Talk:Liberal conservatism

message: The first paragraph of this article says nothing about the nature of liberal conservatism. It is pedantic and round-about rather than direct and to-the-point. The round-about business is for later in the article--some of just want a brief paragraph synopsis---just like the way newspapers and good magazines structure their articles: only about 5% of your audience reads the whole thing and we're all busy people...I think. So I'm not lectured enough on the subject and don't feel like doing the RS work, but if someone feels like undertaking the project, the intro needs some work.71.12.74.67 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In the interest of parsimony and brevity

message: Shouldn't this also mention support for liberal democracy? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, the U.S. is not the only country in the world. And, believe it or not, in many countries, there is nothing at all contradictory about "liberal" and "conservative". I suggest that you might consider reading the articles liberalism and conservatism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please give examples of these countries. The Person Who Is Strange 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Cameron, the leader of the UK Conservative Party has regularly described himself as a "liberal conservative". Unlike the US, most countries in Europe have a true left-wing, aka socialism. Thus Liberalism and Conservatism have much in common which they do not share with Socialism, mainly revolving around an individualist outlook. The Enlightened 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also parties like the D66 in the Netherlands and the Social Liberal party of Denmark that use the term "liberal" to describe themselves and support strong social spending.  They are to the right of Socialist parties but are usually far more supportive of individual liberties.  I think it would be a mistake to automatically equate them with American Liberalism though.  The history of liberalism is confusing.65.0.82.131 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The liberalism in "liberal conservatism"

message: The article is inconsistent about "Liberal Conservatism" or "Liberal conservatism". Unless there is a distinction (I don't believe there is) we should stick to one or the other, and the title of the article should be consistent with the body of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Came with the non-sensical criticism. Intangible 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: (Germany) Junge Freiheit Are there more examples, so we can add a section? 85.178.93.135 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the german wiki-article version the Junge Freiheit lies inbetween conservatism and far-right extremism, so if that is true than it's definatily not liberal conservative 134.3.76.108 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal conservative media 

message: Before reading this article I was completely unfamiliar with the term "liberal conservatism" (as it sounds like an oxymoron in the US). The description makes it sound similar to neoconservatism. Has anything been written about the relationship between the two? How similar are they? I think if you could add something into the article comparing it with neoconservatism or whatever is most similar in the US, it would help American readers to understand what is meant by "liberal conservatism". Kaldari 06:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not really much of a relationship.  Neoconservatism is primarily a foreign-policy ideology, and liberal conservatism is primarily a domestic-policy ideology.  Basically, liberal conservatism is economically liberal (in favor of market mechanisms, free trade, etc.) but socially at least moderately conservative (in favor of traditional values, society, and institutions).  Neoconservatism is not defined by either of those two things, and indeed many neoconservatives are neither. --Delirium 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the confusion, I guess, since in the US so-called "economic liberalism" is considered to be more a conservative ideology. What for example Britain would call "liberal conservatism", we call just conservatism. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal conservatism vs. Neoconservatism 

message: Does anyone else find the phrasing of the article somewhat a bit complicated? I had to re-read a few bits just to get my head around what it was trying to communicate to me (I'm not politically naive, I personally got an election article to FA status). Timeshift 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think the article is confusing, but primarily for failing to sufficiently explain the difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism.  Can you please provide examples of how they differ on specific policies? Bwrs (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing wording

message: Saying that liberal conservatism mainly is found within Anglo-Saxon cultures sounds a lot like original research to me and, frankly, suggests more about with which countries the contributor may be familiar. I will remove it unless some hard evidence can be brought forward to support it. MartinTremblay 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Saxon cultures

message: This article is confusing because the subject isn't defined properly.  Liberal Conservatism refers to the acceptance of liberalism, broadly defined, by people who support traditional institutions, like monarchy, aristocracy and church.  The most obvious example is the UK Conservative Party.  The fact that David Cameron likes the term and uses it as a slogan does not change its meaning.  In fact his definition of "liberal conservatism" does not depart from the tradtional meaning.  I will try to find a source to improve the article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Article 

message: Isn't liberal conservatism in the United States called Libertarian conservatism? --Novis-M (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so because libertarianism would not fit within this definition of conservatism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just edited the article to make clear that "liberal conservative" isn't used in the United States and would be considered an oxymoron.  I think it just corresponds to "conservative" in the U.S., or more specifically to fiscal conservatism as opposed to social conservatism.  Part of the definitional problem here is that the entire mainstream of U.S. politics is made up of "free market" advocates, although I realize there is some debate about that these days within the U.S.  But from a European perspective, we in the U.S. are missing the entire left side of the mainstream.  "Left" parties that in Europe (and Israel) often win elections or at least are part of coalition governments -- social democrats, socialists, labor, Greens -- are considered fringe parties in the U.S.  I'm not talking about someone (like the President for example) who calls himself a progressive (or whatever he calls himself) and some other people call him a socialist, Marxist, etc.; I'm talking about people who call themselves socialists, etc.  In Europe they win elections; here, they don't have a chance.  Neutron (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Conservatism and Libertarian Conservatism 

message: Slovak Democratic and Christian Union – is a christian party  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.241.243 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia 

message: Is the Liberal Party of Australia not a Liberal Conservative party?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.41.77 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: The sentence "As "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term "liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses, and in some countries like the USA would be considered an oxymoron, even in the Continental Europe represents a particularly natural concept." is way too long and someone should fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.95.67 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Sentence 

message: I see this is not a country-centric article but Ronald Reagan is a major figure in liberal-conservatism becoming the dominate ideology in the Republican Party. Before Reagan the Republican Party was largely progressive with Nixon and Ford and prior to that largely national conservative with Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs better sourcing and it seems to confuse conservatives who accept a degree of liberalism (e.g., English Tories), with liberals who have conservative attributes (e.g., Australian Liberals).  TFD (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

text: No. This doesn't seem to fit. Reagan is certainly not to be considered as an example of liberal conservatism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.22.14 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons that I explained several sections up, more than a year ago, I do not think this term should be used in connection with any U.S. politician, regardless of how much it might fit a particular person from a non-American perspective.  However much Wikipedia may prefer a "worldwide view", the term "liberal" just doesn't mean the same thing here that it means in most of the rest of the world.  Neutron (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan? 

message: User:DemitreusFrontwest has repeatedly moved this article (with no consensus) to "moderate conservatism", explaining that "moderate conservatism is more accurate because "liberal conservatism" can mean anything and differs in various regions". Before discussing DF's opinion, let me remind anyone that WP policies ask us to "avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content" and to seek consensus. This said, I agree that "liberal conservatism" may be misguiding in some geographical contexts (i.e. United States), but the term is consistently used in the other continents. An article on "liberal conservatism" is thus necessary, but there might be space also for a separate article on "moderate conservatism". --Checco (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal v moderate conservatism 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Liberal conservatism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Bergqvist1999":
From List of political parties in Greenland: 
From Conservative People's Party (Denmark): 
From People's Party (Faroe Islands): 
From Moderates of Åland: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Liberal conservatism]] 

message: This article contains the sentence:
This very much does not appear to be the case.  Perhaps it was, and perhaps "American conservatism" is no longer "Liberal conservatism", but whatever the case, modern American conservatism (in the popular sphere) seems very much to define itself by those last three tenets, much less reject them (particularly "scepticism regarding progress ('progressives') and elitism", culminating in the 2016 election of Trump).
--RProgrammer (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is based on an authoritative source—and I agree with it. We should not confuse the ideology of one President with American conservatism (is Trump a conservative, by the way?) and, more important, have a historical perspective rather than a "recentist" approach. --Checco (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejecting those three tenets of Burkean conservativism not lauding them? 

message: "We're the People's Front of Judea, not the g***m Judea's People Front."
"What's the difference?"
"Well, they're just a bunch of wankers."Life of Brian
God help us all...
--184.69.174.194 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In your example, the "Front" is the subject in both cases. In our case, "conservatism" and "liberalism" are different subjects, that is why "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" are entirely different and should not be confused. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Just as a sidenote, but that is what a lot of ideology articles lack in my opinion: specific policy examples. I can see that it's a bit murkier because you don't want to over-generalize and all, but it definitely helps explain the positions of an ideology, particularly for those largely unacquainted with the more theoretical side of things.  ¡Ayvind! (talk)  ¡Ayvind! (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal conservatism not to be confused with conservative liberalism 

message: Are liberal conservatives "refugee friendly" or not? What about limiting immigration? Is there any differenсe between liberal conservatives, conservative liberals and national liberals?
:There is no philosophical common line on these issues. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration, immigration, asylum seekers policy