Talk:Liberalism

Equal rights

Equal rights don't belong to the definition of liberalism. No other language version of wikipedia includes equal rights in the main definition of liberalism. Britannica defines liberalism thus: "liberalism, Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government." Here it is also sourced problematically. What we need here is some dictionary definition and I'm sure that none includes equal rights as a major principle of liberalism.--85.162.94.135 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias. Do you think btw that the quote you provided is referring to unequal rights? TFD (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Equal rights = Egalitarianism. By "rights" the definition is referring only to legal egalitarianism - equality before the law. The mention about equal rights in this article is taken from some unimportant book called "Christianity and Liberal Society" on page 45. It looks it is taken out of context and it certainly doesn't look like part of any definition.--85.162.0.150 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that our IP editor is applying the negative, pejorative meaning of "liberal" here and cannot associate something positive like equal rights with it. I suggest studying the diverse meanings of the word (mostly positive) around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe it's the exact opposite, I am well aware of the true meaning of the word and I see how its meaning has been distorted in the USA. I rather dislike the concept of equal rights as such and I really don't consider them positive. I am sure that the concept of equal rights doesn't form integral part of liberalism in any part of the world and therefore it should be removed from the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The only distortion Americans have applied to the meaning of the word "liberal" is to make it even more right wing.67.60.119.206 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be sure, but the term "equal rights" appears six times in the article, so some others must be equally sure of the opposite view. I think that it's a part of what some people see liberalism as meaning, but obviously not all. This is always going to be a difficult concept to pin down precisely. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned 4 times including the introductory part, but never in direct connection with the definition of the word. I see no reason to leave it there. Your view is the minority view, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention minority views, and anyway, Wikipedia doesn't work on voting, it's works on what reliable sources say. Your opinion (and mine) aren't very important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well reliable sourced don't say anything about equal rights being part of liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.162.26.67 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberals may disagree among themselves about what equality and freedom mean. Early liberals believed that it could include slavery for example. But those are the two core principles. TFD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The American Declaration of Independence is considered to be one of the defining documents of liberalism, and most of the liberal constitutions in the world, including the charter of the United Nations, are based on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic Yellow Flag

The Yellow flag used as symbol for the whole liberalism portal should go. Three reasons:

1. Yellow is the colour associated with a bunch of modern liberal political parties. But not more than that, a mere association. The colour yellow does not have the same meaning as for example the colour red has for socialists.

2. Flags like these symbolize resistance and revolution. Modern liberals don't do that stuff.

3. Classical liberals did, but this colour is completely anachronistic when discussing classical liberalism. They would use the national colours or the colour red (jacobins). The image on the front page of liberty sporting the tricolore is a good example. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the talk page for that discussion. This is just one of a series of articles on liberalism. TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize. I will go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Liberalism_sidebar to discuss this further. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A very incomplete history....

The first few paragraphs of this page should more or less read this way:

"Liberal"ism in modern terms is a watered down form of communism/socialism. Modern "Liberals" have no connection whatsoever with classical liberalism since classical liberals were concerned with individual liberty. Modern "Liberals" are involved in very un-progressive(another very miss-used word) activities such as forcing communistic style gun control(in order to disarm the common people so they cannot fight back against communist evil) and health care down the throats of the American people at the point of a government gun. They are also known to support government schools, the progressive income tax(that targets all workers, not just ‘the rich’) and a central bank and the erosion/destruction of property rights for all, not just 'the rich,' all planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

American communists and socialists of the early to mid 20th century started calling themselves "liberals" and 'progressives' after Stalin's murderous ways became publicly known in this country. Prior to that they openly admired his dictatorship. Their history is an evil one and they have not abandoned it, but only lie about it to deceive the ignorant.

A socialist activist and Socialist Party candidate for president, Norman Thomas, had this to say about their efforts to hide their evil behind a name which represents the opposite of their evil agenda:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party Presidential candidate

This page is to be divided into two parts: the history past and present of classical liberalism and another section of the modern evil that calls itself "Liberal"ism but is the opposite of that in practice. The histories of both segments may go back hundreds of years, indeed to the dawn of civilization.

The "Liberals" have obviously infiltrated Wikipedia and affected the writing of their evil history in order to hide their evil agenda from the ignorant, as has been their goal all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waypasthadenough (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

""Liberal"ism in modern terms is a watered down form of communism/socialism."

This is ridiculous. If anything, socialism has just become so watered down it's easily confused with what has always been liberalism, not the other way around. There are just a bunch of ridiculous libertarian revisionist on the internet who are inventing a historical basis, to the detriment of history.67.60.119.206 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted links on your talk page to WP policies explaining how articles are written. Most importantly the article needs to reflect neutrality and be based on reliable sources. There are of course some writers who believe that modern liberalism is not true liberalism. However, the quote from Norman Thomas is false. Thomas in fact opposed the New Deal which he saw as statism. Opinions on the 1848 Communist Manifesto's demands, many of which have been implemented, are varied. Marx later decided that reforms to improve the conditions of working people would only strengthen the state. TFD (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that this is a global article about a word that has diverse meanings across the globe. It's not just an article about the USA. To suggest that Liberalism in Australia has anything to do with Communism is just laughable. HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To suggest American Liberalism has anything to do with Communism is laughable.

Dubious

I've tagged the sentence: "It helped launch into power such presidents as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Economic woes in the early 21st century, however, led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election." as dubious as the cited introduction does not match the content, with neither HW nor Reagan being mentioned. aprock (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is for the second sentence. Do you find the first sentence dubious? Very well, I'll provide a citation. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I question though whether the second sentence is supported by the source (Wolfe, p. xiv). [1] Also, Wolfe wrote the book immediately following the 2008 election, and it is pretty clear that there have been no major policy shifts in Washington, and with the 2010 election, none will occur. TFD (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The election of a Black man as president is itself a sign of the resurgence of social liberalism. As for major policy shifts, we have the stimulus package, regulation of banks, comprehensive health care, the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the end of federal proscution of marijuana smokers and married gays. The changes in the last three years have been huge. Whether they will continue, or be rolled back, only the 2012 election will tell. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try and find something on it. From what I have read, the 2008 economic crisis led to a challenge to the neoliberal paradigm, but the steps taken to address the crisis were within the paradigm, and therefore there was no return to social liberal theory. TFD (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Blakeley (Taylor & Francis, 2009) wrote in State terrorism and neoliberalism, "It is too soon to say what the full impact of the 2008 global economic crisis will have on neoliberalism.... We witnessed in the latter half of 2008 the massive injection of capital by numerous states to prop up failing banks and other financial institutions, practices that are far removed from the minimal state principle at the heart of neoliberalism. This does not, however, necessarily signal an outright rejection of neoliberalism.... It may simply be that neoliberalism is entering a new phase."[2] The book The crisis of neoliberalism (Harvard, 2011), which argues for a new paradigm, shows that the neoliberal paradigm continues.[3] TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But the sentence in question is about social liberalism, not about neoliberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See Social liberalism#Reversal. The implication is that the crisis of 2008 led to a return to social liberalism. While that was a possible outcome, it did not happen. TFD (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll attempt a rewrite based on what you've said, provided you have not done so already. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit seems fine. TFD (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Psychology" section

Removed this as not noteworthy.

The full section relied on just one study which had found a correlation between some genetic disposition and being liberal (when some other condition is fullfilled, and it looks like all subjects lived in the US). Scientific studies correlating something measurable, such as genes, with the political view must number in the thousands, if not more. Finding one more correlation there is absolutely not noteworthy. --Xeeron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this removal. People can change their view points due to life experiences, it is hard for me to believe that genes play a significant role in political affiliation.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on evidence, not on what is or is not "hard to believe". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

First of "it is hard for me to believe" does not enter into it, secondly concervatives has a psychology section so sould Liberlism. If not it sends the signal that one is a patology, the other is the thing that is "not hard to belive"