Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 4

message: The top part of this article where it sums up the origins of American Liberalism is about as relavent as an appendix. Its a step in the right direction if its expanded, taking the roots all the way to the New Deal. However, just throwing some bit about Thomas Paine and expecting it to go to Roosevelt is a bit of a large leap. Therefore, I think a simple redirect should be added to other articles that mention the abollitionist movements, a good analysis between the growth of American liberalism and the technologies and social classes that emerged after the end of the 19th century, and it also requires a description of some political movements that led up to American liberalism, such as William Jennings Bryan and the Populist movement. These are but a few examples, but it would enhance the article. Otherwise, I propose axing the top part of the article.
:Instead of giving up on the section, it would be a better idea to enhance it along the lines you suggest.  (Please sign your comments with four tildes.) Rick Norwood 20:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Dogcanteen. Rick Norwood 19:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of American Liberalism

message: Excellent and judicious edit, 66.168.18.195. Rick Norwood 14:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  66.168.18.195's edit 

message: I think this is an important topic to be discussed. It is a notable practice.  LukeTH, what is your main objection? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary reason for removing the section is that this topic doesn't refer to "American Liberalism." It's a contentious POV section that deals only with the word "liberal." Adding it to the encyclopedia article for "American Liberalism" makes no more sense than adding it to the encyclopedia article for "Classical Liberalism." Classical and American Liberalism are rich political philosophies with decades of thought and action that are independent of the way that the world "liberal" may or may not be used by somebody on talk radio. Even if the contents of the section WERE true, (and as it stands it is NOT), it wouldn't be relevant to this article on the political philosophy of "American Liberalism." Leave it to the bloggers to debate the linguistics of "liberal" and let us, as encyclopedia article contributers, describe the history and philosophy of "American Liberalism." luketh 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with LukeTH. The article is supposed to be about American liberalism, its evolution, and its ideas. A POV section about what the word "liberal" means to a narrow cross-section of rabid right-wing conservatives does not belong in this article. If you look around this Discussion page, you will see that this section has caused nothing but contention. Let's can it right now. Griot 01:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. A POV section about what the word "liberal" means does not belong. But, an NPOV section about what the word "liberal" means can benefit the article. --Elliskev 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what the entire article is supposed to do. Why don't we get rid of this section and then focus on improving the entire article. luketh 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've tried to add a lot of evidence through cites that the branding of "liberal" as a pejorative has had a real effect, and not just to "rabid conservatives", and thus is material to this article.   Wasted Time R 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Rhobite observed in a later section, talking about "misuses" of "liberal" is POV. If the "branding" is not a "misuse," then it's based in truth, so let's describe liberalism as it is, and, if, as some people must think, it's true that it's negative and exposing it for what it is has "real effect," then readers can reach their own conclusion that being called a liberal is a pejorative. Those on the right can think it's a pejorative and liberals won't be forcibly exposed to the POV that any interpretation of the word can be a pejorative. There will be no POV and no contention. Otherwise we're stooping to the level of creating a section under Gay that describes how some people call each other "gay" as an insult. It has no relevance to "gay" and we shouldn't cover how some people, with poor manners or poor intentions, insult each other. This section must be changed so dramatically as to be an entirely different section or eliminated so that this article can be NPOV. luketh 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deragatory Use of "Liberal" 

message: I think this deserves a new section on the talk page. LukeTH says that the article should not mention accusations of liberal media bias by conservatives. I don't see why this should be removed. Luke, are you saying that conservatives don't actually accuse the media of being biased? The truth is that many conservative commentators complain about media bias and it should be mentioned in this article. There is no reason to remove these sentences. Rhobite 22:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Media bias, if it even exists, doesn't have anything to do with this section. Start a new section if you want to include it. But we need to be careful not to be bogged down in political wrangling over modern issues that have nothing to do with the political philosophy of American Liberalism. This is an encyclopedia article, not a blog. Political wrangling is POV by definition. luketh 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The point of this section has nothing to do with media bias.  The point is that an article on liberalism needs to discuss all of the ways in which the word is commonly used.  If I were writing an article about "infer" it would be appropriate to point out that some people mistakenly use it to mean "imply". Rick Norwood 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, Rick, but this article is not about "liberal," it's about "American Liberalism." Unfortunately you and others disagree so I lost the poll. But you're right that at least in this section, then, we should stick to the linguistic meaning of "liberal" in contemporary usage, both positive and negative. luketh 22:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think media bias needs to be involved in this article.  Accusations of "liberal media bias" are almost always attacks on the media, not attacks on American liberalism.   Wasted Time R 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the so-called liberal media bias DOES NOT belong in this article. The article is about "American liberalism." If you want to disucss this topic, find another place for it. The topic invites editorializing and POVs; it doesn't belong here. Let's stick to the topic.Griot 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also.  My vote above in favor of the section depended on it being short and focused. Rick Norwood 14:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, we won't mention accusations of media bias in this article. Rhobite 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media bias 

message: I like your recent edit, He Who Cannot Be Named.  I still thing the Jesus thing is over the top and should go.  Clearly, Jesus was a liberal, long before his time, but I don't see how that belongs in this section.  The reference for the Ann Coulter doll is given: The Conservative Book Serivce. Rick Norwood 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Luke saw the Jesus thing as specifically relevant to the "bleeding-heart liberal" pejorative.  As for Coulter, she thinks liberals are guilty of treason against America, not just hating America, so they gave the doll one of her milder lines.   Wasted Time R 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No coverage of this topic can sound like an encyclopedia because the topic itself is POV and irrelevant. It's making a joke of Wikipedia. Imagine World Book under the American Liberal entry saying that some people use "liberal" as a pejorative, or, under the Gay entry, saying that some people use "gay" as a pejorative. Maybe, though unlikely, it would be appropriate under the Pejoratives entry but most definitely not here. luketh 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know about World Book, but as it happens, the Wikipedia article on "Gay" does indeed have the section Gay#Pejorative_usage.  How about that!?   Wasted Time R 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's not appropriate there, and someone should fix it. The article on Gay devotes a huge section to pejorative usage and much less to important issues such as discrimination, fight for marriage rights, etc....  luketh 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides what makes an important issue? You don't think that our article should note that people use the word "gay" as a general negative adjective? Do you think that Wikipedia should just pretend that bad words don't exist? Rhobite 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good questions, Rhobite. For words that are universally accepted as bad, the answers are clear cut: there should be coverage. However, what should we do when one group of people tries to use a word like "gay" to hurt another group? We can't say that it's intended to hurt without being POV but if we state it as fact and give credibility to such usage,  we hurt the people it was intended to hurt and our presentation of it as accepted or widespread usage is also POV. In that case, we probably shouldn't give voice to discrimination. In general, it's best to stay away from sleaze. As for "liberal," considering its rich cultural place in American society, there's considerable dispute over whether any significant number of people use it as a slur. Supposing that some group of people did use it as a slur, we would have the same dilemma. Should we cover it truthfully and say such usage is dishonest and cruel (which would be POV) or should we cover it as if such usage is perfectly OK or maybe even accepted or widespread (which is POV that hurts liberals). When there's so much dispute, so little relevance, and no real way to cover such filth in an NPOV way, it's best to leave it out.  luketh 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Voldemort's edit 

message: Since Wikipedia isn't a prescriptive language guide, it is always POV for us to state that some people are misusing language. I removed the word "misuse" from the section header. We can note that conservatives use the word "liberal" as an insult, but we cannot accuse them of misusing language. I also made some style edits, and rewrote the following POV statements:
*'There has been a concerted effort over the years to change the meaning of the word "liberal" in the minds of the American public, by repeating "liberal" over and over again with a negative connotation.' - This sentence is unsourced POV. It doesn't say who is behind the concerted effort.
*'This propaganda has been successful enough that in one of the 2004 presidential debates...' - The word "propaganda" is almost always POV. We should refrain from using it. When we use terms like this it appears that Wikipedia is embracing the positive use of the term "liberal" and accusing conservatives of "propaganda". Rhobite 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that the article does not say who is behind the effort.  It does.  It lists Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, and others.  It would be easy to extend the list if that were not overkill.
You claim the word "propaganda" is POV.  Not necessarily.  There are many statements, by Carl Rove and others, indicating that this effort is designed to win elections.  Slogans designed to win elections are propaganda -- that is, their purpose is to incite action rather than to convey information.  Rick Norwood 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am sorry Rick, you are simply wrong on this point. It is never OK for an article to accuse someone of propaganda. I would also appreciate it if you didn't erase my style fixes when reverting. Phrases like "earlier in this article" and "above" are amateurish. "classical liberal", "social liberal" and "libertarian" should not be capitalized. Resist the urge to make knee-jerk reverts. Rhobite 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One more thing, a "concerted effort" is one that is "Arranged by mutual agreement; agreed upon, pre-arranged; planned, contrived; done in concert." (OED) Many people think "concerted effort" refers to a powerful or determined effort, but that is not a correct use of the word "concerted". Are we saying Rush, GWB, and Coulter are working in concert to promote the negative use of the word "liberal"? I doubt that the three have ever been in the same room together. Rhobite 01:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can work in concert without being in the same room. Aren't we working in concert to create this article? Most editors seem to agree that there is a concerted effort by conservatives to define "liberal" in a manner that would not be accepted by liberals. Liberals have likewise made a concerted effort to define "conservative" and "right-wing" in a manner that would not be accepted by conservatives. Neither effort has been particularly successful other than within their respective bases and maybe among a few moderates. It's true that the conservative effort has been better funded and in general conservatives tend to be louder. However, no liberal will accept the  slurs from the right and no conservative will accept the slurs from the left. Both groups are really just fighting for a few undecideds. Conservatives have the majority so they know they can spin as they please. Most editors of this section are referring to some variant of the situation that I'm describing--some think it's more significant, others think it's less significant, but most accept the concerted effort part. luketh 05:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any evidence that conservatives are working together to change the meaning of the word liberal, you can cite it now. Rhobite 13:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're right that it's just a few individuals (and I could be persuaded of that), then it doesn't have significance to merit a section. luketh 04:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is an article on www.slate.com about how pervasive the use of propaganda by the Bush administration has been and is.  Here is one quote. "Propaganda is the only word for the Pentagon's recently exposed secret efforts to plant positive stories in the Iraqi press." Rick Norwood 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the DoD's propaganda efforts in Iraq have to do with American liberalism? Rhobite 17:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was actually wondering what the purpose of that quote was too. How is this relevent to the article at hand? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of "misuse" 

message: All this dicussion over the controversial section hasn't done anything to improve the article. A key component of liberalism that is missing is the liberal philosophy. We have sections on history and positions, but none on philosophy. I've only added a few sentences and I ask the community for help to make this a good section. Let's explain what liberals believe. It's impossible to have an encyclopedia article on American Liberalism without describing its core philosophy. There have been a number of liberal philosophers over the years who would provide good starting points. luketh 03:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, you are remedying a clear omission.  Another weakness of the article is that its history of American liberalism sort of fizzles out with the "End of the liberal consensus" around 1980.  OK, the consensus was over, but what happened to American liberal thought after that?  What about neoliberalism?  What about Clinton (Bill and/or Hillary)?  What about the split in American liberalism in the aftermath of September 11?  It seems to me there's a lot of recent history missing.  Wasted Time R 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, however, the problem is that conservatives keep talking about "the fall of liberalism" and describing internal dissent that is really quite fictional. It's true that liberals don't have a majority and that they've needed to build coalitions with groups farther to the right, but calling all members of this coalition "liberal," and then describing a "split" wouldn't likely be accepted by most liberals. Adding recent history would be difficult especially considering that some editors on this page have the incorrect opinion that liberalism is falling apart or something of that nature. Being NPOV about this will be difficult but if you're up for the challenge, it will be a welcome improvement. Note that Kerry, called one of the "most liberal politicians in America" by his opponents won nearly half the vote. That's a strong liberal following! luketh 04:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being way too defensive.  All vibrant political philosophies have frictions and splits.  American conservatism, for example, is currently rent by divides on Wilsonian vs. realpolitik vs. isolationist foreign policy, proper levels of immigration, and "compassionate" vs. libertarian levels of government spending.  Describing such internal debates doesn't mean that you think that the philosophy or movement is falling apart, it simply means describing what's going on.  Stop overinterpreting everything!  Wasted Time R 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken. A lot of my concern is about the tone. It's usually clear when someone is writing with the intention to undermine or to attack politically. What concerns me is when an editor may throw in a dishonest word or two meant to evoke negative feelings when describing a truthful event. Then reading it, one stumbles upon these words, and the motive for those words is transparent. For example, in this article, there's a running theme of people trying to say liberals are in favor of huge unregulated government when liberals generally don't favor a much larger government than conservatives. It's just a political talking point. Since people know it's POV, they can't say it, but they try to throw in a few words to insinuate it. That kind of dishonesty bothers me. If you can't say it, then you shouldn't say it. On the whole your criticism is good and we should definitely describe all sides. If you can describe it fairly and honestly, I'm definitely in support. luketh 05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A bit of history.  Originally this article described liberalism as a philosophy.  The conservative contributors to this article insisted that liberalism was an "idiology" rather than a philosophy, and so the word was changed in the intro.  There were so many other fights going on at the time that that didn't seem worth the trouble to fight that one.  Now, I notice, over on the page on Conservatism, conservatism has been changed from an idiology to a philosophy.  The words have the same meaning, but different connotations.  I think it is time to call liberalism a philosophy, too. Rick Norwood 13:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following comment of mine was probably out of line. Sorry. luketh 03:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope that the following is not your intention. Place the word philosophy into the header. Then say, "Why is there a Philosophy section?" It belongs in the header. Move it to the header. Destroy it. I've seen conservatives use similar strategies before. I hope everyone here is maintaining good faith. luketh 04:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The terms should match. Both articles should probably use the term "political philosophy". Rhobite 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. That would very likely be a misuse of the word "philosophy." On dictionary.com, ideology is defined as "a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." whereas the primary definition of "philosophy" in this context would be "the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs." 
luketh 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, good term.   Wasted Time R 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're confusing the words. Liberalism is an ideology. Every ideology has philosophers who describe the ideology. That description is the philosophy. This is standard use of the English words. luketh 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also there may have been some kind of dispute as you describe where you and other conservatives changed words back and forth but certainly it was not the original article. The word "ideology" was part of the original article of which I wrote many sections which have now been largely destroyed. luketh 04:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Luke, you don't seem to understand Wikipedia.  Its a free-for-all, a Hobbesian state of nature, a quasi-Darwinian survival of the edittest. Didn't you ever see that disclaimer next to Save page, "Don't submit unless you're prepared to see your work ruthlessly edited" (something like that)? Your work wasn't destroyed. You sent your work into a word grinder, and you didn't like what came out.  You'd be much happier submitting papers to academic journals, I think.   Wasted Time R 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't a complaint; just an observation. My only complaint is how far this page has degenerated. Almost all sections of substance have been removed. I suspect that there is a right-wing radical among us in sheep's clothing who is intent on destruction. luketh 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only path to happiness on WP is to write a really comprehensive article about something that most editors don't know enough about or care enough about to change (and the comprehensiveness preempts any editing ideas they might have), but that is of enough general interest that there are a good number of readers, and that is of enough visibility that it ranks on the first page of Google.  Presto!  It's liked being published.  I've pulled off this trick a couple of times, but I ain't saying what articles those are :-)    Wasted Time R 05:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha. Great idea! luketh 05:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Political philosophy".  Hum.  The anarchists won't like it. Rick Norwood 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would anarchists care about American liberal political philosophy? I don't get it. luketh 04:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: LukeTH -- there have been a number of contributors to this page who believe that the only true liberals are anarchists, that any government is necessarily anti-liberal. Rick Norwood 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad that this misunderstanding was removed from the article. Maybe they're libertarians? This article should only be about American liberalism. luketh 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course they're libertarians! Rick Norwood 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Section 

message: Is this what it's come down to? We're arguing about the name of the section? Luke, you cannot put the word "disputed" in a section header. That is a violation of the Wikipedia:No self-references policy. It's argumentative and pointless, and it fits in perfectly with your goal of torpedoing the "use of liberal" section by any means necessary. You wrote "please don't revert my edits". How arrogant - they are not your edits. Any text (mine, yours, anyone's) that doesn't improve the encyclopedia should be changed. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt by people changing "your edits". If that's the case, Wikipedia is not for you. Rhobite 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a false and baseless claim, Rhobite. You're losing your composure and definitely coming close to violating Wikipedia standards. We need to focus on the truthfullness of the article and maintaining NPOV. You reverted my edits without cause which was definitely unpleasant. You're the only person who has ever reverted one of my edits and you were wrong when you did it. An apology would be in order. If you don't like "disputed" in the title, then why do you insist on covering claims by people who make those claims precisely to cause dispute. You can't honestly claim that Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly are NPOV sources. There is serious concern about using Wikipedia to spread discriminatory statements and political propaganda. We should adjust this section to describe a neutral and accurate contemporary usage of liberal rather than giving credibility to a disputed usage by those who attempt to cause contention. luketh 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claims were disputed by critics and commentators, we might be able to get away with using "Disputed". However, since it is disputed by WP editors, like yourself, we shouldn't use "disputed". --LV (Dark Mark) 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. It's the purpose of the POV tag to alert to editor disputes. The usage of "liberal" as a slur by some on the far right is not itself in dispute. We all agree that some people say some sleazy stuff about liberals. What I was trying to get across, maybe ineffectively, is that this usage of the word, like any slur, is intended to cause dispute. Coulter has said that she doesn't want liberals to agree with her and she doesn't want to compromise. Then she goes on to say that hard-working patriotic Americans like myself hate America. The relevance of covering conservative hate is in dispute. As Griot observed, by analogy, we shouldn't cover all the slurs on Hispanics that people with bad manners and bad intentions hurl at them. These insults have nothing to do with American liberalism and they're offensive and damaging to a lot of people. I'm sure that they don't conform to the rigorous standard of NPOV. luketh 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: LukeTH -- I'm amazed.  You have only been reverted once?  That's a remarkable record.  However, you continue to miss the point of this section.  It is not to spread Ann Coulter's lies.  It is make it clear that the way she (and others) use the word "liberal" has no relationship to the actual meaning of the word. This has (read the section) been going on since Kennedy.  But JFK had the balls to say exactly what the Republicans were up to, while our mealymouthed modern Democrats hide their heads in the sand and pretend not to be liberals at all. Rick Norwood 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best way to counter untruth is with truth. Let's focus on making this article a true representation of American liberalism. luketh 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputed" in section title 

message: It has been documented, with sources, that the Republican Party has conducted a deliberate smear campaign to confuse the voters about the meaning of the word "liberal", and to give that word a bad connotation.    
It is really so hard for us to agree on a way to say that, briefly, with documentation, and move on? Rick Norwood 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it hasn't. It has been documented that many conservatives use the word "liberal" as an insult.. there is no evidence that this has anything to do with the Republican Party. There is no evidence that the GOP is conspiring to redefine the word "liberal". Rhobite 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case I agree with Rhobite, but I would change it to "some extreme conservatives use..." luketh 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I've changed my mind. I agree with Rick. This is our best chance for a compromise. luketh 03:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  First of all, I never made such a claim about economic liberalism. Please be more careful when making claims about my statements. When referring to the economic policies of American liberals, economic liberalism is indeed part of American liberalism. I DID say that classical liberalism is a distinct ideology from American liberalism. This is well-documented and you will likely see such claims on the liberalism page, classical liberalism page, and even conservative page, as well as in the header of this very page! Social liberalism, in the context in which I used it, is not referring to social policies of American liberals, but rather to the variant of liberalism that prefers state control of the economy. luketh 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: First, Wikipedia isn't Britannica and there is no reason to take cues from them. They do not have or need an NPOV policy since they employ professional editors. Second, I wrote that "the word 'propaganda' is almost always POV". I never said that the word is verboten in any encyclopedia. This is correct. Use of the word depends on context. "Hemp for Victory" is a propaganda film. Bush calling Kerry a liberal is not propaganda. Negative terms like "propaganda" should only be used within a very narrow definition. Rhobite 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirty-seven edits (so far) in one day. 

message: who cares about the stupid POV section, there's a huge time gap in the History section. It goes from Thomas Paine to the Cold War without anything in between. --Revolución (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're right, Revolucion. Maybe it's better to start improving other sections and leave this section alone. I just get a bit discouraged because most of the good sections I wrote in the past were disassembled and not replaced with anything of substance. Still it's probably better for the article to focus on the overall structure. Would you like to work with me on new sections? luketh 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In reference to this time gap, it may be best to remove the reference to Thomas Paine. American liberalism wasn't a distinct ideology until approximately the time of Woodrow Wilson. I had written an excellent section on the origins of American liberalism but it has since been destroyed. Maybe I can find it in the history and restore it. luketh 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a section on Herbert Croly, widely regarded as the first to combine classical liberalism with progressive values. He proposed the ideas of a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind," ideas that continue to undergird American liberalism. luketh 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need to work on the New Deal section. This is when American Liberalism really took off. luketh 00:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: huge time gap

message: Can we at least make the title accurate? It's clear that everyone is talking about "Use of "liberal" as a slur." Why don't we just title the section as such? I propose that we do. Please discuss arguments for and against in this section if you want to change the title. luketh 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal as a pejorative sounds better. --Elliskev 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A criticism and a slur are not the same thing.  And technically, the Coulter doll isn't using "liberal" as a slur, it's making an accusation about the viewpoint of liberals.  Not the same thing.  If I say, "Martians hate Kansas," I'm expressing my viewpoint about them.  If I look at you disgustedly and say, "Martian!" then I'm using it as a slur.  Kaisershatner 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservatives do have slurs for liberalism, e.g. lefty, lib, collectivist, just to name a few. Liberal isn't one of them, though. It's a pejorative in the sense that the philosophy itself is deemed worthy of derision - no need to exapnd on it. This is all, of course, my editorial on it, as a conservative. --Elliskev 16:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm inclined entirely to agree with you. The section, if anything, should probably discuss serious policy disagreements rather than usage as a slur. However, most editors on the page are arguing that the word "liberal" has itself become a slur/pejorative. I do not agree whatsoever with this claim but I am outnumbered. Since editors want the section to be about use of liberal as a slur, then I'm in favor of an appropriate title. What I am against would be a kind of mixed section that includes sections on slurs and on policy disputes and makes the usage of the word "liberal" in policy disputes appear as if it were used as a slur. For example, the Bush quote is completely out of place because it was about a policy disagreement and it was not a pejorative use of the word "liberal." Implying that use of the word "liberal" during policy disputes is pejorative actually works to make the word pejorative and then our implications become propaganda. Having two sections, one about "liberal" as a slur and one about policy disagreements, would be more honest. luketh 03:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree completely that policy debate belongs somewhere else, if it belongs in the article at all.  Rather, I would see a new article The American debate between liberals and conservatives.  In any case, this section is and has always been about the attempt by conservatives to change the meaning of the word liberal in the minds of the American public, so that instead of meaning "in favor of freedom, democracy, and equality" it means "traitor who hates America".  As for the title, I think the most honest title would be "Attempts to change the meaning of the word liberal." Rick Norwood 16:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elliskev and Rick, I think both of you have reasonable positions. If we could pick an approach and go with it, this section could be alright. Wasted seems definitely to want a section on "liberal" as a slur. Rhobite seems to think that every use of "liberal" by conservatives is a slur and he's against any comments to the contrary which is probably not a tenable NPOV position. If I understand you correctly, Elliskev, you would like a section on why the liberal philosophy is deemed worthy of derision by its opponents. If this is our best hope for a compromise, I would not be against it. Rick, your position seems the most reasonable and truthful of them all. You want to acknowledge that some people are engaging in an intentional campaign to change the use of the word "liberal" in the minds of the American public from positive to negative. I think that if every editor does some soul searching, they will come to the conclusion that this is indeed what we are all implicitly acknowledging by including this section at all. luketh 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy that there is any conspiracy by conservatives to change the meaning of the word. Conservative are just and not liberals. On most hot-topic issues, there is disagreement. So, when conservatives use the word liberal it is a pejorative - in the sense that it's being used to generalize the opposition's stances as specifically not conservative. --Elliskev 19:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then, if you're right, Elliskev, that would make anyone who disagrees with "conservative" to be using "conservative" as a pejorative, or anyone who disagrees with socialism to be using "socialist" as a pejorative. If I understand your position, it doesn't give any reason to think that "liberal" is somehow special and that the negative use of "liberal" justifies this section when similar sections are not on the conservative page or the socialism page. luketh 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Close. I agree to a point, but the fact is that liberals don't go around using the term conservative as a generalization or a pejorative label the way conservatives use liberal. It's my experience that slurs are more often used, e.g. right-winger, reactionary, neocon, or with a qualifying prefix like ultra-conservative. The term conservative is rarely used in the context of Well, whadya expect? He's a conservative! Maybe it's used like that in closed circles, but it's not very prevelant... --Elliskev 20:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would definitely be a slur to say "Well, whadya expect. He's a lefty" and it would definitely be a slur to say "Well, whadya expect. He's a right-winger." If I understand you correctly, it would be a slur to say "Well, whadya expect? He's a conservative?," but you contend that this usage is not prevalent. You seem to be saying it's both pejorative and prevalent to say "Well, whadya expect. He's a liberal"? Would it be fair to say that your only disagreement is that you don't think people who use "liberal" as a slur are collaborating among themselves? [User:LukeTH|luketh]] 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It'd be a pejorative to say "Well, whadya expect? He's a conservative?" And it's not prevalent. And, you are correct. My only argument is that I think that there is no conspiracy regarding the use of liberal as a pejorative - it's just become prevalent. --Elliskev 20:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad I understand your position. Rick and I disagree with that position for different reasons, however, for the purposes of compromise, we can probably avoid claims of conspiracy. luketh 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Elliskev that there is no conspiracy to change the meaning of liberal, at least not in the sense that what they are doing is any secret.  To use the word liberal as often as possible in a negative context has been part of the established game plan of the Republican Party since at least the Kennedy era.  There is a clear distinction between a philosophical debate between liberal and conservative positions, and the actions of the Republican Party in the United States, whose job is not to debate philosophy but to win elections.  Rick Norwood 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm biting my tongue. And it hurts. :) --Elliskev 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: First of all, Rhobite reverted my edits without comment, and, as you can see, I have commented on the reasons for all of my edits extensively. I'm attempting to reach a compromise with Rhobite if he will talk about the issues. As for your edits, you had duplicated several sentences so I removed the duplicates. As for the intro paragraph you wrote, we've been having an EXTENSIVE debate on this section. Most editors have agreed not to make any comments that convey the editor's point of view. Many liberals in the present time continue to associate "liberal" with its historical meaning. To say otherwise would be expressing a point of view. However, I overlooked the well-sourced sentences you included, and I apologize for that. I'll undo that change. luketh 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing I do want to note is that those sentences about "liberal" being used positively by conservatives may be because, as that time, "liberal" was associated with classical liberalism as well as American liberalism. If so, then these sentences could be misleading. luketh 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Controversial Section 

message: I quote, "A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that protect and empower the weak against aggression by the strong and guarantee individual freedom from restrictive social norms."  How is the liberal position on gun control to be reconciled with this statement?  Kaisershatner 03:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand the conflict. Gun control doesn't seem to be an institution or political procedure. Even if it were, I don't understand the conflict. Could you elaborate please? luketh 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure.  "A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that protect and empower the weak against aggression by the strong and guarantee individual freedom from restrictive social norms."  I misread the intent of the sentence; my apologies.  To answer your second question, I was driving at liberal support for gun control neither guaranteeing individual freedom from restrictive social norms (like the belief that gun ownership is not normative), nor protecting nor empowering the weak against aggression by the strong (it does quite the contrary by taking guns away from the law-abiding individual and empowering the State and the lawless over the citizen).  But we don't have to have this debate here as it was my misreading that raised the issue.  Kaisershatner 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I'm against the implication that President Bush was trying to slur Senator Kerry during the debates. I think it's a much more tenable position to argue that Bush was trying to expose Kerry's political positions because he thought that Kerry was trying to deceive the American public regarding where he actually stood on the issues. Hence the claims by Bush that Kerry was a "flip-flopper." If you disagree, please discuss it in this section. I know Rhobite disagrees, but he hasn't presented a compelling argument. If somebody presents a compelling argument that it's true (and suitable wording), there's no reason we can't accuse Bush of making a slur. luketh 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't presented a compelling argument for removing this. You renamed the section so that you could remove the debate thing.. that was dishonest of you. The section isn't merely about slurs, it's about use of the term pejoratively. Bush was obviously intending to insult Kerry's politics. That is by definition pejorative. And I can't think of a better example of negative use of "liberal" than a sitting president insulting his challenger with the term in a debate. Rhobite 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think your claim is accurate or neutral. Why don't you start a new section on policy disputes. In that context, George Bush was definitely not insulting Kerry with the word "liberal." A policy dispute is very different from deliberately using a word to hurt someone. As for the title, pejoratives and slurs are the same thing. "Slur" is a more honest word because it's harder to hide legitimate policy disputes under it. For a compromise, Rhobite, we could have two sections, one for policy disputes and one for slurs. To put policy disputes in a section on using the word "liberal" as a pejorative is quite dishonest and biased. luketh 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: George Bush Slurring Kerry 

message: After reading the entire speech by Kennedy, I think we should analyze the entire quote. "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."" There are a couple of things to note. FIRST, Kennedy didn't accuse his opponents of using the word "liberal" pejoratively. He claimed that his opponents thought that liberals were "soft on policies abroad, etc...." There's no evidence that this claim is at all related to using "liberal" as a slur. SECOND, notice that Kennedy and other liberals were glad to embrace the word "liberal" and they WON the election. Clearly "liberal" had POSITIVE connotations at that time. It doesn't seem at all unusual that Kennedy's political opponents would claim that liberal policies were not great. This is a policy dispute not a slur. The evidence for claiming that this single quote by Kennedy implies the use of "liberal" as a slur during the time that Kennedy won an election as a "liberal" is not very strong. If someone is claiming that "liberal" was used as a slur sometime before the past fifteen years or so, then we need stronger evidence. If you can find such evidence, please contribute. luketh 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you rename the section and now you get to remove everything that doesn't have to do with "slurs"? How about we move the section back to its more general name. Rhobite 22:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need to reach a compromise. Editors said they wanted to cover pejorative use of "liberal" rather than policy disputes. If we are going to cover policy disputes, let's add a separate section. Better to have two focused section than one section that blends slurs and policy disputes making them dishonestly look like the same thing. luketh 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy Quote 

message: I'm not really sure how these two sentences, although sourced, actually distinguish American liberalism from any other political movement:  "Liberals tend to see themselves in the context of their fellow man and woman and assume their rights are no greater and their privileges no greater than anyone else's, regardless of wealth or position [5]. Key liberal values are empathy, compassion, trust, and cooperation [6]."  For example, is it a disputable assertion that "Conservatives tend to see themselves in the context of their fellow man and woman and assume their rights are no greater and their privileges no greater than anyone else's, regardless of wealth or position, or "Key conservative values are empathy, compassion, trust, and cooperation [6]."  I'm sure for a number of religious conservatives, the latter is perfectly accurate, even without considering whether trust or cooperation are valued by laissez-faire or fiscal conservatives.  In the case of the former, does being politically conservative mean one must assume one's rights and privileges are greater than other people's?  I think not.  The notion of preferential treatment based on race, for example, assumes the rights and privileges of certain groups are greater than others - is that an American liberal or conservative idea?  I think both sentences could be struck without affecting the definition of American liberal.  Footnotes notwithstanding.  Thoughts?  Kaisershatner 22:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentences you cite are under the "Philosophy of American Liberalism" section and are well-sourced. The sentences do not imply that conservates do not share these values. Liberalism is not defined as a reaction to conservatism. Many conservatives do, indeed, share values that are also shared by liberals. I do not think that by claiming conservatives have these values, then it follows that liberals do not. Many conservatives have liberal values. The definition of liberalism in this section was taken from The New Republic which tends to portray the viewpoints and philosophy of liberalism accurately. luketh 22:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I specifically noted they were sourced.  I'm not suggesting that if those values are conservative then they are not liberal - I'm precisely suggesting that if they are common to both views, as you point out "many conservatives do, indeed, share values that are also shared with liberals," then they are not specific to either philosophy and can't really properly define them.  It adds no value to either term - it's like saying liberals breathe air, eat food, and drink water.  So does everyone else, so why include this?  In order to define liberal and conservative we should report what values actually distinguish the two views - that's what I'm saying.  Kaisershatner 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Liberalism preceded conservatism. These are central values to liberalism. The fact that some conservatives adopted them do not make them irrelevant to liberalism. These values, if nothing else, distinguish them from fascism and other ideologies that do not share these values. Not everything is a liberal-conservative split. If we removed all liberal values from the conservative article, we would find many displeased editors because the remaining sentences would not accurately portray conservatism. The same applies here. luketh 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll buy that those values distinguish it from fascism, etc.  That does make sense, and I also agree that not everything is an L/C split.  I still would like to know if there are defining values that are specific to American liberalism, because I think it would be valuable for this article to highlight them over ones that are common to many viewpoints.  And my next question is, when you say "Liberalism is not defined as a reaction to conservatism," something that sounds right, but the article's intro states, "American liberalism arose in the early 20th century as an alternative to the laissez-faire economic philosophy, realist political philosophy, and comparatively rigid social values of traditional conservatives that came to characterize the American conservative movement," I feel there is a discordance.  I think you're probably better qualified to reconcile those points than I, so I won't touch it for now , but something seems inconsistent to me about it as it stands. Kaisershatner 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And NB the sentence used to read "Republican Party" not conservative movement.  If liberalism predates conservatism then that can't be right either - or do I have it wrong?  Kaisershatner 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points and you're right: it wouldn't be accurate to say American liberalism was a response to the Republican Party or to traditional conservatism. Liberalism has never been a reactionary philosophy. One of its historical viewpoints is that people of all philosophies can work together to find compromise. The original version of these sentences, which I wrote, claimed only that American liberalism was an alternative to the realist political philosophy. Other editors added the other sections. Let's remove these sentences until someone, maybe you or me, does the research and provides citation. luketh 23:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal viewpoint

message: Haha, did you see the latest "contribution" by Rhobite? LOL, ah, man! I'm leaving the country for a three weeks vacation so I won't be contributing. It was nice to meet all of you, even you Rhobite, and I enjoyed the discussions. Have your way with the page, Rhobite, if you can get through the other editors. Don't muck up the page too badly. See you when I get back. Ciao. luketh 00:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy. Rhobite 00:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving the Country, Nice to Meet You

message: Out of all the controversy, a respectable section seems to have emerged.  I can live with all the changes but one -- the omission of the Kennedy quote.  I've restored it -- it is to the point and documented. 
Can we remove the disputed tag, now? Rick Norwood 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with the inclusion of the Kennedy quotation, which is a nicely-sourced documentation of precisely the point the section is trying to make - that people have used "liberal" in a negative context.  I just moved the order of things around a bit.  I think we can remove the disputed tag if you're more or less happy with my last edits, Rick.  Kaisershatner 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, I'm happy with the section. I still think GWB's debate remark should be included, though. Either way we should lose the NPOV tag. Rhobite 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of liberal as a slur 

message: I imported this text, might need some work, but it also raises to me the issue of where the Greens should be mentioned, and if there are other left-side movements/philosophies that ought to be mentioned.  Rick, is American liberalism a "heterogenous political movement" with lots of sections under the blanket heading of liberal, akin to "American conservatism", or are there universal characteristics that specifically define liberal, or neither?  Help.  Kaisershatner 20:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a stab here, even though you told me to keep my day job (I hope that was a joke, BTW). Both American conservatism and American liberalism are homogeneous political philosophies. But they are heterogeneous political movements. Each has a specific core of beliefs, ideals, etc. However, the problem starts when people don't follow every specific ideal within the philsophy. Some people who are "liberal" don't like a certain aspect of American liberalism, so they choose to ignore it. They don't totally disregard American liberalism, they have just changed it slightly. Same with American conservatism. Some conservatives don't like the isolationist, spendthrift small-government type of conservatism, so they form a new branch. They are still conservatives or liberals, but not fully. All the branches work together in the movement, but don't exactly line up ideologically. Did I make any sense? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it makes sense.  It's why I'm starting to think the article would benefit from a para akin to the intro of American conservatism that notes the heterogeneity of the movement.  But I'll wait.  And I was joking about the day job, after you said "I was joking about Hannity...I was trying to inject some humour. But that's why I'm not a comedian. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got that right! But yeah, a paragraph explaining that the movement is not perfectly homogeneous would be helpful. Something to show that not all liberals are the same, and not all liberals believe the same things either. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoliberalism

message: I have some major problems with this section as written.  As I have stated, I think it is over-general, and while sourced, it's essentially citing assertions about what liberalism is rather than evidence that shows why certain qualities are liberal ones, if that's even possible to prove.  Furthermore, the specific assertion that liberals are empiricists I find puzzling - again, are there conservatives who are empiricists, or liberals who are ideologues who will believe in things irrespective of empirical evidence to the contrary?  Or am I conflating "liberals" and "American liberalism?"  Kaisershatner 20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of liberalism

message: I strenuously object to dragging an entire section on neoconservatism into this article by way of the fact that it appears to have briefly been called paleoliberalism. We already have an article on neoconservatism, and this use of the term "paleoliberalism" has almost no currency (Lind is the only citation for it anyone has been able to find, and, believe me, I've been looking). This is tangential to what is normally meant by "American liberalism": it was a brief attempt—at a time when the word "liberal" was still a positive in American politics—by a faction moving right to somehow hold on to the name. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that goes double for the totally uncited claim that the term may come from von Mises. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Joe, please Wikipedia:assume good faith.  I checked out User:Paleolib's page only to discover there's a VFD pending on the whole paleoliberalism article.  Perhaps I erred in trusting the content.  I hope you'll agree that within the history of American liberalism there should be discussion of the break with the "Scoop Jackson Wing" of the Democrats and Reagan Republicans etc.  It is a part of the story arc of American liberalism.  The Paleolib article may not have been the best way to accomplish that, but I can assure you, my intention was not to introduce a firestorm of controversy pertaining to neoconservatism or anything else.  I've been there, prefer not to visit again.  Kaisershatner 12:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmabel, I left you a little note on the page you mentioned. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed up on some of the sources you suggested and they only further bore out what I'd seen so far. See Talk:Paleoliberalism. I have removed the dubious, uncited material from the present article. What remains is accurate and cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and LV's sources did net me one more citation for Lind's usage, but still none for the non-Lind material that was here. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleoliberalism? 

message: Do you think this page should be moved to Liberalism in the United States? 
===Yes===
*--Revolución (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: *--Revolución (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: * No.  Page moves require all of the links to the page to be changed, which is a lot of trouble.  If we plan to change this article, presumably we would have to make a similar proposal over on the American Conservatism page -- what if one proposal passed and the other didn't.  Besides, we've been over all of this before, so there is no reason to think that if we did change it, somebody a few months down the road wouldn't change it back.  Also, nobody has spelled out any reason for the change, other than personal preference. Comment by Rick Norwood 20:26, 15 December 2005
*"American liberalism" is a very distinct political current; it is not simply Liberalism in the United States.  In some aspects American conservatism could be considered more "liberal" in the international sense.--Pharos 12:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No