Talk:Liberalism

Another issue

Another issue. Someone is adding information that says that after the election of Barack Obama "the question of whether or not the US will accept a return to social liberalism remains in doubt.(ref)Wolfe, p. xiv.(/ref)" This is inappropriate for this section because it is trying to predict the future instead of stating what has happened in the past. — Preceding unsigned 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not mention the first part of the sentence which you have left intact, "Economic woes in the early 21st century led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the |2008 presidential election...." The source, which is used throughout the article, The future of liberalism (2008), also says (p. xiv), "But will [liberals] use that power to advance liberal ideas? The answer to this question, as it happens is not self-evident."[1] We cannot use this source to say there was a resurgence of social liberalism without qualifying it. Since the book was published of course it is increasingly apparent that the 2008 election is not leading to a return to 1960s economic policy. There is no policy btw against saying there is doubt about future events. TFD (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You have taken the authors words out of context because you personally don't think that there's a future for liberalism while I know that there is a future for liberalism in this country because I'm involved politically. Liberal political groups have grown quickly over this last year and polling is showing that they are viewed favorably with 79% viewing progressives favorably while only 72% view conservatives favorably. I took this out and I'm writing to Alan Wolfe to clarify this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.166.60 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not whether liberalism has a future but whether it will be the social liberalism of John Dewey or the that of "post-New Deal Democrats" as represented by Bill Clinton. When Wolfe wrote, there was doubt which road Obama would take. You might way to read Wolfe's introduction to his book before writing to him. TFD (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A note to 71.227.166.60. Mind reading is frowned on in Wikipedia. ("...you personally don't think that ...") The statement reflects the view stated in the book cited. On the other hand, I looked at the paragraph with the last part removed, and I think it is more encyclopedic that way, so I agree with you that it should be removed. But please don't tell us what other people think. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of removing the sentence entirely. To say that the source says there has been a resurgence of social liberalism is misleading. Wolfe did not use the term "social liberalism" and it is used here as a synonym for U.S. liberal economic and welfare policies, not what in the U.S. would be called "social" policies. There has been no return to Keynsianism or expansion of the welfare state and it is doubtful that there will be under the current administration. TFD (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the topic of the article is Liberalism, I think Obama merits a mention. If you want, you could delete the adjective "social". As for your statement that there has been no expansion of the welfare state, I need only mention Bush II's prescription drug plan for seniors and Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. But social liberalism is not the same as welfare liberalism. It includes the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the decriminalization of medical marijuana. The election of a Black president is itself a major victory for social liberalism, in a country where all previous presidents have been White. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the ambiguity of the term. The term "social liberalism" as used in the article refers to economic and welfare policies only, which are "social policies". As you mentioned, Bush introduced the seniors' drug program and he also brought out a stimulus package, all before the election of Obama. In any case we must represent what the source says and if it is wrong find another source. The source says that it was possible that Obama would return to the social welfare policies of Roosevelt and Johnson, but might instead return to the policies of Clinton. The belief was that the polices followed by Western governments since the mid-1970s had failed and we would return to the policies followed from the mid-1930s to the mid-1970s. Well that has not happened. TFD (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. While this article is strongly biased in favor of what it calls "classical liberalism", presenting it as an equal movement with what it calls "social liberalism", when in fact it is a minor strain, which has never been put to the test, while social liberalism has been successful in every country where it has been tried, and is the major political view in every successful country. The chief opponents of social liberalism is not classical liberalism but rather capitalist dictatorship, as in China, or religions dictatorship, as in Saudi Arabia. However, this article does at least define social liberalism as the use of government to protect people's rights. Consider how absurd it is that the section on liberalism in the US does not even mention the Civil Rights movement! The article needs a major rewrite, to restore some semblance of objectivity. Ironic, that the person who alerted me to this is someone who objects that the article is not biased enough! Rick Norwood (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is biased, the prediction that Obama will roll back 35 years of post-New Deal liberalism is doubtful. The article should accurately report what the source says. TFD (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all agree that the speculative portion of that sentence should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN#Liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Libertarian view of liberalism the mainstream view?

This article states, without reference, that liberalism has two strains, classical and social. Throughout the article, these two views are contrasted. This is, of course, the Libertarian worldview, and the Libertarian jargon, "positive rights", "negative rights" is introduced in the lead.

Looking at several encyclopedias, dictionaries, and academic studies of liberalism, this does not seem to be a standard view of the subject. In fact, only libertarians seem to hold this view, and of libertarians, mostly American libertarians.

Unless someone can provide a mainstream source for this point of view, I plan to remove it from the lead.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I see comments like this the more I think we need two articles on Liberalism, one for the USA and one for the rest of the world. The usage and common meanings are just so different. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood. HiLo48, there already is an article called Liberalism in the United States. TFD (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we call this article Liberalism outside the USA and treat the usages completely as two different languages? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The two uses of "liberalism" did not begin to diverge until about fifty years ago, and so this article is the appropriate place to disucss the liberalism that was and is the dominant political philosophy of all modern nations that are not dictatorships. We need to remove the strictly American usage (and that only by some Americans) from this article, or else limit it to the subsection on liberalism by country. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It would make no sense exclude the U.S. from an article about liberalism. TFD (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Without acknowledging the problem of fundamentally different usage, that post makes little sense either. Let's face it. It's virtually only in the USA that the word liberal is used by some as an insult, almost akin to "spawn of the devil". The emotion attached to that usage makes it very hard for some American editors to accept that such a meaning doesn't exist elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? TFD (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would make no sense to exclude the US from this article, but nobody is suggesting that. What I plan to do is make the article a little less US-centric, by limiting the anti-liberal definition of liberalism that HiLo48 rightly complains about to at most a short section on the modern US usage. Since there does not seem to be any disagreement about that, I'm going to go ahead and start rewriting the article, by removing unreferenced claims. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the usage of "Liberal" as a pejorative seems to be limited to the US I agree with RN that it is better placed within the US section. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

^^^^

Libertarianism implements limitations and prohibitions on government to establish individualism (liberalism), while authoritarianism enables government to establish statism (conservatism), where both definitions share a consistent point of reference by being defined with respect to government.

Now, at some point egalitarianism (equal merit) subverted libertarian principle and libertarian etymology with the introduction of the term liberalism!

It was a coup d'etat of morose proportions as the means to establish egalitarianism is through authoritarianism - an antonym of libertarianism: Orwellian doublethink!!

For example, the statue of liberty represents absolute autonomy, as individualism, independent from any other authority.

Libertarian policy applies a deontology of negative wrights, while authoritarian policy applies a consequentialism of positive wrights.

The contentious realm of compromise for degree between the extremes of libertarian policy versus authoritarian policy, in pursuit of optimizations for individual liberty within a society, is correctly categorized as UTILITARIANISM!

Egalitarianism must be categorized as authoritarian and a facet of utilitarianism!

Political science must excise egalitarianism from an association with the term liberalism and seek to make the term liberalism consistent in principle and etymology with libertarianism and liberty as independence of the individual from authoritarianism of government! GeMiJa (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC) • contribs)

This is, of course, the Libertarian view. But it is not the mainstream view. The mainstream view is that government exists to protect liberty ("to insure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our descendants"). Libertarians love to hold up the "straw man" of liberals being in favor of "equal merit", but I've never heard any liberal suggest any such thing, except in the sense of equality under God and the law. As for Utalitarianism, that just means doing what works, instead of following belief systems that don't work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is based on the concept of freedom not equality. They argue that unless individuals have access to food, shelter, education, etc. that they are not truly free. The term "positive right" refers to freedom not equality. TFD (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief Australia mention is wrong.

The liberal party in Australia is the Labor party. The Liberal Party (also known as The Coalition due to them requiring to team up with The National Party to even get close to enough votes to compete with Labor) is conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.65.207 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Labor Party is socialist, not liberal. There is no conservative party in Australia. TFD (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Liberal Party is no longer a classical liberal party. But we really need to relate what reliable sources say, and the one used in the article is useless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Alan Ware's Political Parties and Party Systems is a good source for identifying liberal parties worldwide. I no longer have access to it, but here is a summary from the University of Dayton.[2] The term liberal today creates semantic confusion because in some parts of the world it is associated with reformist liberalism, e.g., the U.S., in others with market liberalism (e.g., France). TFD (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, while generally you are dead on the money, the Australian Labor Party's ideological position varies between very very soft social-democracy in their ultraleft faction, through "Labourism" an ideology that is typically Australian (Try "How Labor Governs" by VG Childe, etc.), through social Catholicism to reactionary and imperialist working class positions. However, since 1983, the party's actual practice has been neo-liberalism. This doesn't make them a "liberal" party, in that very few ALP authors or politicians espouse "liberalism," rather it is that Labourism reconfigured to be neo-liberal, and dragged the Labor Right with them. Socialism has had very little to do with the ALP, and the proportion to which the ALP has had any socialist tinge has decreased rapidly over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just going by the general categories assigned to types of political parties. Presumably the Liberals support capitalism and the constitution, while the Labor Party retains ties to organized labor. Two of the other main criteria for categorization - history and naming of the parties - are pretty clear also. And the ALP retains membership in the Socialist International. Of course both parties have changed from their 19th century origins, at which time they would have appeared similar to the British Liberal and Labour Parties. Read the link I provided. TFD (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As you'd know there's a dubious connection between the Socialist International and Socialism, which is normally considered as something to the "left" of social democracy, and occasionally (PSI, Hungarian Social Democrats) left of democratic socialism. The 19th century Labor parties varied quite considerably from the Lib/Lab origins of the UK Labour Party, and the equivalent of the ILP was extraparliamentary, and... "Labourism" is usually the best categorisation for the ideology of the antipodean Labour parties. anyway. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I was usuing the broad categories that are generally used which are explained here and are largely based on the reasons for the creation of parties in the first place and are broad enough that they do not make distinctions between socialist and labor parties, radical and liberal parties, authoritarian and liberal conservative parties, left-wing and right-wing green parties, etc., and yes it can be argued that socialist parties are no longer socialist, conservatives are no longer conservative, liberals are no longer liberal. Still it forms a useful tool for grouping parties in different countries so that the Labor Party in Australia bears some resemblance to the Labour Party in the UK. TFD (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41 edit

Good edit, R-41. You put a lot of work into improving the appearance of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Robespierre and the Jacobins be classified as liberal?

As per the articles on more controversial topics such as fascism and Marxism-Leninism, I have noticed that they address the controversies and atrocities that involved the ideology such as the Holocaust and the Great Purge - it is not POV to address these because they are important in the history of the ideology. However the controversial elements of the French Revolution such as the Reign of Terror seem to be minimalized here - especially in regard to Robespierre. When I added a picture of Robespierre, a user removed it, and claimed that it was doubtful where Robespierre was a liberal and claims that the Reign of Terror was not liberal. Historian Francois Furet claims the Reign of Terror was deeply ideologically rooted in the idea of promoting "man's regeneration" based on free will and enlightenment that the Committee of Public Safety promoted that resulted in violence against people suspected of being counterrevolutionaries out of a zealous commitment by the Jacobins to the revolution. Robespierre defined the Reign of Terror as being necessary, Robespierre said: "The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny" and said that "Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."

First of all, I believe a strong argument can be made that demonstrates that Robespierre being a Jacobin upheld many classical liberal values - albeit in a contorted way like Stalin's sociopathic version of Marxism. In Robespierre: The Voice of Virtue, that seeks to describe Robespierre not merely as a tyrant but as a man with genuine beliefs, it describes Robespierre as being a proponent of universal suffrage, of being an abolitionist (seeking to end slavery). Robespierre was part of a revolution that was associated with many classical liberal goals. The issue of Robespierre's association with liberalism - if he was a liberal or if he was not a liberal - needs to be investigated further here by other users, because regardless of Robespierre's controversies he was an important figure in the Jacobin movement and the French Revolution.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is always possible to find historians who present revisionist views. You need to show that they have become accepted. TFD (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Francois Furet and Otto Scott do not seem to have a good reputation. Can you find more notable scholars, R-41? I'm inclined to agree that Robespierre at least posed as a liberal, may have been a liberal. No idiology is free of its bloody tyrants, and those who argue that an ideology is bad because it produced tyrants are taking a tack that can reach any desired conclusion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that liberalism is "bad" because of Robespierre - but I am also not claiming that it nor any other ideology is innocent, and that like the articles on fascism and Marxism-Leninism, the controversial and indeed negative aspects of its history should be mentioned - including the political violence that followed the French Revolution - including the substantial political persecution was unleashed by the radical Jacobins against those officially deemed as "enemies of the revolution" - that included the moderate Girondins who supported the revolution. I am not as familiar with scholars on Robespierre as other people. Do you know examples of major scholars on Robespierre?--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found a book titled The Virtues of Liberalism that describes Robespierre as a proponent of liberalism and explains Robbespierre's justification of the political violence he utilized, see here: [3]. This book, Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies : France, 1789/1989 describes Robespierre's role in the French Revolution as being an "inordinately large" topic of left/liberal historiography, it says Robespierre passionately sought to defend liberty while ironically at the same time being prepared to suspend it to attack the enemies of the revolution [4].--R-41 (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Right revisionist historians, mostly writing outside academic publications, use the French Revolution as a surrogate for the left/right divide of the late 20th century. See for example Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot. Robespierre was the forerunner of Hitler and Stalin. Not only does that distance the European Right from Hitler, but puts the blame for his crimes on the Left (which includes modern American liberalism), and justifies collaboration during the war as fighting the greater evil of Communism rather than supporting nazism, while the resistance is portrayed as traitors. TFD (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Virtues of Liberalism" is widely and favorably reviewed. Just because the "New Right" misuse the example of Robespierre doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal. I think a mention of Robespierre referenced by "The Virtues of Liberalism", preferably with a quote, is entirely appropriate in its historical context. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood, TFD nothing in The Virtues of Liberalism nor the material I sourced from Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies : France, 1789/1989 appears to be written by New Right revisionists. And the second source is written by Steven Kaplan, a prominent historian on France who was awarded the prestigious Ordre national du Mérite by the French government for his work.--R-41 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Virtues covers the New Right revisionist history extensively. What is your point anyway? What changes are you proposing? TFD (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am asking whether Robespierre was a liberal. If he is, a picture of Robespierre should be included in the history section of the article. The source by Steven Kaplan says that Robespierre is an "inordinately large" topic of "left/liberal historiography", as such it seems appropriate to have a picture of him in the article. Robespierre seems to have believed in classical liberal values of liberty, etc. Are there sources that say that he was not a liberal? Or that he believed in another ideology?--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the term liberal had not yet been coined, some writers question whether anyone before the 19th century could be considered a liberal. (See for example, J. C. D. Clark, English Society, 1660–1832). In any case, most historians consider him to be a liberal in conflict with liberals to both his left and right. I don't see a reason to include his picture when he is only briefly mentioned in the article - Napoleon gets more space. TFD (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of politicians

I have removed the pictures of U.S. President Barrack Obama and Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg from the article. They do not stand out as particularly liberal among their peers. Practically every politician in the UK and the USA is a liberal. Why would we choose to include these two over others?--178.167.145.43 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

An argument could be made that Clegg is relevant to the U.K. section because he is currently leader of their liberal party, while Obama is relevant to the the U.S. because he is currently their president. TFD (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But the liberal democrats isn't the only liberal party in the UK. Why aren't pictures of David Cameron or Ed Milliband included, who are leaders of larger liberal parties?--31.200.187.221 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While all major political parties are influenced by liberalism, the academic consensus is that the Conservative and Labour parties are conservative and socialist respectively. TFD (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing photos of example politicians under the justification that they aren't the only examples of liberals seems highly illogical to me. de Bivort 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

President Obama is the leading liberal in the world today. The excuse for removing his picture seems to be that a) he's not a liberal and b) all US and UK politicians are liberals. That doesn't seem like a good reason. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if Obama is defeated in the election this year or if re-elected by January 2017 when Obama's second and last legal term in office expires and a new President is inaugurated, Obama will not be a leading liberal in the world. I made the mistake on the Marxism-Leninism article in 2011 of posting Kim Jong-Il as a modern example of a Marxist-Leninist head of state, he died months later after I posted it and the picture had to be taken down. There is no need for pictures of specific present-day leaders because they change all the time.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We can take the picture down Jan 20, 2013 or 2017. TFD (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pointless to pick the flavour of the year of politicians, the article should just show pictures of historical liberal figures who are regarded as important to the development of the ideology. I.e. John Locke, Adam Smith (for classical liberalism), Thomas Paine, Georges Danton, David Lloyd George (for social liberalism), John Maynard Keynes (for social liberalism), and perhaps Bill Clinton for Third Way liberalism.--R-41 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What lasting impact Obama will have on Liberalism remains to be seen, but he has had a major impact already. Your objection to his picture does not seem to me well-founded. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with RN. No reason at all that, as R-41 suggests, we should only illustrate founders of liberalism. de Bivort 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism is NOT "left"

In the article, it says that Liberalism "may be" "center-left." How come?

A capitalist/imperialist ideology being advertised as "left." Is this a joke?

The article also says "liberalism founded on ideas of liberty and equality." AFAIK, Liberalism has nothing to do with egalitarianism. It favors Hierarchy and "Fairness" opposed to egalitarianism.

This article needs a strong revision.--98.196.235.55 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you don't get to define "liberalism". Wikipedia reports on how words are actually used in the real world. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

...which, in the case of Liberalism, can be to mean almost anything depending on where you are in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite anything. Nobody ever called Atilla the Hun a liberal. Liberalism always has something to do with freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ideological challenges"

I have some deep misgivings about the sentence in the third paragraph which says that "[In the 20th century] ...liberalism survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism." My objections to it basically fall in two categories:

1. The use of the word "fascism" is problematic. There is no consensus among historians about which particular governments should count as fascist and which ones should not. Depending on the source, "fascism" can mean as few as two regimes, or as many as twenty or more. To say that liberalism survived an ideological challenge from "fascism" is imprecise and unclear. Does it refer to the fact that liberalism survived the Second World War? Does it refer to the fact that liberal regimes replaced various right-wing dictatorships across the world over the last few decades? Does it mean something else? I assumed that "fascism" in this context is meant to refer to more than just the European Axis powers of the Second World War, because liberalism's survival in that war was already mentioned separately. So I proposed to replace "fascism" with a less controversial term that covers the many illiberal regimes of the 20th century which are only sometimes called fascist.

2. The whole sentence seems to imply that communism and fascism were the only major ideological opponents of liberalism in the 20th century. What about all the other prominent non-liberal ideologies of the 20th century? What about conservatism, social democracy, democratic socialism, or Christian democracy? Didn't they also provide ideological challenges? In fact, arguably, social democracy is more important than fascism, for example. I suspect the sentence is actually talking about the challenges to liberal democracy, which is a related but separate concept, and mistakenly treats "liberalism" as synonymous with "liberal democracy." For example, social democracy (an ideology) is not a challenge to liberal democracy (a form of government). But social democracy is a challenge to the rival ideology of liberalism.

Perhaps, instead of saying that liberalism survived ideological challenges from ideologies X or Y, it would be better to say that liberalism lost a great deal of influence in the first decades of the 20th century but then regained prominence near the end of that century. User1961914 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1934 Montreux Fascist conference is a good start. Fascism, even if restricted to Italy and Germany, asserted that the ideological underpinnings of liberalism were fundamentally defunct and offered an alternate set of ideological underpinnings for modernity. This is the nature of an ideological challenge. Even if fascism is restricted to these two movements, the impact of the attempted assertion was a transformative period of European social history. As noted in our article, the challenge is ideological. Social democracy hasn't challenged the bourgeois individual or their rights to appropriate property in the form of capital (with the limited exceptions of Italy, Austria and Hungary, and during an incredibly limited period of time). Douglas Social Credit confers with the liberal conception of the person, as does conservatism (contrast: Reactionary as a pre 20th century ideology). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that fascism and communism proposed forms of social organization that were much more different from liberalism than the forms of social organization proposed by the other large modern ideologies. In other words, fascism and communism wanted to eliminate liberalism entirely, while the other great rivals of liberalism only challenged certain aspects of liberalism. If this is indeed an accurate description of your point, then I think you're right and I agree. However, if that is what the sentence means by "ideological challenge", I think we should actually explain it in the article. In other words, I propose to replace the current sentence with something along the lines of: "In the 20th century, most modern ideologies (such as conservatism and social democracy) came to embrace important elements of liberalism. However, some did not - most notably communism and fascism - and they offered major ideological challenges to liberalism. Liberalism survived these challenges, in part thanks to the fact that liberal democracies were on the winning side in both world wars." User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, what I'm saying is that if the reason why other ideologies are not considered to have presented ideological challenges because they accepted major elements of liberalism, then the article should say this. User1961914 (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. In the 20th century, Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy etc. all accepted liberalism. TFD (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

They accepted certain elements of liberalism - such as support for a liberal democratic form of government - but they did not accept liberalism as a whole. If they had, they would have stopped being separate ideologies. I don't know of anyone who claims that Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy etc. have all become just different forms of liberalism. User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question mentions the two major ideological challenges that liberalism survived, and should stand as written. We may need a later sentence about the challenge of conservatism, the outcome of which is still undecided. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the extreme right, as typified by right-wing populism. Islamic fundamentalism may also be a challenge. TFD (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would caution against trying to interpret the current political situation. We can't really tell what is or is not a serious challenge until some time after the fact. As Fifelfoo reminded us, there was a short time when social democracy seemed to be a greater ideological challenge than communism. If right-wing populism and Islamic fundamentalism disappear in the next 10 years without achieving any new victories, history will consider them small footnotes. If they come to power in a string of countries in Europe and the Middle East, history will consider them great ideologies of the early 21st century. User1961914 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

An editor has made changes to the lead which are not supported by sources or mentioned in the body of the article.[5] Instead of saying liberalism is "founded on ideas of liberal and equality" it now reads it is "classically concerned with the ideas of liberty and non-aggression". Among the ideas that liberals support it now includes anarchy. Also added was "With the rise of statism in the 19th and 20th centuries liberalism has become associated in many western countries with egalitarianism or socialism. Eminent liberal scholars [7] and economists [8] have criticised this shift highlighting the difference between classical liberalism and social liberalism in the history of western thought." I suggest removing these changes unless sources can be provided that they represent a mainstream view of the topic. TFD (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WTF is a section on "bestiality" included?

Liberals are far more likely to be environmentalists and animal rights advocates, not advocates for abuse.

It's an insane insertion and that's a diplomatic as I can be.