Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:48, 11 February 2018 editMr. Brain (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,626 edits →Editing the Modern Liberalism in the U.S. template.: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:56, 11 February 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive 2) (botNext edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:
	{{Archives\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=90\|search=yes\|index=/Archive index}}		{{Archives\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=90\|search=yes\|index=/Archive index}}
	{{discretionary sanctions\|topic=ap\|style=long}}		{{discretionary sanctions\|topic=ap\|style=long}}

	== 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.--] (]) 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.

	] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.

	] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

	== Reproductive rights for women? ==

	I replaced that with the clearer "legalized abortion on demand" . Rick Norwood 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 ], 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. ] (]) 01:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	::Agree with him on what precisely? What does your reply have to do with anything I said? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

	:You should have : "''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. ] (]) 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	:You're welcome. So would you now accept deleting "reproductive rights" or replacing it with something clearer? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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:

	:"''''''''
	:''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''''."

	:"'''''''''',
	:''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 ...

	:"'''''Abortion On Demand'''
	:''and Without Apology!''
	:''For Every Woman in Every State''''"

	:...

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

	:...and .

	:"''Free '''Abortions on Demand''' Without Apology''"

	:It's used in news coverage around the world:

	:"''''"

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

	: - "''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.''"

	: - "''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:

	: (p 1673; Cheris Kramarae, Dale Spender; Routledge; 2004) - "''In 52 nations, '''abortion on demand''' is permitted.''"

	: (p 50; Rita James Simon; Greenwood Publishing Group; 1998) - "''Across the Atlantic, only Cuba, Canada, and the United States permit '''abortions on demand'''.''"

	: (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

	== Link to "Health care" article ==		== Link to "Health care" article ==

Revision as of 02:56, 11 February 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern liberalism in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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

	Politics portal 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.

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)

When two articles have subjects that are synonymous, they should be combined into one article. When the subject of one article is related to the subject of another article, as is clearly the case with Liberalism in the United States and Modern Liberalism in the United States, they should be, and in almost every case are, linked. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

They should not be synonymous. In the other article, the first paragraph of the lead defines the topic, although most of article focuses on modern liberalism. It would probably be better to improve that article, otherwise it is just a duplication of this one. TFD (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

They should not be synonymous and are not, though I am all for improving any article. The topics of Liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, and Modern Liberalism in the United States should each be subsets of the preceding article, and ideally expand on one section of the preceding article. But it seems obvious to me that each article should be linked to the preceding article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But this article is not about liberalism in the U.S. today, but about a specific branch of U.S. liberalism. There are even problems in saying that. Some writers say there are two ideologies in the U.S.: liberalism and Republicanism in the United States (although that article is not clear), which roughly corresponds to the liberal/radical division. And the term liberal is used so widely that even socialists in the New Deal and Great Society are considered part of liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4173

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing the Modern Liberalism in the U.S. template.

I've been trying to add some names to the template of "Modern liberalism in the United States." However, I, for some unknown reason, am not able to do so, because I don't see the "V-T-E" options for the template on it. I'd like somebody to help me fix this problem. Thank you for your understanding & cooperation. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories: