Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 1

message: It seems to me that the entire section titled "An Introduction to Conservatism" is largely a repetition of the preceeding section.  What do others think?
P.S. Where are you, experts on Mexico and Central America? Rick Norwood 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An introduction to conservatism

message: This article should probably be moved to a name that deals exclusively with the U.S., as Canada is going to have its own idiosyncrasies. And, that's only going to serve to confuse the article in the future. Something like Modern American conservativism or Modern conservativism in the United States or American conservativism (modern) ..something like that. RJII 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that (though the 21st century has only been around for 5 years), or something like American conservativism (non-traditional). There is a American liberalism which appears to be about the non-traditional or modern version. RJII 01:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change

message: Just so no one is taken by surprise, the name change from "Conservatism in North America" to "American Conservatism" is discussed extensively above. Rick Norwood 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: I've moved the part about Canada to the Canadian conservatism talk page, for people there to integrate it into their article if they like -- I don't know enough about the subject to attempt it.  Most of it seems to be already there.  I've changed the name of the section "Conservatism in other english speaking countries" to "A brief history of American conservatism", becuase that seems to be what is left.  Actually, I think the whole section is redundent, but I didn't want to make too big a change at one time. Rick Norwood 18:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move Canada 

message: Voice of All restored the cleanup flag.  I had hoped to see here some of the reasons -- it seems to be that a lot of progress has been made since the article was flaged.  What specific areas need cleanup, and, while we are at it, what areas are still NPOV.  I think the article looks pretty good now, thanks to a great deal of work by many people, and would like to either hear some specific objections or see the flags removed. Rick Norwood 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The cleanup tag was removed(by me) and the POV tag stays as the article needs a criticism section(but not a POV blogger section).Voice of  All @|E|Merit</Sup></font> 17:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup flag 

message: I'm guessing that the article should be split into at least two different articles.  The division would be between conservatism in the US (as a movement) and the leadership of Reagan and the two Bush Presidents.  There exist several conservative movements outside the Presidency (ranging from the Religious Right to several news sources to the Heritage Foundation).  On the other hand, the three presidents that have lead the conservative movement have their own idiosyncracies, which are not necessarily part of the movement.
What do others think? -- Chip Unicorn
: Maybe you're thinking of neoliberalism? RJII 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe.  Except that most people associate Reagan and both Bushes with conservatism, not neoliberalism. -- 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people regard libertarianism with modern conservativism. Reagan is a case in point:"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -Reagan.  I would say that libertarianism is modern ultraconservatism --which would be the same thing as classical liberalism. RJII 02:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough!
I would like to see this article brought into a shape where the fairness is no longer in dispute.  Also, I would like the see the title adopted, since the conservative movement in other North American countries is quite distinct from the conservative movement in the United States, and since by 2050 conservatism may have come to mean something other than what it means in 2005.  Can anyone help with this?  I don't know how to change an article title, nor do I know who to turn to to get a warning label removed.  Rick Norwood
Things have been quiet for a while.  I'll wait a week, and if there is no objection I'll change the title to "Conservatism in the United States in the early Twenty-first Century" and try to remove the tag that says the article is disputed.  Rick Norwood 209.247.222.115 00:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that's kind of weird. I don't think conservativism in 1999 is that much different than conservativism in 2001. How about "Modern conservativism (United States)".  That will match up with the "Modern liberalism" article, though it hasn't been disambiguated to the U.S. RJII 01:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey I think I have a better title: "Contemporary conservativism (United States)"  I think that may take care of your problem with "modern" as the page will always be updated to reflect what's going on today. What do you think? I  may suggest that the "Modern liberalism" article be moved to to "Contemporary liberalism." (I got the idea from Encyclopedia Britannica who calls it contemporary liberalism). RJII 22:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I think it still needs to be broken up into separate countries. I think it's inevitably going to get too long as sections for each country starts developing. RJII 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate conservatism from Reagan / Bush / Bush leadership? 

message: #Many people, liberals and conservatives alike, are critical of the current Republican version of conservatism.  Many people are critical of the Bush Administration.  True, but not relevant to this article - how about "There is debate over whether the policies of the Bush Administration accurately reflect the values of American conservatism?" - which anyway probably belongs in the article about his Administration.
#Peggy Noonan, writing for the Wall Street Journal, recently said, "For this we fought the Reagan revolution? A year into his second term, President Bush is redefining what it means to be a Republican and a conservative, and most of us who proudly call ourselves both don't like the results."  Yes, she said that, but it's criticism of Bush, not American conservatism.
#"President Bush's job approval ratings are at their lowest point of his presidency as only 40% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of his job performance and 58% have a negative opinion, according to a Harris Interactive poll," said a front page story in the August 24 2005 Wall Street Journal. ...see my point?
#The current Republican administration is also criticized in Europe, especially for the conduct of the war in Iraq, which in Europe is sometimes referred to as "Bush’s war".  A front page story in The Guardian for June 1 2004 has a headline, “Bush’s war has nothing to do with the spirit of D-day.”  The German newspaper Spiegel for October 7 2005, reporting on the vote in the US Senate to outlaw the abuse of prisoners in American custody, said, "The move is being seen as a slap in the face to a President Bush who is retreating on all fronts."  This one doesn't even have the word "Conservative" in it.
#Jim Jeffords, the Republican Senator from Vermont, resigned from the Republican Party in 2001 because he no longer supported the policies offered by the George W. Bush administration.  Again, true, but all it shows is that Jeffords is not a conservative Republican.  It's not really a criticism of Conservatism as much as a statement that the Party and Jeffords disagree ideologically.
#Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay has stepped down after accusations of financial impropriety.  Republican Senator Bill Frist is under investigation for selling stock shortly before a sharp drop in price.  ...which apart from egregiously ignoring the presumption of innocence, has to do with the behavior of two politicians associated with the American Conservativism and the Republicans, but not about the movement or philosophy in any way...
#But of all the criticisms leveled at the Republican version of conservatism, the strongest may be that the national debt, as of October 10 2005 is $7,987,482,617,684.  (in the opinion of the author).  
I have deleted this section.  There are probably many cogent, interesting, and relevant critiques of the conservative movement, but those points above have nothing to do with it.  Kaisershatner 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The entire section is "Criticism of the Bush Administration," not of Conservatism

message: This is not any better.
As numerous polls illustrate, many people, liberals and conservatives alike, are critical of American conservatism,
:What polls? Source for this is...?
and in particular of the Iraq war. European conservatives in Germany, France, and Russia have specifically opposed the American war, calling it unprovoked aggression based on lies, while other countries which originally supported the war, such as Spain, have withdrawn their support.
:The war was approved by Democrats and Republicans (American Liberals and American Conservatives) both.  European opposition, therefore, is criticism of America, not just American Conservatism.
In America, more and more people are openly critical of the conservative movement.
:Is there anything to back up this allegation? If anything, the continual Republican gains in Congress suggest the opposite.  Maybe rewording it to In America, people are more and more openly critical would pass the literal test...
The anti-liberal viewpoints and assertions of conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have alienated many as has the perceived ineptitude and corruption of powerful conservatives. 
:Loaded
President Bush's approval rating is currently at an all time low and his handling of disaster relief after Hurricane Katrina has been widely criticized.
:This, at least, is relevant 
House Majority Leader Tom Delay has been indicted for financial impropriety, and Senator Bill Frist is under a ?cloud? for making a medical diagnosis based on a videotape and for selling his stock shortly before a sharp drop in price.
:This is political, individual, Rep v Dem, not really Criticism of Conservatism
Peggy Noonan, writing for the Wall Street Journal, recently said, "For this we fought the Reagan revolution? A year into his second term, President Bush is redefining what it means to be a Republican and a conservative, and most of us who proudly call ourselves both don't like the results."
:This is the best.  This belongs here.
There is an increasing sense that
:By whom?
, by paying lip service to family values, 
:Again, loaded.
American conservatives have been placed in a position to spend or waste an almost unimaginable amount of money, while running up trillions of dollars of debt.
:Without source, POV.
--Elliskev 13:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  I will work on addressing them. Rick Norwood 14:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted the new section, under a more appropriate title.  Thank you for your criticism, Elliskev, the section is much more clearly appropriate because of it. Rick Norwood 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section is NPOV.  It's tough, since I personally disagree with most of it. I am a little concerned about the last sentence regarding the deficit, but I can live with it.  All in all, good job.--Elliskev 20:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Rick Norwood 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that an improved version has been inserted. The intro is still shaky, and it could be expanded, but at least it looks like something you might find in an encyclopedia now.Voice of  All @|E|Merit</Sup></font> 23:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: One of my main goals was to keep it short.  I think it needs to be here, but I did not want it to overbalance the other sections in this subsection. Rick Norwood 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Much better. Now how bout we NPOV the liberal section. (First, look at their last section: No sources, all straight from the author's mouth - I can hear his voice coming through. Also, no section about criticism.) But again, good fix on this article. Djacobs 
01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Ciriticism Section 

message: I do not agree with this deletion, but I will not revert it, only add my vote that the section should be restored.  If enough other people feel the same way, then it should be restored.  I hope we can discuss this subject. Rick Norwood 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - just to be clear, I'm not averse to having a section on "Criticism," but if you're talking about my deletion supra, the majority of that stuff is unsourced and is criticism of the Bush Administration, not criticism of the philosophy or movement of American Conservatism - that's why I thought it didn't belong here.  Kaisershatner 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've taken a bit more time to read the rest of this article, and it is notable for the current POV that Conservatism is a coalition of unrelated interest groups (maybe, maybe not, but that it is more so than American Liberalism, which is not described that way, is arguable and certainly the POV of the author), as well as for the way each of those groups is defined - by what it stands against.  Accordingly, I would like to edit the intro to make it less overtly anti-Conservative, and in the spirit of preserving the NPOV and in recognizing the concerns above about deleting the "criticism" section, I would like to move much of the "anti-" information into a criticism section.  Please do not flame me, this is in good faith and an attempt to balance the POV of this article.  I mean, the word "reactionary" was actually used as a descriptor.  Kaisershatner 19:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of criticisms of 21st century American conservatism 

message: Turning now to the section "Types of conservatism".  Much of this section seems to repeat what is already covered in the "Conservatism" article.  I sugest it be shortened, with a reference to the main article, and focused on Types of American conservatism, or else eliminated entirely as redundant.  Any thoughts on this subject? Rick Norwood 19:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of conservatism 

message: Since the name of this article seems to have been a subject of considerable discussion in the past, I'm not going to just be bold, but it does seem to me that under WP:NC the title really ought to be "American conservatism" with a small 'c'.  --Russ Blau (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I will move this page maybe tomorrow to fit with WP:NC. We can all work as a team to fix what links here, but I'll take main responsibility. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital C? 

message: "The division of the United States into conservative red states and liberal blue states is artificial and does not reflect the actual distribution of voters of either stripe.  People who live in homogeneous communities, such as small towns, tend to vote Republican.  People who live in heterogeneous communities, such as big cities and college campuses, tend to vote Democrat.  Thus, within each state, there is a division between city and country, between town and gown."  
I would like this out of the intro and into a subsection, maybe, about "Red State" "Blue State."  Thoughts?  Kaisershatner 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph makes a valid point.  My vote is to leave it. Rick Norwood 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: While it does make a valid point, I'm not so sure it deserves a place in the intro. We don't completely qualify our topic before beginning an article. Instead of analysis, we usually give some kind of general overview, one that will let the reader know if this is what he has been looking for.  Also, though making such claims might seem intuitive to some, the paragraph's assertions definitely need some solid statistics. (These don't have to be stated in the article but should be sourced.) Further, the thought is strangely lacking in the liberalism article. If I say that a lot, it's because I feel they should mirror each other for a truly NPOV. - Djacobs 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree about the point that American Conservatism and American Liberalism should be similar in tone, to obtain NPOV.  I would like to see a paragraph similar to the one above in the American Liberalism article, stating where the liberals tend to live.  As for a source, the information that city people and university people tend, overwhelmingly, to be liberal, and that small town people tend, overwhelmingly, to be conservative, has been reported many times.  Here is one source: The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira. Rick Norwood 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again in the spirit of synthesis, I have re-instated this para, in the part dealing with American regions that are conservative.  Kaisershatner 14:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Red state blue state

message: The article on American liberalism is IMO considerably more well-written.  In particular, it actually focuses on American liberalism, while still referencing its roots and the definition of various liberal antecedents.  This article has a HUGE section on the types of conservative thought, but one that is largely divorced from the American Conservative movement it is supposed to be describing.  I think that could be cut/moved entirely, and I think we should try a more parallel TOC with the American Liberalism article, ie, Roots/Early Conservatism, Cold War Era, Nixon Era, Reagan, GWB, something like that.  Kaisershatner 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that is all remnants of when this article was not focused on American conservatism. I concur the history could be written better. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section titles, TOC

message: My impression of the recent major edit is that it puts forward one particular kind of American Conservatism, the laisez-faire capitalist kind, at the expense of all of the other kinds mentioned in the older version.  But the main point, I think, is that a rewrite so major should be discussed for at least several days before implementation. Rick Norwood 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, sorry if my tone above is argumentative.  I made some edits to the version you reverted to try and respect your perspective.  Please let me know how I can do more.  Kaisershatner 14:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too big a change to make without discussion and a waiting period.