Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Postmodernism

"postmodern ridicule of traditional culture" I removed this sentence because it lacked a reference. Also, I'm not sure if it means that the reason conservatives dislike postmodernism is because in their view it ridicules traditional culture, or if it means that in fact postmodernism does ridicule traditional culture. I'm not partial to postmodernism myself, but my understanding is that it does not ridicule traditional culture, but rather claims that many different readings of the same text are equally valid. On the other hand, I don't know much about postmodernism, and so if you supply a reference I'll be happy to support this characterization, if you clarify which of the two possible interpretations are intended. It's no big deal -- my edit was mostly concerned with grammar and punctuation. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a useful quotation on postmodern literature: Traditional literature has been found to have been written by "dead white males" to serve the ideological aims of a conservative and repressive Anglo hegemony. As a result, literature is getting reread against the grain as a cautionary lesson in the power of discourse piratical socially conscious critics.... In an array of the reactions against the race, gender, and class biases found to be woven into the tradition of Anglo lit, multicultural writers and political literary theorists have sought to expose, resist, and redress injustices and prejudices. These prejudices are often covert – disguised in literature and other discourses as positive ideals and objective truths – but they slant our sense of reality in favor of power and privilege. Jay Stevenson (2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to English Literature. Alpha Books. pp. 9–10. Rjensen (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be good to add a quote from a conservative intellectual criticizing such postmodern attacks after that. VictorD7 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the definition of postmodernism given in the quote, though I dislike books that have "The Complete Idiot's Guide ... " in the title. The quote doesn't mention "ridicule", only resisting what postmodernists consider "prejudice". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rick here about Idiot's. But the author is an expert & the quote is neat & concise & reveals the ridicule that conservatives complain about. Rjensen (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any "ridicule". I think some people feel ridiculed when someone disagrees with them, but ridicule is much stronger than disagreement. It implies contempt. It may be that some postmodernists feel contempt for people who like, say, Shakespeare, an old white man if there ever was one. But I don't think this article should use the word "ridicule" unless a source uses that word. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"dead white males" is pure ridicule--esp if you like Shakespeare. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I love Shakespeare. Maybe I tend not to take things personally. I'm willing to consider objectively the proposition that dead white males are given too much attention while live black females aren't giving enough attention, and look at the evidence, without worrying about the fact that before too long I'll be a dead white male myself. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that "dead white males" used here means "dead ideas not worth reading." -- a judgment already made for you. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not how I understand it. My understanding is that postmodernism is inclusive rather than exclusive and their point is that we should not read only dead white males. In any case, the accusation that they ridicule people seems inappropriate for the lead. I've said my say, and leave it up to others to include or delete the comment on "ridicule". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, "ridicule" should not be used unless sources use it. Abierma3 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's "ridicule" (which I've frequently seen; and the anti-white stuff is increasingly pervasive at the institutional level; it's not just about being "inclusive", which is the word the PC left typically uses when explaining why it's excluding something or someone, a Ministry of Love type inversion) or some other wording, I think we do need something more specific than just trimming it to "postmodernism". VictorD7 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

When you refer to a writer as "dead" you mean his ideas and positions are expired/ defunct/ kaput and not worth reviving. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not my understanding. I think dead in this context just means "not living". I also think that far too many live white men feel like it is "anti-white" to include blacks and women in the curriculum at all. You read all the time about whites feeling discriminated against, but they still have almost all of the money and power in America and make up at least 90% of the curriculum, so giving 10% of instruction time to blacks and women is seen as anti-white. I'm not a postmodernist. I teach almost no material that is not by a dead white man. But, then, I'm a mathematician. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote by Stevenson under discussion says "Traditional literature has been found to have been written by 'dead white males' to serve the ideological aims of a conservative and repressive Anglo hegemony. " I consider that very hostile indeed: it says if you read it with approval you are an oppressor and are helping repression. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So why not state the facts like say, "Postmodernists find traditional literature repressive," instead of interpreting the source and calling it "postmodern ridicule" (a characterization made my Wikipedia editors, the source doesn't call it ridicule)... or "Postmodern critics of traditional literature find it repressive." It's not our job to take a source and interpret that it is "very hostile indeed" then use this as justification to term it as "ridicule" even though the source doesn't. Abierma3 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just paraphrasing. to call an author "dead" and repressive is to use contemptuous and dismissive language. [Dictionary: ridicule = to subject someone to contemptuous and dismissive language]. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Even though you made a good faith paraphrase, it is an interpretation. There are other interpretations, such as Rick Norwood's. When in doubt, we should stick to a more precise paraphrase of what the source says (see my suggestions or others should come up with suggestions). Abierma3 (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen: While I like the quote you added, I'm not sure what, if anything, it has to do with the subject of this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Socialism

I cannot find any sources that discuss what U.S. conservatives mean by socialism. Obviously Reagan's reference to the fictitious statement attributed to Norman Thomas claiming that the Democrats had adopted the Socialist Party platform shows that he claimed there was no difference between the Democrats and the Socialists. And even though Gingrich said socialism was not necessarily the program of the Second International, he saw nationalization of the automobile industry and student loans as socialism. TFD (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen has already provided some sourced of quotes of individual conservatives speaking about and defining socialism. I've certainly seen no sources claiming that Reagan, Gingrich, nor anyone else saw no distinction between Democrats and "the Socialists", though they all believe there is heavy overlap, and they're not the only ones. As the

Regarding the Thomas quote, I don't know if it's fictitious or not, but the Snopes piece (not that Snopes is reliable itself) that pops up upon searching saying it can't confirm it with an original source does point out that its attribution to Thomas has been widespread for several decades, and adds that it can confirm socialist muckraker Upton Sinclair said this to Thomas in a lette: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

At some we should add material to that socialism vocabulary section pointing out that the direct Socialist Party descendants have been formally folded into the Democratic party since 1972, opting to work within it instead of in a third party, and maybe quotes like that from the scholarly, primarily British source I cited elsewhere on this page stating, " "In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Britain, the term ‘liberal’ has come to refer only to the revisionist or social democratic wing of the liberal tradition. Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country."

It's not like the socialist parties that recently took over in France or Greece have seized control of the means of production and abolished the free market, but they certainly have agendas. "Socialism" is broader than just a formal government ownership of industries, especially such ownership right now (as if incrementalism doesn't count), and it's hardly just conservatives or Americans who see it that way. VictorD7 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The comments of one or two conservatives to explain what conservatives mean by socialism is inadequate, just as we could not use them to explain what conservatism meant, at least for writing Wikipedia articles.

We should not get into side issues, such as whether Reagan accurately quoted Thomas. What is important is that Reagan used the quote, fictitious or not, to explain how he viewed the relationship between socialism and the "Democrat Party." OTOH we cannot use the quote as proof the Socialists formally folded into the Democratic Party. And even if they had, it would not be proof that the Democrats are in any way socialist.

The mainstream definition of socialism btw is a view that capitalism creates social problems that need to be addressed by some sort of social control or ownership of the means of production. (See The HIstorical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-2.[1]) Certainly there will an overlap between policies promoted by some socialists and some liberals, even while their analyses are sharply different.

TFD (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As the scholarly source I just quoted from points out, there's more than overlap between some policies; many "liberals" in the US would be called "socialists" in other countries. And no, I planned on using other sources for the aside on socialists deciding to work within the Democratic party. I also thank you for linking to that Dictionary of Socialism source. As reading the first two pages makes clear, "socialism" is much broader than just formal and immediate state ownership of industries. Although "socialism eludes easy definition" (according to your source), and "then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism was" (it cites one scholar who listed 40 definitions), it involves principles like opposing "the individualism that had come to dominate modern thinking", emphasizing "collectivism" instead, offering "general criticisms about the social effects of private ownership and control of capital", focusing on "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security." There was "a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution, and exchange." There was also an "agreement that the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for most people." It goes on to speak of four broad "values" that form the core of socialism. So I appreciate you contributing this source supporting everything I've said. Given the "social justice"/"equality" rhetoric, and anti-capitalist substance, it's little wonder that sources, conservatives, and many liberals themselves associate modern US liberalism with socialism to at least some degree, particularly in the direction in which it tries to pull the country. And all of that is "mainstream". VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Because one source says that some people who identify as U.S. "liberals" would be called "socialists" in some other country really isn't evidence of an unspoken association between U.S. liberalism and socialism. How do we know these so-called "socialists" that identify as U.S. "liberals" aren't just a Democrat party version of RINOs? It seems your original research jumps to conclusions too quickly. Abierma3 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not original research and it's hardly just one source. I just cited it as an example. I haven't assembled a larger array of sources on this tangential topic yet because I'm not proposing any changes in this section, just adding some informed commentary. VictorD7 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely there are and have been socialists in the Democratic and Republican Parties, and they would have been considered socialists in Europe, even if they called themselves liberals in the U.S. But American liberalism would not be considered socialism in Europe, it would be considered mid-way between right-wing and social liberalism. In particular, it is pro-capitalist, individualistic and pragmatic. Of course conservatives could claim they are secretly socialists.

Also, while the source I provided says there are many mainstream definitions of socialism, it says they have a commonality, which is what I presented. And it does not describe U.S. liberals, even if they may share some objectives, such as poverty reduction. But U.S. conservatives also support that, even if their approach is different.

TFD (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2015

There's nothing secret about instinctive hostility to the free market on every issue that pops up (e.g. Obama tellingly proposing the creation of a federal "Department of Business" as the best way he could conceive of reaching out when his pollsters informed him that he had lost almost all support among business owners, which they embraced with the same enthusiasm that libertarian hippies likely would an Orwellian "Ministry of Love"). I think the core commonality, mentioned in your book, among the various strains of socialism (at least the state based ones) is "collective control", particularly collectivism wrapped in the rhetoric of "equality" and/or "social justice" (though many have cogently argued that so called "right wing" statist ideologies like fascism or Nazism should be included under the "socialist" umbrella too, including the National Socialists themselves). Regulation, taxes, and other mandates are forms of collective control. Incrementalism perhaps--no one is claiming that supporting any regulations or taxes makes one a socialist--but when support for those means of collective control extends beyond simply funding the government or preventing companies from violating others' freedom (e.g. basic pollution controls or keeping employees from being poisoned) and infuses government with the alternative purpose of wealth redistribution ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), the creation of dependence (even for the middle class; "cradle to grave" welfare, "it takes a village", etc.), or economic micromanagement, it's fair to label that as an attempt to pull the country in a more socialist direction, whether the pullers are educated enough to realize it themselves or not. While I might agree with you that modern US "liberalism" and "socialism" aren't synonymous, it's also true that they can't be entirely detached (especially if one examines the intellectual drivers within the base or the most energetic street activists), and that the former arose in large part due to the latter in the late 19th/early 20th Centuries, the connection becoming more formalized through the Democratic Party by the late 20th. If liberals were to get their way on every issue for an extended period of time some might eventually come to believe things had gone just far enough or too far and start defending what was left of the free market from further collectivist encroachment. But the socialists, who would be happy with the direction the country had been pulled up to that point, would continue pulling, and many liberals would pull right alongside them with no discernible difference but labeling.

BTW, while you don't speak for Europeans, would you call the socialists who took power in France and Greece but haven't abolished the free market "right wing" or "pro capitalist" socialists? VictorD7 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(UT:::::remnants of original socialist party in 1972 joined Dems....there were a few hundred ex-socialists who merged into tens of millions of Dems. No RS claims that they shaped conserv image of Dem party. Far more important were people like Humphrey, McGovern (who dallied with Wallace in 1948 then opposed him), Ted Kennedy, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Biden, Kerry & Bill Clinton who never were part of Old Left. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

More like thousands, but that misses the point. Those core members were just on the tail end of a long trend in socialists joining the Democratic Party. For that reason Republicans, especially conservatives, have been calling the Democratic Party "socialist" for decades. As someone linked earlier, the 1908 Republican platform explicitly expounded on the Democrats tending toward "socialism", citing the same "equality of possession" (Democrats) and "equality of opportunity" (Republicans) dichotomy they use today. And that was back when the Republicans, as TFD perhaps alludes to above, were also being pulled in a socialist direction, albeit less so. VictorD7 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say Republicans were being pulled in a socialist direction. They believed that regulation was necessary to protect laissez-faire, hence they broke up the trusts. The Libertarian Party (and the Left as well) claim their objective was to protect the economic elites, which in Libertarian-speak is socialism. But that is the view of a tiny minority. TFD (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to you saying that, "Definitely there are and have been socialists in the Democratic and Republican Parties, and they would have been considered socialists in Europe even if they called themselves liberals in the U.S." Intentions may or may not be relevant to a discussion about which individual Republicans or Democrats should be labelled "socialists", but they're not necessarily pertinent to a discussion about the direction in which the country is pulled. Trust busting was a small but incremental step towards that collectivist control we discussed earlier. You saying government intervention was necessary "to protect laissez-faire" is reminiscent of the old "we had to destroy the village to save it" line. Taking a step in the direction of an opposing party to rob that party of a portion of its power is an old political tactic (Dick Morris's 1990s "triangulation" was a version of this). And, without commenting on your "Libertarian-speak" assertion, nothing I've said is "the view of a tiny minority." VictorD7 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

My original point was that the statement in this article on how conservatives deal with "socialism" has very little to do with Socialist Party ever (and zero since 1936). Conservs mean a growth of government power in the economy--esp taxes, regulation. (the Conservs do NOT include social or criminal issues for this they usually want MORE government control. In Kelo. conservatives wanted fed supreme court to stop the states from using eminent domain) Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Conservatives very much associate gun control with socialism, along with general nanny statism (e.g. soft drink restrictions) or banning industries like the horse drawn carriages in NYC. As I said elsewhere, it's difficult to neatly demarcate "economic" and "social" issues. Opposing frivolous eminent domain is supporting limited government. The federal/state balance is secondary when the topic is government abuse of private property rights; really a separate issue. Not sure what you have in mind on crime. Conservatives think murder should be illegal, but so do liberals. Conservatives generally favor tougher punishments, but that doesn't speak to the scope of government control. Singapore is an illustrative example of a famously libertarian state where not many things are illegal but the laws that do exist are enforced severely. But my main point in all this has been that conservatives are hardly unique, bizarre, or unwarranted in associating modern US "liberalism" with socialism, with the main differences being ones of degree. The Socialist Party history I laid out underscores that, regardless of its impact or lack of impact on conservatives' views. VictorD7 (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

the article should not suggest that the Socialist Party was a main target of conservative wrath. It has always been the liberals. Conservs call many liberal policies "socialism/socialistic" as part of a rhetorical tradition that emerged in 19th century. Newt got it exactly right. But it is not true that all conservs generally oppose strong obtrusive govt-- only the libergtafrians do thagt.Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article should mention that conservatives oppose socialism, without having Wikipedia take a position that implies their use of the label is somehow incorrect (especially since it's generally not; at worst it's debatable, and conservatives aren't the only ones who employ such usage). VictorD7 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've mostly stayed out of this discussion, but I do find the use of words, in which the speaker tries to associate a new usage with an old usage, unencyclopedic. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is not what usage is "correct": or "incorrect". The question is how conservatives actually use a specific term that is quite important in their vocabulary. How anti-conservatives use the same term is another issue. Conservative usage has been pretty consistent for well over hundred years [William Graham Sumner, "the meaning of socialism" 1883] so that makes it pretty standard. For example Safire's Political Dictionary p 157 (2008) defines "Creeping socialism" = Measures increasing the sphere of government activity that are accused of having the cumulative effect of undermining private enterprise. Republicans during Franklin Roosevelt's NEW DEAL and Harry Truman's FAIR DEAL frequently used creeping socialism to describe Democratic programs, especially in the economic and social welfare areas." Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on how conservatives use the term. I'm taking issue with the implied assumption that leftists, or at least many leftists, don't use the term in a similarly broad way, at least when they aren't trying to portray Democrats as being as right leaning as they can. As for the article text discussed earlier though, I could live with a lede sentence along the lines of, "Most also criticize socialism, and what they call the "creeping socialism" of modern liberalism." Sans quotes for the first, unqualified socialism mention, and followed by a reference note like, "In this sense "socialism" refers broadly to expansions of government power that lead to increased collective control over the economy and citizens who participate in it, and isn't limited strictly to formal government ownership of industry." Is that acceptable or do you have a counter proposal? VictorD7 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that proposal is that it says a good deal less than the current text, in my opinion. How about starting the vocabulary section with: Conservatives often decry the "creeping socialism" of modern liberalism, especially as seen in the economic and social welfare programs of the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. William Safire says "creeping socialism" means "measures increasing the sphere of government activity that are accused of having the cumulative effect of undermining private enterprise." [citing William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary (2008) p 157 ] Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I was discussing the potential lede (intro section) sentence we typed up different versions of before. There is no "current text" in the lede, as socialism isn't mentioned in the intro. I'm fine with including the Safire quote in the pertinent body section. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK... how about this one sentence added to the lede: Conservatives often decry the "creeping socialism" of modern liberalism, especially as seen in the economic and social welfare programs of the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. .... then add this sentence in the "Vocabulary" section: William Safire says "creeping socialism" means "measures increasing the sphere of government activity that are accused of having the cumulative effect of undermining private enterprise." [citing William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary (2008) p 157 ] Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm fine with the Safire body addition. As for the lede, it helps if counterproposals are accompanied by commentary explaining why you're suggesting something different. For example, one problem with your suggestion here is that it says less than what I just proposed above does on a crucial area (though more in others). The first sentence establishes that conservatives criticize socialism. I guess the second arguably implies broader opposition to socialism beyond the specific manifestations mentioned, but conservatives spend a great deal of time criticizing socialist theory and socialism in other countries, not just the US. Also, the "Most also" wording at the beginning of the first sentence comes from the placement where we had it before, after the "Nationwide most factions..." foreign policy sentence and before the "...movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together..." sentence. I still think we could use a socialism sentence there, since it wasn't just an anti-Soviet alliance that came together. The "strands" had more in common than that. In other words, it's not just a stand alone sentence. Do you agree with any of this? Disagree? Feel free to disagree, but I ask that you say so and explain why. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, but I would echo Safire's caution by saying Conservatives often decry what they see as the "creeping socialism" of modern liberalism, especially the economic and social welfare programs of the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

U.S. liberals, with a few exceptions, are not socialists by any standard definition. But I think the conservative position is that they are, even if not consciously. Hence Safire's statement that their policies will undermine private enterprise, which is what Marx intended. And Reagan claimed that the Democrats had the same policies as Norman Thomas' Socialists. That is part of a long tradition in the U.S. of the two sides painting their opponents in extreme terms. TFD (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There are more than a few exceptions, as many US liberals are socialists by the same definition(s) that British, French, or other "socialists" are. But conservatives typically use more nuance than simply stating that so and so "is a socialist". They speak of underlying ideology, sometimes embraced consciously and other times unwittingly as you suggest by those lacking awareness and/or political sophistication, or they speak of the direction in which the country is being pulled (the "creeping socialism" mentioned above). They might not be synonymous, but what's certainly true is that US liberalism, a very nebulous construction to begin with, can't be entirely disconnected from socialism. At its heart is a drive for greater collective control. Similarly libertarianism and conservativism aren't synonymous, but many are both, and, as Reagan said, libertarianism is at the heart of the conservative movement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You are basically repeating the conservative claim that U.S. liberals are secretly, even unconsciously, socialists, which is unsupported in any serious sources. That some people accuse European Socialists of being secretly, even unconsciously, liberals does not bolster your argument. Also, regarding your earlier comments, Reagan and Thatcher broke up monopolies and if you classify them as socialists then the term has truly lost meaning. And Singapore has been ruled since independence by ostensibly socialist governments. You need to look beyond specific policies and to the reasons for policies, instead of assigning ulterior motives. TFD (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "secret" about it, and I've posted serious sources contradicting your personal opinion and unsupported characterizations. I've been talking nuance and the big picture this whole time, while you're the one cherry-picking a policy here or there. Reagan and Thatcher, on overwhelming balance, pushed to reduce the role of government control over the economy. What's telling is that you lumped the iconic US conservative president and the denationalizing British PM together, as though you understood that they were partners in the same fight. VictorD7 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

By "secretly" I mean that they do not disclose it. Barack Obama for example does not call himself a socialist. And you have not presented any sources that say they are, and in fact standard textbooks describe liberalism in the United States as a form of liberalism, not socialism. Of course Reagan and Thatcher were partners in the same fight. The point is that you call breaking up monopolies socialism, yet reject that description when carried out by the two biggest trust-busters since Teddy Roosevelt. TFD (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Singapore's PAP resigned from the Socialist International in the 1970s and has moved strongly in a "neoliberal" direction ever since. Singapore has one of the freest, business friendly economies in the world, which is why they always rank so highly in freedom indices (e.g. here's Heritage's). That said, even if the party was socialist, I'm not sure how that would do anything but further undermine your position of narrow definition. You also never answered my question to you above about whether you consider the socialists who took power in France and Greece but haven't completely abolished the free market to be true socialists. Perhaps they've been duped into believing they're socialists by a conservative conspiracy. (edit conflict; typed before your reply above)

As for your new post, where did I ever "call breaking up monopolies (by itself) socialism"? You need to stop mischaracterizing others' comments. Influenced by the socialist and progressive movements? Sure. But a single issue stance does not an ideology make. I've quoted various sources recounting in detail how "liberalism" means almost the opposite in the US that it does in most of Europe, and discussing the similarities of US liberalism and the European left. I suppose I could respost them, but it would make for a more efficient discussion if you went back and read what's already been posted, focusing instead here on covering new ground. If you concede that Reagan and Thatcher were partners in the same fight, whom was that fight against? VictorD7 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You said, "Trust busting was a small but incremental step towards that collectivist control we discussed earlier." (04:09, 21 July 2015) Is that not the same as saying breaking up monopolies is socialism? And yes the PAP resigned from the SI rather than be expelled over their human rights record. While they may be liberals, they do not claim to be. They justify their "neoliberal" policies in terms of benefit to working people rather than individualism.

Anyway, I have never proposed a narrow definition of socialism, but the broadest possible definition of socialism as presented in the Dictionary of Socialism (20:13, 19 July 2015). It includes parties that are considered socialist, but not the Democrats. Again you are confusing policies with ideology. Conservatives, liberals and socialists may agree on the same policies but for different reasons. And sometimes circumstances may require the same policies regardless of party, except for the most ideological.

While it is true that in France, liberalism refers to right-liberalism and in the U.S. to left-liberalism, it does not mean that they really mean conservatism and socialism. The Democrats are more similar to Liberals in the UK and Canada (who are members of the Liberal International) than they are to those countries' parties that are members of the Socialist International.

TFD (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep dodging my question. Do you consider French and Greek socialists to be true socialists? Explain your answer either way. Also please answer the question about whom Reagan and Thatcher's fight was against, since you conceded they were partners in the same fight. As for your question at the top, the answer is no. A "small but incremental step towards" socialism, by itself, is not the same as socialism. But if someone embraces that as part of a larger pattern of favoring such steps across the board on an array of issues, then it's fair to say that person at least has socialist leanings. Most people aren't purists so the aggregate counts. Of course I reject your unsourced personal musings about US liberalism as empty semantical posturing that assumes modern US liberalism and socialism can't overlap for some reason. I and the sources I've quoted from state that it can and does. I'm not sure why you keep falsely accusing me of confusing policies with ideology. There's no confusion. "Socialism" can refer to a system as well as people's ideology, and can arguably be reached by accident, but if we ignore actual policies and simply look at rhetoric and ideas (such as they are), then the case for denying any connection between US liberalism and socialism collapses even further. The concern for "social justice", collective control, "equality" of outcome, government redistribution, and the hostility toward the free market are all firmly within the very broad socialist sphere outlined in your dictionary, and are undeniably core components of the even more nebulously defined construct of modern US liberalism. Not all liberals are necessarily socialists but it's at least arguable that all socialists are liberals in the modern US sense. VictorD7 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

French and Greek socialists in 2015??? I cannot see any connection to this article (and nobody here knows much about them. The Greek left seems to have reversed itself 180 degrees in the last two weeks re its bailout.) Reagan fought against American liberalism mostly on economic & foreign policy issues. He and Thatcher strongly promoted free market economic policies, but neither paid much attention to social issues (like abortion, gay rights). On deregulation, Reagan follow the conservative policies initiated by Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well they are currently running each country. I'm not sure why you feel the article doesn't cover the present. Is it your position that socialists no longer exist? Your last sentence is false. Carter did a little deregulation but neither he nor Kennedy were "conservative" on regulation. Instead of interjecting here, I wish you would reply to the more pertinent lede sentence text discussion we were having above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what a "true socialist" is - there's no college of cardinals to provide certification. You just have to accept that they are the people who call themselves socialists and are considered socialists. Both Thatcher and Reagan tried to roll back social liberal policies such as Keynsianism and the welfare state that had been introduced by successive socialist and conservative governments in the UK and liberal (in both senses of the term) governments in the U.S. Ironically, they continued a trend already begun by their predecessors. Your description of U.S. liberalism is a caricature that attempts to conflate them with socialists. Collectivist? Anti-free market? Perhaps that is their hidden agenda, but it is not their stated objective. More likely, it is the fact the U.S. lacks a socialist party that you conflate the two. TFD (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So to clarify, you define a socialist as someone who calls himself a socialist? VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you misread. He said, "who call themselves socialists and are considered socialists." The vast majority of liberals do not call themselves socialists nor are they considered socialists (by reliable sources). Abierma3 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who's quoted reliable sources on this particular issue, and a significant overlap between socialists and modern US "liberals" has been established, though I never said anything about a "majority" (straw man argument). And I didn't misread anything. He didn't say "call themselves socialists" or "are considered socialists". His use of "and", intentional or not, indicates that self identification is crucial to the definition of a socialist. Being "considered" a socialist is too vague and shallow to be of much use without further exposition on why some are "considered" to be socialists, which is what I was trying to get at. Almost all of his commentary has been his unsourced personal musings, so I was trying to find out whom he does consider to be socialist (whether his opinion is based directly on sources or not). VictorD7 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source that goes farther than I have. It's a philosophy journal article abstract followed by a link to a book chapter where much (but not all) of the article can be read. (Social Philosophy and Policy; N. Scott Arnold; May 2011) "ARE MODERN AMERICAN LIBERALS SOCIALISTS OR SOCIAL DEMOCRATS?...This paper answers the title question, “Yes,” on both counts. The first part of the paper argues that modern liberals are socialists, and the second part argues that they are also social democrats. The main idea behind the first argument is that the state has effectively taken control of the incidents of ownership through its taxation, spending, and regulatory policies. The main idea behind the second argument is that the institutions of social democracy are replicated by the institutions favored by modern American liberalism. Specifically, the takeover of the American healthcare system, Social Security, employers' mandatory contributions to unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance replicate the institutions of social democracy." [2] (visible portion starts at p 263) VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and since it seems TFD's answer to the Reagan/Thatcher common opponent question was essentially "social liberal(ism)", I'll point out that modern European socialists are mostly focused on advancing such policies (welfare state, higher taxes), and pursuing collective control of industry more through the regulation (and taxes) described above than through formal, nominal government ownership. There has been a huge denationalization wave throughout Europe over the past couple of decades that even socialists don't seem too eager to reverse. VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, at this point, I would like to remind you and all other people involved that the talk page is not a forum or soap box. It is not clear what is being debated or how TFD's opinion on socialism (that you are demanding regardless of "whether his opinion is based directly on sources or not") is relevant to the Conservatism in the United States article. Please stick to discussions that are relevant to improving this article. Feel free to continue your discussion with TFD on your respective user talk pages, but this is not the place for it. Abierma3 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't just address me, Abierma3. I didn't start this tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't just address you, I said "you and all other people involved." I also never claimed you started this tangent. This discussion has involved multiple editors (Rjensen, Rick Norwood, TFD, myself), but you seem to be the person unwilling to drop the stick, so I am asking you to continue it elsewhere (i.e. revert your three consecutive posts from 19:43, 20:13, and 20:31 on 27 July 2015 and instead post them on TFD's user talk page). Abierma3 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice caveat, but I was the only one you named. And hell no I won't revert posts containing quality source links complete with a quote. It's unclear whether you understand what WP:DROPTHESTICK means. VictorD7 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The notice was directed at all editors as I clearly stated. Yes, I addressed you by name as well because you posted three consecutive times and seem the most interested in perpetuating this discussion, so please explain how it is relevant to the Conservatism in the United States article. It seems this is a discussion better suited for the Modern liberalism in the United States talk page, your user talk page, or the user talk page of whom you are requesting an opinion from. Abierma3 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, TFD, and you all posted comments on this topic today, so it's clearly not the case that I'm the only one interested in perpetuating this discussion. I just responded. VictorD7 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Arnold presents what he admits is a controversial view. But it is proof of what I have been saying, that some conservatives believe that liberals are secretly socialists. As for what determines who is or who is not a socialist, it is a bit beyond the scope of the article. But ideological groups are studied empirically. In the subect of this article for example, researchers begin by accepting that there are conservatives, then try to identify commonality. They don't start with a defintion then try to determine which groups and individuals meet it. TFD (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that he thinks it's that controversial, but I never denied there's disagreement among reliable sources on these matters, just that it would be wrong to dismiss the view that liberals and socialists overlap as "fringe". I'll add that your Dictionary of Socialism source, which actually only contains a limited amount of general exposition, talks about the merging of modern liberalism with socialism, and how blurry these lines are. (p 14) "In affirming their support for democracy, what had been the democratic socialist tradition merged with the left wing of what had been the tradition of liberalism." (p v) "Yet, part of this “crisis” is only apparent because many of the early goals of socialism have become so much a part of the general consensus that they are hardly recognized as socialist any more. Among these are the need to overcome unemployment, improve the conditions of labor, create more egalitarian societies, ensure some form of welfare, and provide opportunities for all groups in society to express their opinions. Socialism is in flux again. Indeed, it seems never to have ceased evolving, so it is important to take another look not only at the present but also the past, which shows just how much has been achieved and also how often the movement has reinvented itself." (p 17) "At the time they were drafted, they were on the cutting edge of political radicalism with their demands for free, equal, and direct suffrage, equal rights for women, freedom of association, the private nature of religion, graduated taxation of income and wealth, the replacement of standing armies by militia, an eight-hour working day, prohibition of child labor and night work, and regulation of women’s labor. In fact, so much of what they advocated has come to pass that it is easy to take these programs for granted.…It could be argued that many of these reforms would have happened anyway, with or without socialist pressure. But one must remember that it was socialism that first placed these items on the political agenda and actively campaigned for their implementation when they were hardly fashionable." (p 210) "The experience of repressive regimes, both communist and no-communist, demonstrated repeatedly how easily such concerns could be lost. After 1945 the Cold War forced Western social-democratic and labor parties to move further to the right to remove themselves from the charge of association with communism. The formal expunging of Marxism by the German Social Democratic Party in its Godesberg Program of 1959 was symbolic of this broader development. As a result, many elements from liberalism and the democratic socialist tradition merged. The ideological overlap of liberalism and socialism may be illustrated by two Latin American parties—the Liberal Party of Columbia and the Argentinean Radical Civic Union—that were formed in the liberal tradition during the nineteenth century but have since adopted social democracy and achieved full membership in the Socialist International." VictorD7 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer relevant to improving this article. VictorD7 and The Four Deuces, please take the discussion to your respective user talk pages. The talk page is not a forum. Abierma3 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology: historians prefer "Republican Party" for the Jeffersonians

The terminology "Democratic Republican" came much later (1890s) --adopted by political scientists from a terminology sometimes used at the time. The usual term and the time was "Republican Party" Historians of the actual party call it: "Republican party", or the Jeffersonian Republicans.

1. Cunningham, Noble E. The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801 Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg by the University of North Carolina Press, 1957.
2. Prince, Carl E. New Jersey's Jeffersonian Republicans: the genesis of an early party machine, 1789-1817. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1967.
3. Goodman, Paul, ed. The Federalists Vs. the Jeffersonian Republicans. Krieger Publishing Company, 1977.
4. "the various elements of the Republican Party" in Scott, David. "The Ohio Constitution of 1803, Jefferson's Danbury Letter, and Religion in Education." Ohio History 121.121 (2014): 73-88.
5. "After the federal government moved to Washington in 1800, ....all was fine until the Republican party began to divide into factions" in Ritchie, Donald A. "Private printers and the party press: What went on before the GPO." Government Information Quarterly 29.2 (2012): 283-284.
6. "Kurtz demonstrate that as late as 1796 initiative within the Republican party with respect..." Rose, Lisle A. Prologue to Democracy: The Federalists in the South 1789-1800 University Press of Kentucky, 2015.
7. " The eventual evolution of the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison into the modern..." Allsop, Richard. "Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged A Nation; James Madison: A Life Reconsidered [Book Review]." Institute of Public Affairs Review: A Quarterly Review of Politics and Public Affairs 67.2 (2015): 54. Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• According to: the Encyclopedia Britannica[3], the American Heritage Dictionary[4], the Public Broadcasting System[5], the Heritage Foundation[6], the U.S. Senate[7] and scores of others too numerous to list, all agree that the original "Republican Party" is the "direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party." So any reference to the "Republican Party" in terms of word origin, would necessarily have to reference that what is actually meant is the present day Democratic Party. There is no disagreement about that among historians. Additionally, citations themselves are not links. They are neither searchable nor verifiable, as no quotations were provided for review. As such, they can easily be distorted to claim anything someone says they claim. Regardless, they certainly do not refute these reliably sourced links:

1) The United States Senate Official website:

http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm

2) The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/timeline-terms/democratic-republican-party

3) The Free Dictionary

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Democratic-Republican+Party

4) Cengage Learning

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&jsid=27c4d7c605ee78f96be9be874b8f557c&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX3048900171&u=oak30216&zid=9c00b8eb644b4e46de39f8a9335adc67

5) Source Citation

"Democratic-Republican Party." UXL Encyclopedia of U.S. History. Sonia Benson, Daniel E. Brannen, Jr., and Rebecca Valentine. Vol. 2. Detroit: UXL, 2009. 435-436. U.S. History in Context. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

6) InsideGov.com

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/l/7/Democratic-Republican-Party

7) Robert A. Dahl, Yale University

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/pdf/0300092180.pdf

8) Even Conserapedia (with which you are familiar) notes the necessity for the distinction, so as not to confuse the reader:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Republicans_%28Jeffersonian%29

So unless/until there are reliable sources to refute these sources, the term Democratic-Republican Party is historically accurate; and needs to remain in this historical article. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Incidentally, regarding Noble E. Cunningham, there is this section from a remembrance of him by Jeffrey L. Pasley, University of Missouri, which appeared in the William and Mary Quarterly in the Winter 2009 issue, no. 126:

"While committed to a traditional Founder-centric narrative of the early Republic’s politics, Cunningham undermined that view in practice through his careful attention to the way politics actually operated on the ground... His emphasis on political facts-on-the-ground was and remains rather unusual in political history. Political historians have tended to spin out the thoughts and deeds of great statesmen or else count votes. Most of the stuff in between tends to get short shrift, but that middle ground was where Noble Cunningham lived. It was this aspect of Cunningham’s writings that inspired a small wave of state-level studies of the Democratic-Republican party and informed the work of the new generation of political historians showcased in the volume David Waldstreicher, Andrew Robertson, and I edited, Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2004)"

http://oieahc.wm.edu/uncommon/126/cunningham.cfm. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're brand new here and don't know much about the RS rules. Study up. wp:RS -- Both RP and D-RP terms are in use; political scientists like Dahl use D-RP. But this is a history article and we should go with the historians--only one of which (Paisley) you cited as using D-RP. Note that his coauthor Robertson prefers "Republican" [his usage in 1) Journal of the Early Republic summer 2013, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p317-334; 2) Journal of the Early Republic. Spring2013, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p 140-144] Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The people at the time called it the "Republican Party". Conservatives later spoke often of the "Jeffersonian Republicans" and please do not cite anonymous sources no tertiary sources when it comes to analysis of what scholars prefer. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Citizendium: The name of the party evolved over the period of its rise and decline as a cohesive party. Party members in the 1790s called themselves republicans or Republicans and voted for what they called the Republican party, republican ticket, or the republican interest; occasionally other names were used. [ref] Cunningham (1957) provides original quotes and documents from various states on pages 48, 63-66, 97, 99, 103, 110, 111, 112, 144, 151, 153, 156, 157, 161, 163, 188, 196, 201, 204, 213, 218 and 234.[/ref] at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• It was not only foolish of you, but a violation of the assume good faith policy here, to presume that you knew what I know about RS rules. Especially when I know that WP:WPNOTRS states that reputable tertiary sources like encyclopedias may be used; and the U.S. Senate and PBS are indisputably reliable sources as the term is used here. Your red herring argument regarding historians vs. political scientists in an article about the history of the political science known as "conservatism", is transparent nonsense. All the more so since, because of my sources, you had to concede that even collaborating historians use different terms. So both terms are now included in the article. I also know the rules on POV pushing here and your Conservapedia bias and agenda are showing. The undisputed historical fact - which even you have never tried to refute - is that Jefferson's "Republican Party" was the direct ancestor of the current Democratic Party. And any attempt to ignore that, or conflate that "Republican Party" with the current party of the same name, is fraudulent revisionism and a blatant attempt to distort the factual, historical record. Political scientists and historians would both know this. The article now references both terms "Jeffersonian Republican" and "Democratic-Republican." Whereas before, it only referenced "Democratic-Republican." That addresses your concern. It acknowledges both terms and explains their evolution. Since both terms are now included and explained, that is a more than reasonable - and historically accurate - accommodation, and should resolve the matter. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Foolish" i think is for a person's very first day at Wikipedia to explain the rules. Especially one with zero experience in dealing with historical topics. No we do not use anonymous sources or tertiary encyclopedias when solid scholarship is available in abundance. Here is the rule: not the priority: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." [wp:RS] The main point is that when dealing with well-established historical topics we should follow the reliable secondary sources RS in history. and note: no BLP violations are tolerated. Rjensen (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Foolish" is to ass-ume that because an IP shows no edit history that the editor using it is a newbie. In fact, that's embarrassingly foolish. But it is consistent with your edit pattern, which appears to be: if you can't peddle your snake oil with nonsensical and unsupported claims, just attack the IP instead. But let me educate you further. It's taking considerable restraint not to whack you with a wet trout. Still, WP:WPNOTRS which you even re-quoted says: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." Still, you have never directly (and foolishly) disputed that the US Senate, PBS, the Yale University Press, the College of William and Mary Quarterly, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History or (gasp!) the Heritage Foundation are all reliable, published sources. Nor could you. So instead, you've just attempted to devolve this into some kind of personal pissing match. Pity. What's more, a BLP is a "biography of a living person." And try as you might, an article on the history of conservatism in the U.S. is not a BLP. So chalk that one up as just another WP:EPICFAIL. Now, unless you have more legitimate responses regarding the article, we're done. If you're just interested in more personal attacks, we're done. But there is nothing legitimate left, as the article already reflects the accommodation you wanted. So, beyond that, I have no interest in continuing to troll feed. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

goodness our newbie gets angry quick. Fact is he does not understand the rules here and misunderstands wp:RS which gives priority to published secondary sources, not anonymous stuff that has minimal credibility. That's the sort of error a newbie makes. Only a person ignorant of scholarship on the early national period will make the subtle error of mixing up College of William and Mary with the journal with a similar name (it has a separate identity). He started out by citing Wikipedia as a source. then he moved to places like The Free Dictionary. Only a newbie would be unaware of the WP:BLP rules. ("The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.") Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, you genuinely are stuck on stupid, aren't you? I've already successfully refuted your vacuous claims that I am either: a) new, or b) misinformed on WP rules. But if your fragile ego needs to find solace in either belief: because I have proven you consistently wrong on everything from history, to political science, to WP rules - and exposed you for the POV-pushing fraud you are - then certainly and by all means, have at it. But that is still no excuse for your biased and sloppy scholarship, and that is the real issue here, isn't it? Did you really miss that I referenced "the College of William and Mary Quarterly?" Did I actually need to spoon feed you the history of the Omohundro Institute, or the fact that it is housed on the campus of William and Mary; who the Omohundros were; or their long-term relationship to the College of William and Mary and the membership of their Council? Seriously? Are you really that desperate, obtuse and petty? What's next, you'll try to nitpick all my other sources? Is the Yale University Press, which would have published the PhD dissertation which you allege to have acquired, suddenly now just a bogus paper mill? Do you think you are somehow imbued with more credibility than the Encyclopedia Britannica or the American Heritage Dictionary? Is the US Senate not authoritative enough or the Heritage Foundation not sufficiently conservative enough or the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History staff, trustees, editorial and advisory boards not populated by enough historians? Where/when does this silly season? Especially when the only "citations" you provided were just titles, with no quotations or page references. Yet, curiously, you led with 2 dated volumes, published in 1957 and 1967, respectively, from the University of North Carolina Press by the "Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg", otherwise known as the "Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture" at Williamsburg! Obviously you didn't notice that. But isn't that exactly the kind of sloppy scholarship that someone, like you claim to be, should know better than - wouldn't you think? But, to return context to this disquisition: the term "Jeffersonian (or Madisonian) Republicans" was never the term used by the "Republican Party" which Jefferson founded with Madison. That is a subsequent nomenclature given to them by scholars long after the fact. Exactly like the term, "Democratic-Republican Party." Neither was contemporary in 1791, or the roughly generation of its existence thereafter. Finally, as to BLP policy: referencing the public article about you, on Conservapedia, violates no policy. Nor is it a policy vio to quote your own user page there that: "Since 2000 he has edited the email-based discussion group "Conservativenet", which caters to conservative scholars." It is certainly no policy violation to reference what you have already stated about yourself. Besides, if it quacks like a duck... And truth is always the ultimate defense. However, speaking of policy, you most certainly had no right whatsoever to edit my prior comments. How dare you. Do it again, and you'll find yourself at ANI - where you'll very quickly discover just what a "newbie", "unaware of the rules", I am. The End. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP rules are pretty strict here. As for claims that you secretly have been a Wiki editor but cannot reveal any details, that is not very credible. You today used Wiki as a source which every editor knows is not allowed. Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

as for the false claim that Madison & Jefferson did not use the name, from Citizendium we have: 1) James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican Party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose." 2) Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's present form,.... 3) At a conference with Washington a year later, Jefferson referred to "what is called the republican party here." Bergh, ed. Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1907) 1:385, 8:345; 4) Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, January 13, 1813. "The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution" Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• 1) You have forfeited the right to engage in any civil discourse with me when you - now twice - dared to remove my comments, even AFTER you had been warned that doing so was a serious violation of policy. Prepare your arguments for your ANI. You're going to need them. 2) Despite your supposed knowledge of WP rules, and much to your apparent perturbation, there is no requirement that I edit with an account. Or that I edit from the same location/IP at all times. You're grasping at ever more desperate and laughable straws. 3) And I said: "Jeffersonian (or Madisonian) Republicans" was never the term used by the "Republican Party" which Jefferson founded with Madison. That is a subsequent nomenclature given to them by scholars long after the fact. Exactly like the term, "Democratic-Republican Party." Your quotes/sources only prove that: in the very last topic point I will ever make with you - once again - I was absolutely correct. Game. Set. Match. Finis. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:6DE5:5086:EA68:1BDD (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about redirect

Hello all! I was reading the article "American Left" and then decided to look up "American Right", assuming that it ought to exist as the complementary article. Instead, I was redirected to this article (Conservatism in the United States). Is there a reason that both the articles "American Left" and "Liberalism in the United States" exist, but only "Conservatism in the United States" exists on the right? JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's because there are numerous reliable sources that treat the Left as a topic, but few that do so for the Right, not only in the U.S., but in other countries as well. TFD (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and JonathanHopeThisIsUnique: There used to be a separate article called Far-right politics in the United States, but it was deleted several years ago. Should it be re-created? Jarble (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on whether someone wants to take the time to create a useful article that begins with having a clear topic and identifying the literature. All too often editors create articles by stringing together an adjective and a noun and then putting in anything that uses the same two words in sequence, which is basically the problem with the article Far-right politics. The article Far-right politics in the United Kingdom otoh is focused. There is an article, Radical right (United States) which includes far right groups. TFD (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits March 30/31 2016

There have been a large number of edits in the past two days. One edit references "Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences". This book is a good references, but it does not support the claim that the American Revolution was classically liberal (small government) rather than more generally liberal. The big government/small government issue was discussed widely in the period 1776 to 1787. Those on the big government side called themselves Federalists. Hamilton, Madison, and Adams were notable Federalists. Those on the small government, states' rights side called themselves the Anti-Federalists, and opposed the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was adopted, indicating considerable support for those who, like John Jay, thought that "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers." (Federalist Papers, No. 2) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen usually knows what he is talking about, but July 4, 1776 is the Declaration of Independence of the 13 American colonies from Great Britain. The colonies formed a Confederation, but the country called the United States did not come into existence until the Constitution, and the inauguration of George Washington as its first President. However, since the 13 independent colonies are also called The United States, in the same way that the independent countries of Europe are together called the European Union, I'm not going to revert Rjensen's 1776 claim. I have enough work convincing my students that Abraham Lincoln was not the first president, and that George Washington did not free the slaves. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In his edit summary, VictorD7 wrote, "Restoring link and adding qualifier to text."classical" is important to distinguish from modern lib,and bec. modern Americans refer to Lockean lib. with that label.If FF had been modern libs they'd have emph. equality over liberty and not limited gov so." Classical was added to liberal in "All major American political parties support republicanism and the liberal ideals on which the country was founded in 1776...." I think that "classical" overqualifies and is not meaningful unless it is clear from the context. Also, the passage refers to liberal and republican ideologies, which would be exemplified by Hamilton and Jefferson respectively. Modern libertarianism owes more to the latter. Also, the statement that modern liberalism values equality over liberty is false and modern liberals believe in "limited government" as it is normally understood, that government action is limited to what the constitution allows.

I do not know when the U.S. came into being. The English courts do not recognize independence until 1783, while Chief Justice Taney said that the country came into existence when when the constitution came into effect. How could the U.S. have been a nation before, when it had no executive or courts, no power to enter into treaties and no legislative authority in the states? Is there any authoritative source?

TFD (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that the source, which at least you acknowledge is "good", doesn't support the use of "classical" here is false. I'll quote directly from it (starting with page 48):

Classical liberalism helped motivate America’s founders to declare their independence from England, to write the American Constitution, and to establish the Republic. It rationalized their actions and provided ideological legitimacy for the new nation. John Locke, the English political philosopher whose writings most influenced the founders of the United States, argued that even in a “state of nature”—that is, a world in which there were no governments—an individual possesses inalienable rights….that cannot legitimately be taken away by a government. Locke’s idea of inalienable rights—the rights to life, liberty, and property—directly influenced American founding father Thomas Jefferson, who in writing the Declaration of Independence would include “life, liberty, and happiness” as “God-given and unalienable Rights.” Lock’s idea of natural law, or moral principle, guaranteed every person these rights. He believed that the very purpose of government was to protect individual liberty….

Thus, classical liberalism included a belief in limited government, the idea that government cannot violate the rights that it was established to protect. ….

Modern liberalism rationalizes and justifies much of the growth of governmental power that occurred in the United States in the twentieth century. ….Classical liberalism looked with suspicion on government as a potential source of “interference” with personal freedom, but modern liberalism looks on the power of government as a positive force to be used to contribute to the elimination of social and economic conditions that adversely affect people’s lives and impede their self-development. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This both establishes that the source does describe the American founders as "classical" liberals and underscores the need for a qualifier to clarify for modern readers that we aren't referring to modern liberalism here, which is now commonly referred to by Americans as "liberalism". Since your revert was made under false pretenses and the source is RS I'll revert. You imply you're a teacher. If I had been a student in your class I would have taken you to task over this and your attempt to imply that the debate between federalists and anti-federalists (or later between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans) was simply a forerunner of the vastly more substantial, qualitatively different debate raging the past century since the rise of socialism, progressivism, and modern liberalism about the relationship between the individual and the state, lest malleable captive students be misled or indoctrinated. The Constitution's framers wanted a government that worked, but all sides were concerned with limiting government to an unprecedented degree in modern nation-building, which is why the federal government had so little power until the 20th Century, and why it still has less power than the central governments in most other nations do. They had just fought a brutal war against an unrestrained government to secure their freedom, and had no desire to go back to that. Madison, one of those "federalists" who played a huge role in getting the Constitution approved with his writing in the Federalist Papers, was also an iconic libertarian of the era and a Jeffersonian Republican. The anti-federalist concern you mention only underscores my position, since it shows how strong the sentiment against an expansive government was. That some people arose worried that even that Constitution gave the federal government too much power doesn't necessarily mean those concerns were valid or that the federalists (again, men like Madison) wanted an expansive government. It just shows that's where the epicenter of national debate and concern was, with the Constitution's supporters exerting great effort to allay people's fears. You might have a point if there had a been a major faction arguing that the Constitution didn't go far enough in empowering government, as modern liberals do.

To respond to TFD, I strongly disagree with just about everything you said, but most of that would be a pointless tangent to go down here. I'll only say that my edit summary was in response to Rick's flippant edit summary about Jefferson supposedly not being a classical liberal because he changed "property" to "happiness". That ignores the fact that it was just a stylistic change to broaden things a bit (it's not like classical liberals are opposed to happiness, which includes the right to own private property), and that the crucial sentence is still largely lifted straight from Locke. It also just mentions one person (though Jefferson was very much a classical liberal, as the textbook I've quoted correctly expounds on), and the fact that in this context "classical liberal" is synonymous with "liberal" prior to the advent of modern liberalism. Regarding 1776, Rjensen is correct about that being virtually universally seen as the USA's birthday. The date of Britain's recognition is irrelevant. If they had won the war the issue would be moot, and since they lost their vote doesn't really count. Also, switching from one constitution to another doesn't mean an entirely new nation has been created, especially since the first one was rushed while under the duress of war. Other nations around the world have gone through multiple constitutions, but we don't date the adoption of their most recent one as the birth of their nationhood. I'll note that individual US states sometimes create new constitutions too. That doesn't change the dates of their statehood. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. In the edition of the book on amazon.com, I think the quote above must be on page 45, which is not included in the "look inside" section I consulted. I don't have a copy of the book, so I relied on a "look inside" search. I appreciate the correction. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

VictorD7, the Chief Justice of the United States wrote, "But it must be remembered that, at that time, there was no Government of the United States in existence with enumerated and limited powers; what was then called the United States were thirteen separate, sovereign, independent States which had entered into a league or confederation for their mutual protection and advantage, and the Congress of the United States was composed of the representatives of these separate sovereignties, meeting together, as equals, to discuss and decide on certain measures which the States, by the Articles of Confederation, had agreed to submit to their decision. But this Confederation had none of the attributes of sovereignty in legislative, executive, or judicial power. It was little more than a congress of ambassadors, authorized to represent separate nations in matters in which they had a common concern."

Under the constitutive theory the former colonies would not be considered independent states until recognized as such. ISIS for example is not recognized as a state.

The term "classical liberal" is ambiguous as it has at least three distinct meanings: all liberalism before the 20th century, 19th century liberalism as exemplified by Jackson, or a form of 20th century liberalism exemplified by Hayek. Hence Ian Adams writes, "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market."[8] What we need to avoid is the impression that the framers of the constitution had a different ideology from modern leaders.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of SCOTUS judges have said lots of different, often contradictory things on lots of topics. But the states banding together to jointly declare independence in 1776 is virtually universally seen as the country's birth. If ISIS succeeds in its goal of conquering much or all of the world it will no doubt recognize the birth of its caliphate as having happened before April 2016, and no one then living will be likely to openly dispute them.

On classical liberalism I'd mostly agree with a few caveats. "Liberalism" is even more ambiguous, and more pertinently so in this case, as is illustrated by your Adams quote using a completely different definition than what most modern Americans typically use. His use of "classical liberal" is similar to the article's current use. I'll add that we should say, as the article already does, that the major modern parties subscribe to certain basic classical liberal principles (like the basic republican structure and some measure of individual rights), but there are some disagreements, or else they wouldn't be different, opposing factions. Modern liberalism rejects a significant portion of classical liberalism, and has a different view of the role of government when it comes to things like the free market. Indeed the ideological disagreement today regarding the economy and the individual citizen's relationship to the government is wider than it was in the 19th Century, back when the major disagreements were slavery, tariff levels, and whether there should be a central bank, along with ad hoc foreign policy disputes. VictorD7 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You are expressing a view popular with modern libertarians. The United States was built on liberal principles which modern U.S. liberals reject, which denies their legitimacy and Americanness. What they actually reject, and so do modern U.S. conservatives in other ways, is the rather narrower classical liberalism of Jackson. And you still have not provided any source that the U.S. came into being as a nation in 1776. (Note I am not endorsing Taner's view, just saying that we need evidence that modern scholarship rejects it.)

Where popular usage of the term liberal in the U.S. differs is that the term was not popularly used and Roosevelt adopted the terms liberal and conservative to describe his supports and opponents respectively. He was equating his opponents with the aristocrats of Europe, just as his opponents would equate him with European socialism.

TFD (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I just quoted from the textbook. You, on the other hand, are expressing a view popular among certain modern leftist revisionists (not all left wingers), that there's somehow no significant difference between modern liberalism and the small government ideology of the founding fathers (established long before Jackson; conservatives are far more likely to quote Madison and Jefferson than Jackson), presumably to defend the ideology from hypothetical attacks on its "legitimacy" and "Americanness" (your words). Fortunately such tactical posturing isn't your job here. Our mandate is merely to accurately, neutrally describe the topic (in this case American conservatism). If your position was true then we wouldn't need the "modern" liberalism qualifier. Clearly we do. As I observed and the article currently states, modern US liberals do support many key elements of classical liberalism. No one disputes that. But they also undeniably break from the classical liberal tradition enough, particularly in their views on the role of government and how free the market should be, for modern liberalism to require its own article contrasting the two ideologies. As for usage, members of both American parties used "liberal" in the 19th and early 20th Century. It became far more common later in the 20th Century after it adopted its current meaning, but it's not like the term was unheard of before. It took decades before some formerly self-described "liberals" finally started calling themselves "libertarians" or "conservatives" instead. None of that usage really matters though. We use "classical liberal" and these other terms according to their current meanings, whether they were used by the historical figures they're being retroactively applied to or not.

As for the nation's founding date, no I don't have to provide anything because you provided no modern scholarship, but an out of context quote from Taney's Dred Scott decision of all things, one of the most notorious and widely denounced decisions of all time (not that it really matters). Again, I could cite all sorts of varied and disputed opinions from random SCOTUS judges I'm sure you'd take issue with (e.g. like the 1892 Supreme Court Declaration that "this is a Christian nation"). That said, I will post some sources anyway, like the US State Department: "By declaring themselves an independent nation, the American colonists were able to confirm an official alliance with the Government of France and obtain French assistance in the war against Great Britain.", the Library of Congress: "This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions…", and an encyclopedia: "The United States was born as a nation with the Declaration of Independence made by the 13 colonies on July 4, 1776." The view that the nation was founded with its declaration of independence in 1776 is ubiquitous, hence the 1876 centennial, 1976 bicentennial, and all the annual July 4 holiday celebrations. VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)