue until the 1960's.  That moment forward the coalition fractured, and the Southern wing left and the Republican liberal/progressive wing still in the Republican party left to the Democratic Party then forward, thus aligning with the other two elements spoken of before on the issue Civil Rights - thus modern American liberalism and the Democratic Party. --Northmeister 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sentence too long 

message: This is a big job, but it needs to be done.  I'm going to attempt a little at a time, here, and await comments.
:The United States of America was the first modern government to be founded on liberal principles.  Thomas Jefferson, in writing the American Declaration of Independence, quoted the influential liberal philosopher John Locke.  While many of the ideas of liberalism can be traced back to the democracy of Athens, the republic of Rome, the city states of Renaissance Italy, and the parliament of England, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights ushered in a new form of government, a form of government that has now spread throughout much of the world, the constitutional representative democracy.
Comments, improvements, other ways to begin the story of American liberalism at the beginning? Rick Norwood 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that can be done, is you can stop deleting sourced information. Your latest deletion was sourced information from a respect scholar on liberalism: "Scholar of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., writing in 1956, said that American liberalism includes both a "laissez-faire" form and a "government intervention" form. He holds that liberalism in America is aimed toward acheiving "equality of opportunity for all" but it is the means of acheiving this that changes depending on the circumstances. He says that the "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." (Schelesinger Jr., Arthur. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston, 1962)"  I'm not very optimistic about being being able to work with you because of your wanton destructiveness. RJII 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I can prove you wrong about my "wanton distructiveness".  For example, I like your Schlesinger quote, and think it belongs in the article.  I think you would have better success here if you made a few changes at a time, instead of making a dozen changes a day. Rick Norwood 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of "assume goodwill" I am going to try to work through your version of liberalism this time, instead of just reverting.  Rick Norwood 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the article to cover American liberalism before 1930. 

message: The place to discuss these issues is here on the talk page, not in constant rewrites of the lead paragraph, which is the end result of a long, long process of compromise, and is now being turned into an editorial.  
The main issues of concern for modern American liberalism are issues of freedom, especially freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, academic freedom, women's rights, gay rights, and the right to privacy.  The issue which the most recent rewrite of the introduction stresses, the social safety net, is a dead issue -- both major parties promise a social safety net.  The Libertarian party got only about 3% of the vote in the 2000 election.  Therefore, a statement about the disagreements between social liberals and economic liberals does not belong in the introduction.  We agree far more than we disagree. Rick Norwood 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that focusing on political parties is proliferating the growth into an editorial.  Philosophy isn't characterized by specific issue stances, but by philosophical views such as "Personal Freedoms" (which are usually applied to issues) but not the primary characterization.  --Shawn 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be focused too much on political parties. A liberal can be a member of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. The issue for me is not "economic liberals" versus "social liberals" but  American classical liberals versus social liberals. Either this article is going to be about all American liberalism (which includes classical liberalism), or just social liberalism in America. Which is it?  RJII 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you seem to emphasize this social vs. economic liberalism.  And classical liberalism.  As of right now, the edits you have made today have made the introduction into a leviathan of verbose and complicated jargon that any simpleton or shakespeare alike could not understand.  Also, try using the preview button instead of making a million edits to one section.  It helps unclutter the page history.  I don't know how many times i have expressed that this article should not have a section about Classical Liberalism within it because Classical Liberalism is not the same thing as American Liberalism.  Just because they have the word Liberal in both names does not mean they need to be talked about in the same breath.  American Liberalism is the flavor of Liberalism that is supported most in the United States by popular consensus.  If we talk about Classical Liberalism then we also have to talk about Radicalism, Economic liberalism, Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism, Paleoliberalism, Social liberalism, and Libertarianism.  That is tedious and inefficient.  That is not the purpose of this article.  This article's purpose is to outline and describe the American brand of liberalism.  We do not need to say "Some American Liberals derive beliefs from Classical Liberalism, while others derive their beliefs from Paleoliberalism."  It is assumed that American Liberalism incorporates segments from every aspect of liberalism and from other ideaologies.  You keep pushing this notion of Classical Liberalism for some reason, and it is not the best choice for this article.  Thank, Shawn 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical liberalism isn't a "notion." It's a real, and popular, philosophy which experienced a revival in America after the 1970's --according to Encyclopedia Britannica. RJII 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that classical liberalism is seen as a conservative movement.  As I said, just because it has the word liberal in it does not mean it deserves a spot in American liberalism.  For a matter of proof, American Conservatism says that Classical Liberalism is a main part of their ideaology because of the freemarket beliefs.  Freemarket economy is NOT an ideal of American Liberalism.  There's a difference between a liberal policy towards the economy, and the popular usage of the term "liberal" to denote a political tenet of beliefs or philosophy.  you are trying to blend the two and that is erronious.  American Liberalism does have some similarities and have common themes as Classical Liberalism, but they do not stand together.  They are two major philosophical differences.  --Shawn 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American liberalism is ALL liberalism in American --not just social liberalism. And, I question your premise that social liberalism is more popular than classical liberalism. RJII 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been discussed a bit before, and I don't know how much I buy into it but will bring up anyway, American liberalism is not just liberalism in America. It is a cohesive political and ideological movement that contains the theories of social liberalism but is not tied to economic liberalism. It is social liberal and (although some may have preconceived notions on the term) slightly socialistic economic policy (or if that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, government controlled, big government economic policy). American conservatism includes social conservatism, neo-conservatism (i.e. fairly "liberal", interventionist, foreign policy), with a very liberal economic policy. So they really are not just "liberalism" and "conservatism", but rather "American liberalism" (with all it entails) and "American conservatism" (and all it entails. Perhaps I am wrong. Can someone set me straight if this is the case? Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we have a talk page. 

message: I had hoped that we could agree on a stable article before making the move discussed above, but it is obvious that it is not going to happen.  Hearing no objection to the move, I'm going to go ahead and make it, as follows.
First, I am going to copy American liberalism into a new article, Modern American liberalism.  Then, I am going to begin to remove the more general material from Modern American liberalism and remove the more modern material from American liberalism, leaving a summary.  Please be aware that this is a work in progress. Rick Norwood 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the big move 

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

message: This article needs work.  American Liberalism had two stages - pre-progressive era and post-progressive era.  Liberalism in the USA today tends towards a progressive view: Democracy, Liberty, and Equal Opportunity on social issues while holding to a interventionist approach to the economy rooted in the New Deal experience whose influences were the progressives of the "New Nationalism" of Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Croly and the "New Freedom" of Woodrow Wilson - whose roots were with the Lincolnian-Republican/Whig tradition of economic policy mixed with worker rights and more government intervention.  In other words, this article needs a section on "Classical Liberalism in America" "The Progressive Era" "The New Deal and Modern Liberalism" to be fair to the term as it applies today.  The classical era Liberalism is really found in modern Conservatism, especially of the neo-conservative type - small government, free market economy, free trade, de-regulation (of FDR'S style subsidies etc.) and so forth - this was Classical liberalims now in America Conservatism overall. The sides have swapped due to the New Deal. Since this article applies to American Liberalism it should be divided into the three parts above - with proper links to "Modern Liberalism" which comments on the Progressive-New Deal Liberalism of the modern age in America and to "Modern Conservatism" which should comment on the post-New Deal Conservatism of Goldwater, Reagan, Bush and Bush which is very similar to Classical liberalism in many features.  What do the rest of you think? --Northmeister 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently undergoing major changes, with a split between American liberalism and Modern American liberalism.  Both articles are still works in progress.  Please contribute your expertise. Rick Norwood 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds good. And, also a section on the classical liberalism revival would be necessary. And, we need to make sure we don't equate classical liberalism with conservativism  ..it's been influential on conservativism though, for sure. But, contemporary classical liberals are more laissez-faire than conservatives. RJII 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both economic liberalism and cultural liberalism claim descent from classical liberalism. Rick Norwood 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The opening paragraph is confusing

message: Below Added by Michael Girard, FL
Modern liberalism is nothing like the classical liberalism of the founders. The Bill of Rights which enumerates pre-existing rights and in the case of the Tenth Amendment, limits the power of government, particularly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Remember that governments have powers only; people have both rights and powers, except those powers specifically reserved to the federal government: coining money, making treaties, etc... No self-respecting modern liberal approves of an armed populace; liberals believe government should have the monopoly on arms, which of course bodes ill for individual liberty. The writing of the founders on this matter are prolific. The purpose of an armed population was to fight both local and federal tyranny. What militia then is mentioned in the Second Amendment? Tench Coxe provided that answer. All the people are the militia. True liberty also means being responsible for yourself. It is indeed theft to use a government gun to take money I earned and redistribute it to others who did not. The Constitution is a short document enumerating the powers of each branch. Our founders would be amazed at the power usurped by the legislative and the executive branches--powers far, far beyond those meager powers enumerated by the main body of the Constitution. That is the result of "liberalism."
:This is an editorial, not an encyclopedia entry.  It is your opinion, with no quotations and no references.  You are entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to put it in an encyclopedia.  Rick Norwood 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From article page

message: We've had an exhausting and ongoing debate and effort at the American conservatism article to stop one or two users from blanking out a section of rather legitimate criticism of Americam conservatism.  The charge has been leveled that the American liberalism article's editors would never tolerate such a section being added to "their" article.  I disagree, and am adding one in good faith.  Admittedly, I'm not especially well-versed in criticism of liberalism.  I have ample criticisms of the Democratic party but that's not the same as criticizing liberalism, so hopefully somebody can assist me with citations and clarity on this issue.  I started with a basic framework on the most common charges I see or hear attached to Democrats that do not involve specific policies but instead involve fundamental beliefs and principles.  This is harder to do than it sounds!  Anyway, I hope the community of editors here can assist with making this section fair and accurate as far as capturing what the essence of criticism of liberalism is.  Thanks. Bjsiders 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that would be best for the Modern American liberalism article, because this article is supposed to also be about all liberalism in America including American classical liberalism which is in opposition to modern liberalism. RJII 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One note on splitting articles like American & Modern American liberalism, remember your audience.  Would a kid get lost attempting to find out what someone meant by the use of "liberal"?  The problem isn't isolated to liberalism. Scribner 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about a kid. But, if I were looking in an encylopedia I would want to know about all forms of liberalism in America. Since classical liberalism also exists in America, we would be depriving readers of the full story. Liberalism didn't start with FDR --welfare liberalism is just one form, albiet a pretty popular one. But, I think support for it is waning. Classical liberalism has had a significant revival. Just as the liberalism article covers classical and social liberalism, this one should as well. RJII 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: I like what you have done with the first two paragraphs.  Made one minor correction.  I hope you plan to work on the awful third paragraph as well. Rick Norwood 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a shot at it. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I also think there is more work to do even on just the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jmabel's edit 

message: Interesting to note that Ted Kennedy is listed as the last/ most current liberal torch bearer as it were. Isn't there somebody younger who could be considered a liberal? --Neanderthalprimadonna 11:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wellstone died young. Obama has the makings of a leader, I agree with Neander that he's a somewhat moderate liberal. (I don't see what God has to do with it, though. MLK Jr. was certainly a liberal, and a preacher.) Nancy Pelosi is certainly a liberal leader, but has not so far quite got the "aura" of a charismatic leader (which non-liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton has, so it's not a matter of gender), just an organizational leader. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ted Kennedy

message: This article began as Liberalism.  The various national liberal movements split off from there.  And one point, this article was split into American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism.  I'm not sure what happened next, but it seems to have unsplit, and it also seems that a lot of material from before the New Deal got lost in the process.  In any case, we need something by a historian about liberalism before the New Deal. Rick Norwood 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed there is also a Modern American Liberalism page. Are both pages necessary? Is pre-1860's american liberalism different from classical liberalism, if so should it be a subsection of classical liberalism or some other section? Its too confusing for me so I am done. Mrdthree 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the term "liberalism" ever even used in the 19th century in the US to refer to a political ideology?  There were certainly writers who expressed ideas similar to what European liberals were saying at the same time, but that's not the same thing at all.  john k 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres a (non-American, Brazilian) politically mobile thinker (apparently he went left-->right-->center p.36) thinker's classification of things, Lets not get rigid or exclusive about taxonomies though, I dont know enough. I'll check OED Or some other references for usage of liberal. Mrdthree 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OED (subscription) says 'liberal' first used in a modern political sense after 1801 (the word is older-1300s) and liberalism as a political idelogy after 1818. By 1850s the quotes sound pretty familiar (JS Mill). Mrdthree 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Found quote:"The advance of liberalism... [encourages] the hope that the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821. ME 15:308   Mrdthree 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefferson using the word "liberalism" does not mean he was referring to the political ideology liberalism. john k 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I'm not trying to debate whether modern or classical liberalism is better.  It is just that in the US at least, both parties are for big government and welfare, and in fact vie to see who can spent more money faster.  Where the parties differ has a lot to do with freedom, and not much to do with welfare. Rick Norwood 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Republican Party is not a classical liberal party. It is a conservative party. There is a difference. A classical liberal party would be something like the Libertarian Party, but not necessarily as extreme. Republicans are influenced by classical liberals in some economic matters, but the average republican is not classical liberal but a conservative. Economizer 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where Rick called present-day Republicans "classical liberals." Andrew Levine 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And, of course, I didn't.  And wouldn't. Rick Norwood 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern American Liberalism? 

message: … More centrist groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) would contend on an equal footing with liberals for control of the Democratic Party in this time. The conservative-liberal alliance of the federal level Democrats lasted through the 1980's, but declined in the 1990's when more conservative political figures sided with the Republican party. 
In the late 1980's and 1990's, there was a reappearance of politicans to held liberal views. Bill Clinton, then state governor of Arkansas was elected to office in 1992 as the 42nd president of the United States and re-elected in 1996, was the first baby boomer to hold presidential office. He was a liberal when it came to social services and civil rights, but less focused on big business and the military. On the contrary, President Clinton worked out divisive issues with conservative colleagues and his primarily Republican administration, the two parties brought on a balanced federal budget and Clinton's legacy was an economic boom of the late 1990's referred to America's longest period of prosperity.
I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "The conservative-liberal alliance of the federal level Democrats": they were pretty busy sniping at one another straight through the Reagan/Bush era, but I suppose having control of Congress in the face of a hostile presidency created a certain unity. Still, the white Southern Democrats in Congress (more numerous in those days) were swing voters on a lot of issues. I don't see that as happening more in the 1990s, it's just that Democratic congressional majorities declined and (on the House side in 1994) ultimately disappeared. 
Clinton was a liberal compared to what came before or after, but, if I may be allowed a slight Yiddicism, "by liberals, he's no liberal". Consider his approach to welfare reform, or his race-baiting of Sister Souljah. He was generally perceived as the least liberal in a field of seven Democrats running for President in the '92 primaries. I'm not sure what "less focused on big business and the military" is supposed to mean here. "…referred to America's longest period of prosperity" is also a bit odd. And it wasn't that notable a period of prosperity, at least not for the average worker's wages (as against raw GDP): workers did far better in the 1960s, or even the 1950s despite the 1957-8 recession. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton, etc. 

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

message: THe introduction is too long and needs to be cut somewhatMrdthree 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That's what comes of trying to please everybody.  Do you want to cut it, or shall I make the attempt? Rick Norwood 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IT is well written and if that is your handiwork then by all means edit away. I have some thoughts about changes (I think half to a third can be moved into the body) but it looks like a bit of work so I will keep to the sidelines for few days. Mrdthree 06:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given it my best shot, also corrected some grammar and one misattributed quote.  Comments and improvements are appreciated.
Rick Norwood 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction is too long

message: This article does not refer to "American liberalism" as all encompassing of North America and South America, but rather, it refers specifically to the United States. (comment added by User:Bjerko September 17.)
:The adjective form referring to the USA is "American". It is not without other meanings, but this is its primary meaning in English, which is the language we are working in. The term "American liberalism" is reasonably commonly used (though it usually refers to what we have called "Modern American liberalism"). These other forms that you propose generally are not. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that this has been discussed extensively above. Rick Norwood 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request move to "United States Liberalism" or "Liberalism (United States)" 

message: The comma after the second-to-last term in a list is called the Oxford comma.  William F. Buckley is one of many who prefer the comma, noting that a conjunction (and) should not replace a separator (the comma).  Strunk and White recommend the use of the Oxford comma.  "In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last." Rick Norwood 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the Oxford comma is generally preferred in the United States, and denigrated in the Commonwealth.  As such, I suggest that this article, being about the United States, should use the Oxford comma. john k 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford comma 

message: "...The United States was founded on classical liberal republican principles...." and similarly worded "matter-of-fact" statements in this article = POV; therefore: tagged. --Fix Bayonets! 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to understand why people tag such obvious statements as POV, but references are easy to provide.  The Federalist Papers is a good place to start. Rick Norwood 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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