Talk:Liberal

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Talk:Liberal/Arch1

Talk:Liberal/Arch2

Wikipedia Citations

• It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly

Andy... falsehoods?

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-AmesG_yo! 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --BobD 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

opposition to a strong American foreign policy

where in that WORK IN PROGRESS [1] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a strong American foreign policy? Many Liberals may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a strong American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks liberals believe and are not an encyclopedic description of liberal thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene Commandment 5: Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

WhatIsG0ing0n 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It is time someone unlocks this article. User:Order 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. User:Order 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.Ian St John 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives precisely because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". RobS 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Neoclassical liberalism

I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. Ylmw21 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Split?

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). GodlessLiberal 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

"Silly" Definition?

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --PF Fox 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"American Liberal?"

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous. eg. -taxpayer-funded abortion -censorship of prayer in classrooms -a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--ResistanceFighter 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Which of the above three examples of liberal beliefs do you dispute?--Aschlafly 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...

I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" Karajou 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--Penguin 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).

Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--PerpetualAngst 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

Template

Could an admin add {{Political ideologies}} to the bottom of the page? thnx, MfD 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Censoring Talk pages?

TK, why did you revert the last comment by ResistanceFighter on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. User:Order May 21 11:40 (AEST)

• Order, I have an old saying: "Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!" The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. User:Order May 25

• Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Censorship of prayer in classrooms?

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --Wennberg 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --Catfish 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Wennberg, you're in liberal denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--Aschlafly 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --Wennberg 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Right, but unless the teacher leads the prayer, there's not going to be any out-loud prayer going on in class. Either the school authorizes it and everyone does it, or it doesn't and nobody does it. That's not a false dichotomy - a school which does not authorize teachers to lead prayer is one where the students themselves face an uphill struggle for the right to pray aloud in schools, which is enough to dissuade all but the most motivated students. --JonathanDrain 15:28, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

edit suggest

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article Foxley 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Emotive distinction

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by User:TraitortotheCause 15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Slight syntax change

I propose that this sentence: Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' be changed to read The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'. The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. Stryker 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Some problems with Views

The following items from the list of views need some work:

• a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)."
• globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
• opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
• support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.

Hope this helps. -Harmil 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

"Strong" foreign policy

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years? If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? user:Tanktunker

• I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous Liberal said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tanktunker (talk)

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [2]. We could always bring back "opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy"

with the references, of course.

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in Vietnam. RobS 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

• Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.

Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of deceit as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. RobS 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

• Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone explain to me...

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

One of the liberal views is environmentalism. Certainly Greenpeace engages in environmentalism and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --Crocoite 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Definition?

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal is. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - Borofkin2 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. RobS 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

• The do all believe in one thing, I find: Deceit. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice deceit." - Borofkin2 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. User:Order 24 July

We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. RobS 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - Borofkin2 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. User:Order 24 July, 11:50

How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for al-Qaeda? RobS 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. User:Order 24 July 14:00

Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. RobS 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. User:Order 24 July 14:45

I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? RobS 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [3]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. User:Order 24 July 15:15

I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further al Qaeda's stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. RobS 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. User:Order 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)

<-- OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:

• A $500 per child tax increase.
• A 55% death tax.
• A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
• A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
• A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [4] RobS 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term "conservative." The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, liberal Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for "liberal."

This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

How some something like:

Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.

Feel free to start with your own definition. User:Order 25 July 11:50

If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. RobS 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)