Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 12 January 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Liberals and Congress

This added section is really mostly about conservatives in congress. It is ungrammatical. It contradicts itself. It makes unsupported statements, such as the claim that Eleanor Roosevelt opposed equal rights for women. I tried to fix it, but reluctantly decided that it couldn't be fixed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor never endorsed the principle of ERA. was a vigorous opponent of ERA from 1920s to 1951--she went quiet & insisted on the need for special protections. She chaired Kennedy's commission on women, whose report (released after her death) said ERA was not needed. It was Howard Smith the archconservative on race, who was a liberal on gender. He supported ERA year in year out for decades and finally got it written into law. see http://books.google.com/books?id=55XG0oS3XyYC&pg=PA184 & http://books.google.com/books?id=_R_3BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA173 In 1960 at the Democratic national convention the explicit opposition from liberal groups to ERA was overwhelming, It included the labor unions, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Americans for Democratic Action, American Federation of Teachers, American Nurses Association, the Women's Division of the Methodist Church, and the National Councils of Jewish, Catholic, and Negro Women. Citation = http://books.google.com/books?id=LF8ov6Vc4YQC&pg=PA209 Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Rjensen. I still don't see what Eleanor Roosevelt has to do with Liberals and Congress. Your version is a big improvement.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The ERA had to pass Congress before it could be sent the states, so Eleanor Roosevelt's refusal to support it was a big obstacle-- she was by far the most prominent liberal woman and Democratic woman in the 1945-62 era. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Before the Earl Warren, the Supreme Court generally used the Constitution to rule against liberal legislation. I wonder to what extent that influenced the debate. In any case, since we mention it was supported by liberals in the 60s and 70s we should mention they did not always do so. TFD (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln

While Lincoln is so popular everyone tries to claim him as one of their own, the fact that conservatives at the time favored slavery, states rights, and a small federal government, and Lincoln took the nation to war to establish the right of the federal government to enforce its laws in the several states, establishes him as a liberal by any reasonable definition of the term. He favored freedom and equal rights under the law. The argument that he is a conservative is, essentially, that he said he was a conservative in the Cooper Union speech, a campaign speech trying to win conservative votes. It was unsuccessful. Lincoln got almost no conservative votes, and the conservatives at the time hated Lincoln as much as they hate Obama today. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

YIKES! Hold it right there. It is not true that "conservatives at the time favored slavery, states rights, and a small federal government". Andrew Jackson, the liberal hero, for example favored slavery and a small federal government. It is not true that "Lincoln is so popular everyone tries to claim him as one of their own" -- Blacks in recent decades have dramatically downplayed or even denounced Lincoln. " Lincoln took the nation to war to establish the right of the federal government to enforce its laws in the several states" is not true--He took the nation to war because the U.S. Army had been attacked and forced to surrender at Ft Sumter. It is not true that "conservatives at the time hated Lincoln" (Who are those mystery conservatives? In the North, the main elements that hated him were old-line Jacksonian Democrats ("Copperheads") and Irish Catholics (as in the 1863 New York draft riots). In fact he won over the support of many conservative Democrats, such as Stanton (who became his Secretary of War). A key point however, is that 19th century liberalism (which Lincoln did espouse) is very similar to modern libertarian versions of conservatism. For example Lincoln was strongly pro-business and pro-banks. But you might want to look at what historians have decided about Lincoln. William C. Harris in Lincoln's Rise to the Presidency says that Lincoln's "reverence for the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the laws under it, and the preservation of the Republic and its institutions undergirded and strengthened his conservatism". Historian James G. Randall emphasizes "his preference for orderly progress, his distrust of dangerous agitation, and his reluctance toward ill digested schemes of reform". Randall concludes that, "he was conservative in his complete avoidance of that type of so-called 'radicalism' which involved abuse of the South, hatred for the slaveholder, thirst for vengeance, partisan plotting, and ungenerous demands that Southern institutions be transformed overnight by outsiders." Lincoln was the leader of the moderate and conservative Republican factions who fought the Radical GOP faction during the war. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Lincoln would not feel at home among what people today commonly call conservatives - people to the right of Reagan, the Bushes, Dole, McCain and Romney. But the Copperheads would feel right at home. The states rights issue is a red herring. Hamilton wanted a strong central state. Conservatives and liberals will switch side on states rights, free trade, the equal rights amendment, judicial activism and many other issues depending on which is more likely to achieve their core objectives.

Lincoln btw never intended to end slavery in the South but to prevent its extension into the West. Like Hamilton, he saw the U.S. future as lying in trade, industry and commerce, which required the West be used to produce food for the cities rather than cotton for the UK.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln and Liberalism

I removed fallacious information regarding the liberalism of Abe Lincoln. Freeing the slaves should not be considered liberalism...just common decency. Do not allow your own liberal bias to get in the way of constructive thinking. Thank you.--173.75.33.123 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

173.75.33.123: The dictionary definition of liberalism is support for freedom. Freeing the slaves is an example of support for freedom.

Rjensen: We are using the word "conservative" in two different ways. I'm using it to mean "Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization." -- Misplaced Pages. I gather you are using it to mean support for banks and businessmen. Yes, Lincoln supported banks and businessmen. No, he did not support retaining the South's "peculiar institution". He was willing to accept slavery to preserve the union, but he always described slavery as an evil.

Andrew Jackson is hardly a liberal hero. Liberals remember the Trail of Tears. He was, by your definition, a conservative.

You can find a few people in any large group with just about any view you care to name, but it is still true that Lincoln is one of our most popular presidents, and that both parties claim him as one of their own.

You say "Lincoln took the nation to war because the U.S. Army had been attacked and forced to surrender at Ft Sumter." That was the proximate cause, and is one example of establishing the federal government's rights to property they owned inside a sovereign state. But the preservation of the union was Lincoln's stated goal. That meant preventing succession. That meant opposing state's rights.

You say, "It is not true that "conservatives at the time hated Lincoln" (Who are those mystery conservatives?)" Read some of the articles in the southern press at the time. They were conservative using the Misplaced Pages definition of conservative, but not using your definition of conservative.

You write: "In fact he won over the support of many conservative Democrats, such as Stanton (who became his Secretary of War)." Read "A Team of Rivals" on why Lincoln appointed to his cabinet people with whom he disagreed.

You write: "A key point however, is that 19th century liberalism (which Lincoln did espouse) is very similar to modern libertarian versions of conservatism." This is indeed the key point. The historians you cite are using "conservative" not in the same sense as either you or I, but in the sense of "supporting the constitution", "not radical". That's how Lincoln used the word in the Cooper Union speech. But moderate liberals and moderate conservatives share those beliefs. If that is what you mean by "conservative", then essentially all Americans are both liberal and conservative.

But the title of this article is "Modern liberalism in the United States", and the meaning of "conservative" when it is used as the opposite of "modern Liberalism" is opposition to the great liberal causes of the last hundred years: rights for Blacks, rights for the poor, rights for women, freedom of religion, and most recently (and surprisingly) freedom for gays.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple points: Jackson is indeed a great liberal hero for the 20th century (for example Arthur Schlesinger Jr was his acolyte). Lincoln spent A great deal of effort 1861-65 As leader of the moderate and conservative factions in the GOP and fighting the Radical Republicans On issues of Reconstruction. During the war, the Confederates were hostile to Lincoln-- that includes Confederates of all shades. It's striking, that after the war the ex-Confederates were much more favorable toward Lincoln because they realized his anti-Radical position. Now to stir up the confusion a little bit, the anti-radical position in 1872 formed what they called the Liberal Republican party. Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To me, modern liberalism is the New Deal coaltion and its successors. Some modern liberal policies were anticipated by earlier groups but that does not provide a strong link. The progressives for example became isolationists and Taft Republicans. Jefferson and Jackson were influences, but they were influential among the Dixiecrats too. I do not see why we should imply that modern liberalism had roots before its inception, but should merely mention comments by people such as Schlesinger that try to show them. TFD (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to break this article up into "modern social liberalism" and "modern economic liberalism"? And do we need to do something similar with the article "conservatism in the United States"? I hope not. The situation is already sufficiently complicated. And yet, the belief in government control of the economy does not have a lot to do with the civil rights movement, and the belief in private sector control of the economy does not have a lot to do with the antiabortion movement. Schlesinger may have been Jackson's acolyte economically; I doubt he approved of slavery.

Maybe this will help: we can take care, in both articles, to distinguish between economic beliefs and social beliefs, by careful use of the two adjectives.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As Schlesinger explained, "When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state." So trying to determine who was a modern liberal before FDR by examining their policies is futile. TFD (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reproductive rights for women?

I replaced that with the clearer "legalized abortion on demand" for reasons given in this edit summary. Rick Norwood restored it saying "let's keep both", which I can almost agree with except I still don't don't see a basis for including something as vague as "reproductive rights" here. I had figured someone might bring up another legitimate issue and I had anticipated supporting it under a "let's keep both" principle. But instead Rick cited Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 SCOTUS decision striking down Connecticut's anti-contraception law. While that decision had relevant ripple effects for constitutional law, it wasn't a political issue, or much of a contentious cause. Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only two states to have anti-contraception laws in the 1960s, and even there it was almost never enforced. In fact early challenges to the law were dismissed on the grounds that no prosecution had taken place. Griswold happened when a $100 fine was imposed, making the case ripe.

I propose we either delete "reproductive rights", which isn't a political issue in the US, especially with abortion now listed separately, or replace it with something clearer and more pertinent. One possibility might be something cultural rather than legal, like "open sexual expression", that actually captures something relevant in describing modern liberalism in the United States. VictorD7 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rick Norwood. We must use mainstream descriptions. TFD (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with him on what precisely? What does your reply have to do with anything I said? VictorD7 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I googled "conservatives on reproductive rights for women" and got more than five million hits. The first bunch from sources like Solon and HufPo clearly show liberal bias, so I ignored them. But, scrolling down, I came to this: "Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s O.K. Contraception’s O.K.’ It’s not O.K. because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - Rick Santorum. And various attempts by conservative businessmen to keep their employees' insurance from paying for birth control. So apparently this is still an issue for some. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have dug a little deeper: "Those remarks have been misinterpreted, he said. “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’"

That was just a one of countless statements taken out of context and lied about by partisans in a campaign season. Clearly it's not an issue. As for the recent, largely manufactured "controversy" about whether people should be forced by the government to pay for every type of contraception for their employees, including abortion pills, that's where I initially figured you might take this. I'd be fine with replacing the misleading and hopelessly vague "reproductive rights" with something clearer about liberals supporting government insurance mandates for those and maybe other things. But as it is, apart from my recent abortion addition, the passage is so broad that it's useless. We've got to make it clearer. VictorD7 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up for me. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. So would you now accept deleting "reproductive rights" or replacing it with something clearer? VictorD7 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We should not use the terminology of partisan writers, but should use that of neutral writers. "Legalized abortion on demand" while similar to a slogan of feminists in the 60s is no longer considered neutral. TFD (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to accept anything that is widely supported by scholarly sources. I tend to agree with The Four Deuces that "legalized abortion on demand" is a catch phrase used by the anti-abortion movement, and that just "legal induced abortion" is more scholarly. (The word "induced" is important because by far the greatest number of abortions are spontaneous and occur shortly after fertilization.) Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, "abortion on demand" references the legal/political issue, as even many Americans who want more restrictions than currently exist (including some Pro Lifers and most in the middle) accept keeping "induced" abortion legal under certain circumstances. The current law, via SCOTUS ruling, is abortion on demand throughout the country. That's not a "partisan" characterization. It's in mainstream dictionaries:

"abortion-on-demand

noun

1.

the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.

2.

an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request''."

"abortion on demand,

a concept promoted by prochoice health advocates that it is the right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion performed at her request. That right may be limited by time of gestation, or it may pertain to any period of gestation."

It comes up on liberal as well as conservative sites, for example stoppatriarchy.com...

"Abortion On Demand

and Without Apology!

For Every Woman in Every State''"

...amplifyyourvoice

"Abortion on demand is the idea that women should be able to access abortion services without having to jump through hoops."

...and The Nation.

"Free Abortions on Demand Without Apology"

It's used in news coverage around the world:

"Women 'should have abortion on demand'"

It's also already in common use in other Misplaced Pages articles, for example:

Abortion law - "Although nearly every European country makes abortion available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to later-term abortions, there are very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States."

Abortion in Norway - "Current Norwegian legislation and public health policy provides for abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and only under special circumstances thereafter."

And it's used in scholarly books:

Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge (p 1673; Cheris Kramarae, Dale Spender; Routledge; 2004) - "In 52 nations, abortion on demand is permitted."

Abortion: Statutes, Policies, and Public Attitudes the World Over (p 50; Rita James Simon; Greenwood Publishing Group; 1998) - "Across the Atlantic, only Cuba, Canada, and the United States permit abortions on demand."

The Pro-Choice Movement : Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict (p 29; Suzanne Staggenborg; Oxford University Press; 1991) - "Even after women’s liberation activists began demonstrating for "women’s control of their bodies" and "free abortion on demand," abortion movement organizations continued to work through the “system” by lobbying their legislators and supporting litigation to test the abortion laws."

This is all just a small sample. Clearly the wording is mainstream and accurate. Oh, and Rick, most postnatal infant deaths are natural. "Abortion" is mostly used to refer to the prenatal equivalent of infanticide, as these various sources illustrate, unless it's accompanied by a qualifier like "spontaneous", and even then "miscarriage" is far more common.

You didn't answer about whether you'd now accept removing or replacing "reproductive rights" now that I've cleared up the false claim about Rick Santorum. VictorD7 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I accept removing or replacing "reproductive rights" and withdraw my objection to "abortion on demand". Of course, I'm not the only person you have to convince. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I'll remove it, since I haven't seen anyone else object, and since we have added the clearer abortion segment, though I'll be open to adding a new item if someone has a specific proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to "Health care" article

Should the first mention of “health care” in the lead be linked to the Misplaced Pages article on the subject? I was about to make this edit myself when I realized there might be a good reason this hasn’t been done yet, and that I’m just unaware of said reason. The terms “abortion” and “same-sex marriage” are linked in the same sentence, so why not “health care”? Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor's claim that Modern liberalism in the United States is not a form of American liberalism.

An editor repeatedly removes a link from this article to the article Liberalism in the United States, with the claim that "Modern liberalism not American liberalism". Presumably this claim is based on the idea that modern liberalism in the United States is not liberalism or is not American. This claim is strongly POV. It seems reasonable that someone reading this article, who wants to understand the origin of these ideas, would follow up by reading the Liberalism in the United States article.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that U.S. liberalism and modern U.S. liberalism are not synonymous. The dispute is: (1) says "American liberal causes include voting rights for minorities, legalized abortion, support for same-sex marriage, and government programs such as education and health care," where "American liberal" links to Liberalism in the United States. (2) uses the term "Modern liberal" and provides no link.

The U.S. liberalism article is about liberalism as normally defined: support for individualism, capitalism, constitutionalism, and is the main ideology in the U.S. Liberalism has always had divisions however and the U.S. confusingly adopted the terms liberal and conservative to identify its major strands. The belief that individuals should take responsibility for their own welfare and do not have the right to engage in immoral behavior, even if it is victimless, is well within the liberal tradition.

I would point out though that since this article is called "Modern liberalism in the United States" it can be abbreviated to liberalism when it is understood in context that that is what is meant. But in that case there should be no links.

TFD (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles