Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 26 May 2015 (→Lincoln). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Ann Coulter

Rjenson: why was the Ann Coulter quote a BLP violation? She is a public person, the quote was made in a public setting and was referenced, and it illustrates the extremes to which major conservative writers will go in characterizing liberals.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP violation, but it is undue. If her views on liberalism are worthy of inclusion, they should be included on the basis of secondary sources. We can't use her to establish the weight of her own words. If we did, we could just replace the article with one of her books. aprock (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Coulter material was added primarily to ridicule and attack Coulter, which is a BLP violation. It was not designed to provide new information on liberalism, in my judgment. I read the cite, which was written by a freelance local musician who strongly dislikes Coulter. He covered music & is not a reliable source on political ideologies. His story --published five years ago--contained only four words from her speech "One of the more outrageous moments of her talk came when she called white liberals "a bunch of (p--ies)" and charged them with prolonging slavery in America". I suggest that is incompetent journalism and not a reliable source on her views of liberalism. As for rhetoric, "pussy" is not extreme rhetoric--the Collins Dictionary says: "(taboo, slang, mainly US) an ineffectual or timid person." see the Wiki article Pussy--it gets a laugh from college students as a double entendre. (We just learned a White House official told a reporter that Israel's prime minister Netanyahu was a "chickenshit") If Misplaced Pages wants to say something about Coulter's analysis of liberalism find a less POV source who actually tries to understand her position. Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The topic of the paragraph was not Ann Coulter's views, but rather was the use of "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Certainly that is the way Ann Coulter uses the word, and she is one of the more prominent examples of that use. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with the reference used to establish that she actually said that, so if it is not clear that it correctly represents what she said, it should be removed.Rick Norwood (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rick makes a good point. The deleted passage about Coulter does not shed any light on the question of exactly how she uses the word "liberal". Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The sections seem overly long. Can't we just say that "liberal" has become an epithet and provide a brief overview? Also, I think more attention should be paid to the term "progressive." There has been at least since Roosevelt a 3-way division in the Democratic Party that was evident in the 3 VPs he chose. Liberal and progressive are overlapping but not interchangeable terms. TFD (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalizing the article

‎UberCryxic Has been vandalizing the article. He repeatedly erased race chunks of material With a variety of different excuses. That is vandalism since he is not taken his objections to the talk page where it belongs. His first excuse was " and doesn't need to get bogged down with very old polls." -- He is talking about polls from the 1990s In an article that stretches back over 100 years to show the continuity of liberalism. So I dropped that line of thought. His latest excuse goes this way: "No deleting of material, just objecting to your characterization of that material; saying political identification is "stable" when liberals have gone from 18% in the exit polls of 72 to 25% of those in 2012 is laughable." Three problems for this. First, he erased 870 bytes of fully sourced material. Second He erased reference to a source that explicitly says: "Juliana Horowitz, "Winds of Political Change Haven’t Shifted Public’s Ideology Balance," "Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, press release", November 25, 2008. Third, he misread the section ignoring the opening line "How voters identify themselves has been fairly stable over the last quarter-century, with some gains since 2011." Gallup said last month: "the percentage considering themselves liberal rose a percentage point for the third straight year." I think a one percentage point gain for three years running qualifies as "some gains." (The poll has a margin of error of one point.) What is happening is the number of moderates is rapidly shrinking, the number of conservatives is growing, and the number of liberals is growing slightly faster but they are still well behind. You left out of his report on the Gallup poll their emphasis on liberals being well behind the Conservatives and 2014. I think that omission was deliberate POV on his part. His careless repeated vandalism is not a laughing matter and it is unfortunate that he is unable to engage in a serious discussion on how to handle important material. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be discussed, and the recent uptick in liberal identification should not be overstated. TFD (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

American versus European use of the term "liberalism"

I do not see the purpose of this section. We should just say that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" entered modern usage in the U.S. when Roosevelt used the terms in 1936. Schlesinger's essay is probably an oversimplification and dated anyway, and U.S. usage is creeping in too. But it is beyond the scope of the article to explain usage in different countries. TFD (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Except, I trust, to compare and contrast. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The main source used for the section does not seem to say anything about the use of the term. In my reading, all I have found is that in the U.S. the term came to be associated with supporters of Roosevelt, while in France it generally means neoclassical economic liberalism. And there are differences between liberal parties in different countries. But otherwise I do not see that the term takes on different meanings as one crosses borders. TFD (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen edit

Rjensen: there are a couple of typos in your recent edit. Do you want to fix them or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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