Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"Alarmism"

Isn't the pervasive conservative characterization of the AGW movement as "alarmism", particularly the public messaging aspects of it making claims about global destruction, important in capturing the conservative view on the matter, and allowable in Wikipedia prose as long as it's placed in quotes and qualified as the conservative POV? Why delete it? This and other articles (like modern liberalism) are full of the rhetoric the groups in question use, often with explanations. VictorD7 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a misleading characterization. A large portion of conservatives outright reject the idea of climate change; many argue it is not happening, many more argue it is happening, but isn't caused by humans, and those who believe it is both occurring and caused by humans argue it's unlikely to be harmful. Your edits only included the last group, and didn't mention that many conservatives outright reject climate change science. Opposition to "alarmism" is based off of a disbelief in this science, and shouldn't be added without that background. Rwenonah (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How is it "misleading"? The sentence said "skepticism of what they consider to be man-made global warming "alarmism"". Are you denying that conservatives frequently use the term "alarmism" or "hysteria" to describe the AGW movement? And on your point, I think you're misreading the sentence and you misunderstand the issue. The text opens by saying conservatives are skeptical of man-made global warming (obviously no one disputes climate change per se, though conservatives do frequently point out the pervasive predictive failure of AGW models, skepticism rooted in actual science, which you're confusing with the straw man notion that the climate somehow never changes; conservatives typically point out that the climate naturally changes all the time), and then adds the separate point about proposed government solutions to combat it doing more harm than good (which isn't the same as saying it's not harmful). "Alarmism" is a natural response to things like movies depicting the end of the world or propaganda flicks like Al Gore's (which even a lot of AGW scientists have admitted is peppered with ludicrous scientific falsehoods) making millions and receiving a Nobel "Peace" Prize by claiming that sea levels would soon rise to catastrophic levels (it therefore must be a testament to Gore's defiant courage that he later purchased a lot of coastal property). VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of conservatives outright deny that any abnormal climate change is occurring (say, James Inhofe). A lot more argue that it's not harmful. Conservatives undoubtedly use the term alarmism profusely, but it's not rooted in actual scientific objections, considering the scientific consensus that global warming is manmade and likely to be harmful is overwhelming. Indeed, many conservatives go out of their way to assert that they don't know whether humans cause climate change. We shouldn't be jumping in to explain their position on "alarmism" without first explaining their position on the actual science. Rwenonah (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice you slipped in "abnormal". I'd agree with that new characterization, and the text captures it just fine. I'm glad you agree that conservatives frequently use the term "alarmism", and presumably that it captures their sentiment toward the AGW movement, but you don't need to keep repeating your canned talking point about conservatives supposedly being anti-science. One, it's BS, since lots of scientists (and non-scientists) make scientific arguments against the AGW premise. Two, even if they didn't, whether "alarmism" is rooted in scientific objection or not is irrelevant here. The text didn't say anything about it being rooted in "actual scientific objections". It just said they view the issue as "alarmism", which you've agreed is true. VictorD7 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, Inhofe, to take one example, denies that that climate change can occur without God's permission, so we it would be reasonable as well to say that some conservatives view it as blasphemy. I'm not sure why you assumed "conservatives denying the idea of climate change" means "conservatives denying the climate ever changes". Are you aware that global warming and climate change are used interchangeably? I'm guessing no, since you apparently didn't understand when I used it in that sense.

The text is misleading because it says conservatives are skeptical of what they consider to be alarmism, when in fact they (or, at any rate, many) are sceptical that climate change is occurring or is harmful to any degree. There's a significant difference between being sceptical of how a scientific concept is discussed (for instance, believing discussion to be alarmist) and rejecting the scientific concept itself, especially when 97% of climate scientists believe otherwise. Any skepticism of "alarmism" is founded in the skepticism of the underlying science and should be described as such. Is there a good reason not to mention that? Rwenonah (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you should proofread your own comment and revise it for coherency, but I'll try to respond in the meantime as best I can. Your first paragraph in particular has nothing to do with what I said (I'll charitably disregard your partisan snark against Inhofe). I'm not sure why you think there is a meaningful difference between "denying the idea of of climate change" and denying that "climate ever changes". Of course I knew that "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably (a necessary rhetorical shift embraced by the AGW movement during the unpredicted pause in warming this century). Conservatives don't deny "global warming" either. They're skeptical of the claims about man-made global warming/climate change. But those aren't the comments I identified a distinction between. I explicitly said there was a difference between your earlier statement that they "outright reject the idea of climate change" and your newer statement that they "deny that any abnormal climate change is occurring". I disagreed with the former and agreed with the latter (at least that view describes some conservatives).

As for "alarmism", your interpretation of that word is arbitrarily and incorrectly narrow. Alarmism encompasses the general conservative view of AGW, whether they're skeptical of the AGW premise itself (a view already captured in the text and even leading it off, a fact you seem to be missing) or think the doomsday claims are exaggerated. It even at least arguably applies to those who believe there will be serious consequences but that the proposed "solutions" would be even worse. Your "97%" talking point has nothing to do with the issue here, though since you raise it I'll point out that it's circular, "climate science" being a relatively new field (at least on a large scale) founded by AGW advocates for the purpose of advancing AGW sentiment, and that plenty of geologists, metereologists, physicists, and other scientists in more established fields are AGW skeptics.

Since you may not be communicating your objections clearly, I'll add just in case that no conservative denies global warming can and sometimes does happen. You may be confused by skeptics pointing out the pause in warming this century, which is to emphasize the predictive failure of the AGW models that didn't see that pause coming, and that arguably refutes some of their key assumptions. The same skeptics also frequently point out that natural warming or cooling has happened at various points in earth's history, and that a long, general, probably natural warming trend has been going on for well over a century (but not continuously; there have been subcycles), since the end of the "Little Ice Age" that had resulted in (among other things) the brutal winters that famously impacted early American history. They also talk about the warming a thousand years ago that resulted in a flourishing Scandinavian maritime society.

Any sincere concern that neutrality would be violated by "alarmist" is unwarranted since no argument is being presented. The word simply sums up the conservative view of the AGW movement. An argument would be made if some points or specific arguments supporting the view were included in the text, but no one has proposed that. VictorD7 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you learn to write concisely? Inflating discussions unnecessarily is, I suppose, a useful debate tactic when you're incapable of actually winning the argument and would just prefer to exhaust them with verbosity. Anyway. The term climate change increased in prevalence over global warming because overall warming in temperatures can produce local drops in temperature and because the term global warming was too narrow to incorporate all the effects of changing overall temperatures, such as on weather. Lots of conservatives outright reject that the climate is changing, Inhofe being an excellent example ... they therefore reject the idea of climate change. You obviously failed to understand the fact that climate change and global warming are interchangeable terms in this context, and both, in this context, refer to the immediate trend and not the concept of the climate changing. But that's okay.

You also misunderstand (or ignore?) the meaning of alarmism, "the unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger", per Merriam-Webster. To be skeptical of "alarmism" is founded in a rejection of the underlying scientific concepts. Conservatives consider things alarmist because they disagree with the science, and we need to explain that by saying that "many conservatives deny that climate change is occurring. Others deny that it will be harmful. Consequently, they consider concern about its impacts alarmism."

I'll ignore your typical bleating of partisan talking points because responding to them would just give you an unneeded excuse to bloat your response even more than you will, except to note that the 97% figure comes also from surveys of all peer-reviewed scientific papers that take a position on global warming, not solely from climate scientists; 84% of all scientists (or similar surveys done of geophysicists and meteorologists specifically) agree that humans cause climate change, and 97% agree that it's occurring. It's important that we describe what conservatives consider alarmism; a consensus of 97% (or 84%, depending) of scientists. Rwenonah (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Concision is made difficult when the person I'm debating is prone to posting falsehoods and red herrings in need of untangling, though tossing out such bombs and then wasting space whining about "verbosity" may make you feel better when you're incapable of winning the debate. More diversionary waste: your entire semantic spiel on "climate change". The phenomenon of local temperature variations is hardly new. What changed was the pause in the rising global temperatures that became embarrassing for the AGW movement, and the corresponding need to broaden rhetoric to include any uncomfortable weather phenomenon under the same man-caused umbrella phrase (obviously with warming still being the premise, but it sounded silly to blame blizzards on "global warming" and they were getting mocked for it). But I didn't say "climate change" wasn't an appropriate term, and we can agree to disagree on the chief motivating factor in it being pushed as a replacement for "global warming" because it's irrelevant here. I merely observed that you used the phrase "abnormal climate change" in a sense that differed from your earlier ludicrous assertion that conservatives simply rejected the notion of "climate change". You can replace "climate change" with "global warming" in those comments and my response about the distinction would be the same. I'm not sure where your misunderstanding came from, but I never said anything that indicated I didn't know that "climate change" and "global warming" are often used interchangeably (though they obviously don't mean exactly the same thing; an ice age is "climate change" too). Everyone knows that.

Not being as up on the low brow leftist blogosphere and what it's chosen to cherry-pick and hype up as you are, I don't know all the ins and outs of Inhofe's personal views, but I've seen him acknowledge that the world has warmed up since 1850 (I've seen no one deny that). His focus seems to be criticizing the debunked "hockey stick" chart that smoothed out historical warming and cooling periods to make the recent warming appear starker and more abnormal than it really is. In fact Inhofe is more of a believer in climate change than AGW advocates tend to be; he just thinks it's a natural process occurring regularly throughout earth's history. Again, if you're referring to the contention by him and others that there's been a pause in global warming in more recent years, that's something acknowledged even by AGW scientists, not just his opinion. So in that sense everyone who's scientifically literate rejects "global warming", or at least has at some point in the early 21st Century. Presumably that wasn't what you were trying to say though.

To avoid further length I'll refrain from educating you in detail about the definition of science (it's an investigative method, a process, not a vote count), the difference between hard and soft science, or the absurdity of determining weight of scientific certainty only by surveying opinions in articles on a particular topic (especially a heavily speculative one; particularly one with credibility problems stemming from things like the Climategate scandal where faking evidence and strong arming dissenters into silence behind the scenes was exposed) rather than the concrete evidence, much less articles mostly written by the aforementioned "climate scientists" whose modern field was largely created to advance the AGW premise to begin with (though I will link to this survey [1] of American Meteorological Society members refuting your unsourced claim by finding that only 59% believe humanity is primarily responsible for global warming, and only 30% is "very worried" about global warming, to illustrate the lack of scientist consensus; it's not like there's any easy way to disprove AGW or a lot of people trying to in journal articles, but it's telling that many scientists remain unconvinced by the near monolithic appeal; the evidence is shallow). I won't even dwell on the hint of anti-Christian bigotry you exhibited earlier ("blasphemy"? Never heard anyone mention that and I doubt you have either. Inhofe stresses the importance of science; he doesn't "oppose" "science"). I'll get us back to the main point before you derailed the discussion.

It is not "important that we describe what conservatives consider "alarmism" in detail more than we would be doing anyway. The segment already currently mentions "skepticism of the theory of man-made global warming", and we could add something like "and associated alarmism" or "what they consider to be associated 'alarmism'". Your cherry-picked "97%" talking point wouldn't be identifying what they view as "alarmism", but would be making an argument against the conservative view. If we did that we'd have to allow inclusion of the conservative counterarguments, fundamentally transforming the section (talk about bloating up a segment). Furthermore, "alarmism" doesn't just include the climate scientist papers or whatever Rwenonah happens to agree with, but also the associated public messaging, Hollywood movies, propaganda flicks even AGW scientists have ripped to shreds (like Gore's), political hyperbole about rapidly rising sea levels and other civilization imperiling events, AGW advocates blaming earthquakes on global warming (without a shred of scientific basis), demonstrably false claims that hurricanes have increased in frequency, etc. (here's Inhofe citing much of this in a speech [2] where he uses the word "alarmist" or "alarmism" 12 times). As the above survey shows, even a large chunk of scientists who subscribe to the AGW premise aren't that worried about it. Not everything said on the global warming side of the political debate is backed up by that side's own scientists. The hysteria surrounding the AGW cause is a major item conservatives object to. It's interesting how inconsistent some Wikipedia editors are when it comes to employing partisan terminology. I'm just suggesting we cover, quote, and attribute "alarmism" to conservatives to fully describe their view. Meanwhile there's lots of left wing rhetoric and characterizations used without attribution or controversy in Wikipedia's voice in this and the Modern Liberalism article, among countless others (e.g. we've got a freaking section title here featuring the word "McCarthyism", which, while common, was definitely an unflattering liberal characterization, coined by left-wing cartoonist Herbert Block). VictorD7 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC) They're both fine, but I'll add that I prefer this definition of "alarmism" per American Heritage: "alarmism - the attitudes and behavior of one who exaggerates dangers or always expects disaster." VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to all this ... since you evidently had the time to write it, do spend some of that learning how to write concisely instead. It's not that hard ... although maybe you just enjoy ranting about your political views. It's amusing you choose to talk about "red herrings" when you're the one who brought up Vikings, but hey, I'll give you points for chutzpah.

Levels of scientific consensus are not "arguments". If conservatives are sceptical of something, it's basic logic that we need to describe what they are sceptical of and how widely supported it is. I'm not particularly fussy which surveys of scientists we use here, because almost all of them match up with the stats I quoted above. I've really got no interest in arguing further about this with you, except to note that you don't have consensus to impose your preferred wording and that, per WP:BRD you were in the wrong by reverting two editors who returned it to the original version (yes, this is when you can accuse me of "conceding defeat"). Do kindly try to streamline your posts in discussions; not all of us have the time or desire to slog through paragraphs of debatable assertions and refute them all. Rwenonah (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Learn to read or piss off. I'm not apologizing for taking the space to defuse your dishonest partisan bombs. Regarding your new post, perhaps it's a basic competence issue that prevents you from grasping the fact that the segment already includes the "scientific" aspect of what conservatives call "alarmism", the "theory of man-made global warming". You're insisting we add more detail to that because you want to argue that conservatives are wrong to oppose it. If we added anything to "alarmism" it should be the non-scientific stuff I listed and provided a source (your own Inhofe) calling "alarmism"; the popular/political claims that even AGW scientists concede aren't true. VictorD7 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing is not neutral. There is no anti-AGW "movement" or advocacy "to enact large scale government control over the economy to combat [AGW]." TFD (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is, and that's certainly what conservatives oppose on the policy front. But the current text simply reads "government action to combat it". VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to Rjensen. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia policies, but sources aren't inherently either "RS" or "not RS" across the board. Their reliability always depends on context. In this case prominent, notable sources were simply being used to showcase representative samples of conservative views on the issue, a common practice on Wikipedia when the attributed views of individuals, groups, movements, etc. are being described. VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

in my opinion, when we have an excellent scholarly source making a point, we don't need non-scholarly non-RS blog cites to reinforce it. Too many low-quality footnotes put people to sleep-- or more likely they depart or skip over the good text. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

To which "excellent scholarly source" are you referring? The book where the key page isn't available online (any idea what it says?) or the political propaganda piece using the childishly stupid epithet "denial" in the title? Just because someone's opinion piece appears in a journal doesn't automatically make it an ideal source in any context. I will note, however, that I didn't delete either of those sources, though probably at least one of them could have been removed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

traditional enlightenment liberalism

An editor removed characterization by "traditional enlightenment liberalism", from the lead, saying, "Classical liberalism, which was an 18th and 19th c. ideology, was based on enlightenment. Modern american conservatism derives from Burkean conservatism, which was the antithesis of enlightenment (Voltaire/ Rousseau)." While one might question the degree of detail in the first page, mosts sources define U.S. conservatism at a minimum as a combination of liberalism (or libertarianism), social conservatism and anti-communism. Burke was not opposed to the enlightenment, just when it was taken to extremes, and is often described as a "liberal conservative." It is questionable anyway saying that U.S. conservatism derives from Burke. Certainly few conservatives advocate an hereditary aristocracy whose wealth is based on landed estates to control government. TFD (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Adityaindumdum reverted your edit, first, giving the reason that Conservatism is based upon Burkean conservatism. Now, you re-added your material, and requested that it be taken to the Talkpage. However, considering the fact that you didn't provide any credible sources (or any sources, at all, actually), I've reverted your edit, as well. It's up to you, instead, to make the case that Conservatism is "characterized by traditional enlightenment liberalism". However, I must add that, even if you make that case and re-add it, you will be engaging in fictional revisionism.

Consider the very next point in the sentence: "respect for American traditions". The enlightened liberals did not really place tradition as their core values – in fact, they broke away from tradition, often seeking reason, instead. That is not how American Conservatism operates, as they place more value on faith.

Get a source for your claim, and bring it here. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 00:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Step 3: Verify that your source hasn't been debunked by people who know better

Seriously, just trying to add this phrase is weasel fluff. Follow those steps, before you add stuff to Wikipedia. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 00:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The source used, which is provided as a footnote, is Gregory L. Schneider, The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution, pp. 4-9. You can see pp. 4-6 at Amazon.[3] American conservatives argue that they respect liberalism because it is an American tradition (See Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" for example[4]). Certainly Adam Smith, the Founding Fathers and other enlightenment liberals feature high in the conservative pantheon. TFD (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "The source used"

By saying, "the source used", I assume you mean, "the source which I used to make this claim"? Looking at Schneider's textbook on Amazon, there is no access to the footnotes.

The Hayek source you provided makes sense, although even he seems to be aware of the nuance and way that language changes, over time. In the case that Hayek makes, it seems he's implying modern American Conservatism has evolved, and it's the evolved version of Conservatism he's referring to.

The only source used in the introduction right now is Schneider's, and you said it could be found in the footnotes. However, the claim of "traditional enlightenment liberalism" isn't on pages 4-6, and as I said, footnotes aren't available. In the sense that "all" of America has been influenced by "traditional enlightenment liberalism", that claim could certainly go on the United States of America page, and sources could surely be found for that.

However, Laissez-faire is mentioned in Schneider's book, which is a form of Liberalism (even though he uses the header, "Laissez-faire Conservatism" in his book, which can be explained by Hayek's point that Conservatism has evolved over time). However, he also lists "Social Darwinism", which is probably the more extreme form of Laissez-faire (ie. the "hard core" Conservatives).

So is it your intention to add Laissez-faire liberalism (aka "classical liberalism") to the introduction?

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 02:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire conservatism" is meant ironically. Hayek's point is not that conservatism evolved over time. Laissez-faire liberalism may be a better phrasing, my objection to the editor removing the text was that 18th century liberalism is a core component of U.S. conservatism, while the claim that "Modern american conservatism derives from Burkean conservatism, which was the antithesis of enlightenment" is false. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" were adopted in the U.S. with ahistorical meanings used in the 1930s. Ian Adams phrased the U.S. ideological divide this way: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whigh constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes wiht the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manage; and how far should government at federal or local level proide social security and welfare serices....In American political parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatives', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'."[5] There is no need by the way to use the exact same wording as a source. TFD (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It's a valid point that "all US parties are liberal, and always have been." The only exception would be those (in the very beginning) who were "loyal to the throne". In the most literal sense, yea, US parties are all liberal.

However, so as to make the article clear, shouldn't the article state either "characterized by classical liberalism" or "characterized by laissez-faire liberalism"? (That's what I was getting at.) It seems as though to use the term "traditional enlightenment liberalism" is pretty vague, and sort of contradicting (by combining the terms "traditional" and "enlightenment", which are like oil and water).

And finally, it would be supported by the sources you've provided.

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 04:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Traditional enlightenment liberalism" is not the phrasing I would have chosen, but there are problems with all the available terms. "Laissez-faire liberalism" may be too limited. I will wait and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

there is another even more powerful influence on American conservatism: Republicanism in the United States....with lots of scholarly debate on how it & liberalism interacted Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with tfd et al on this, though I don't feel strongly one way or the other on whether it should actually be mentioned in the opening sentence as long as classical liberalism is discussed elsewhere. I'll just add as an aside that American conservativism is a broad ideology that encompasses the views of and looks to both Burke and John Locke as intellectual heroes, as they have far more in common with each other than either does with...say...Karl Marx or even John Rawls. Their views can be reconciled in an American context when one considers the unique process of the USA's national formation. The American colonies evolved over more than a century and a half on their own, rooted in existing traditions of British liberty but far removed from effective royal rule and having had to become self reliant to survive. By the time of the Revolution, which was instigated by the king trying to reassert control over the successful colonies despite them being used to effective self rule, they had organically evolved in a Burkean sense into a realized, Lockean-style, classically liberal society, with a preference for republicanism over monarchical rule. That's why the Revolution (or War of Independence) can be described as both radical and conservative (even in a more basic, dictionary sense of the word). Modern American "conservativism" seeks to conserve these founding American principles, ones informed chiefly by Lockean liberalism, and conservatives use arguments and ideas from both Burke and Locke to do so. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen's edit

I would appreciate a quote from The Conservative Century, saying that American Liberals value equality and social justice more than they value freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a questionable statement anyway. U.S. liberal policies have usually been justified by freedom, while conservatives have attacked them as being motivated by equality. So the 1960s civil rights activists called themselves Freedom Riders not Equality Riders. Southern conservatives saw this as an affront to freedom. Of course both sides also mentioned equality - racial equality and separate but equal. Both sides argued opposing positions from the same principles. TFD (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen is an editor I respect, and I do not want to change his edit without asking him for a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

in the civil rights debates, "freedom" has been the catch-phrase of opponents who wanted people to have the freedom to choose their neighbors, customers, etc. Amy Gutman (liberal) writes: "the distinction we make, for example, between freedom of religious association, on one hand, and the freedom to discriminate against members of racial minorities in places of public accommodation, on the other." In Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice - Page 7: "Historically...social justice became associated with liberalism in which equality is the ideal." Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. But while this says liberalism includes social justice as an ideal, it does not say that liberalism values social justice more than it values freedom. Of course, "freedom" has always been used by some to mean "freedom to take away the freedom of others". By chance, I was watching Shakespeare's Julius Caesar last night, and after Brutus and the others murder Caesar, they all shout "freedom", meaning in that case freedom to murder someone in power. I'm not convinced that the contrast between the freedom of people to be left alone, and the freedom of people to take away freedom from others, is captured by the statement currently in the article. In the Civil War era, in the South, freedom meant the freedom to own slaves. As you note, in the Civil Rights era, in the South, freedom meant the freedom to keep black people from voting. Today, to some conservatives, religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate against gays. I'll think about a way to express these two different ideas of freedom in a neutral way. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

on the meaning of "freedom" for the "Freedom Riders"--curiously they never explained their use of the term. see Raymond Arsenault (2006). Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice. p. 589. note 2 and 3. Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the two footnotes, but don't understand the problem with what "freedom" means. It means not a slave, but a free man, the same meaning as in "Free at last, free at last, Lord God Almighty, free at last." For one hundred years after the abolition of slavery, blacks in the South were not free. More than three thousand of them were lynched. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Freedom Riders did not tell anyone what they meant by "Freedom" so it's hard to compare their intention with other uses by other groups. Lynching was not a main issue in 1960--it was segregation they objected to. Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I imagine they objected to both. I tried, in any case, to follow your quote from the Encyclopedia of diversity and Social Justice. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

James Farmer picked the term and although he did not say what it meant, it seems clear that he was talking about rights. Unless blacks had the same rights as whites they were not free. The Founding Fathers used the same language, that since the colonial Americans were not able to exercise their inalienable rights, they were slaves. Rick Norwood is right that the Civil Rights movement saw the blacks as still enslaved. The language of modern American liberalism has followed the lead of English social liberalism in defending its demands in terms of freedom rather than equality. Even when the term equality is used, it is in reference to equality of rights. [by TFD]

We can all speculate about what Farmer may or may not have thought--but he did not tell us anything we can use in Wiki. The statement The language of modern American liberalism has followed the lead of English social liberalism in defending its demands in terms of freedom rather than equality is unsupported and does not seem right to me. Who are these mystery Englishmen -- Tom Paine? Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Who are these mystery Englishmen? William Wilberforce comes instantly to mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

well yes there were many British reformers. Did many of them influence American liberals or conservatives or anyone discussed in this article? Doubtless Herbert Spencer did. Wilberforce led the abolition of slavery in 1833--three decades after all the the Northern states had abolished slavery (not just the slave trade) with I think zero influence from Wilberforce. [Conservatives like John Jay and Alexander Hamilton led that battle in NY state in the 1790s]. Rjensen (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of writers such as Hobhouse and TH Green. Whether or not they influenced modern American thinking, they used similar arguments. For example, Alan Ryan in The Making of Modern Liberalism wrote, "[Hobhouse and Dewey] were liberals because they justified political and social action by reference to liberty rather than simple welfare."[6] Isaiah Berlin said that modern liberalism advocated "positive liberty." ("Two Concepts of Liberty")[7] While neoclassical liberals may see modern liberalism as socialism, it actually argues from liberal rather than socialist (or tory) principles.

One can argue whether the anti-slavery and civil rights movements were about freedom or equality or what positions liberals and conservatives took on them. But the issue is whether modern American liberalism emphasizes equality over freedom. While one could argue that they do, their rhetoric argues from principles of freedom.

TFD (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

John Jay was a conservative in the old sense, in that he feared individual freedom would lead to mob rule. I'm not sure that's an idea that would be considered conservative today. Alexander Hamilton favored a National Bank. Is that a conservative ideal today? Both opposed states rights and favored a strong federal government. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist Papers, "To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." The issue of states rights vs a strong federal government is one on which modern conservatives disagree with almost all of the Founding Fathers. Sorry, if I've gotten too far afield, Rjensen, but to cite Founding Fathers as if they were all conservative seems to me bogus. Even Tom Payne? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well yes the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans all strongly favored banks. Liberals like W J Bryan and Bernie Sanders have been very hostile to them. Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jay said, "No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion." I do not think that is opposition to freedom. TFD (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

what about Founders?

Some of the Founders have been adopted by both liberals and conservatives (like Jefferson) -- but not at the same time. Jefferson for example has dropped very far in last 30 years on the left (re slavery) just as he has risen on the right (re opposing strong federal government). Washington is a more interesting case. He was a conservative hero 1790s-1850s and the liberals of that day opposed monuments to him. After 1860 or so the liberals drop their opposition but (like Claude Bowers and FDR and JFK) never quite made him a top hero. John Adams & John Marshall were never liberal heroes. Rjensen (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

John Adams was very much a liberal hero, for such actions as supporting the right of Jews to vote in Massachusetts (the bill failed). He also supported a strong federal government -- that was one of the causes of his falling out with Jefferson. But, as this article notes, there really was no "conservative" movement in the US until the "conservative coalition" of Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans, opposing mixing of the races, labor unions, and big government. Many of the slave states called themselves "conservative", but it did not mean quite the same thing that the word means today. And every American considered themselves "liberal" in the sense of supporting freedom.

In any case, it seems to me that what is going on in the greatly expanded "list" is not so much providing information as in claiming famous people for the conservative cause.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Historically, the Federalist party disappeared leaving Jefferson's Democrats as the sole party. So in a sense, all modern political groups, even on the extreme right and left, are heirs to Jefferson. Similarly, Hamilton's view of the necessity of a strong central government to protect the economy and national security is broadly accepted, with the possible exception of some Ron Paul supporters. OTOH we can identify the Federalists as conservatives, Jeffersonians as liberals and the Sons of Liberty as an early Tea Party, not by which policies modern liberals and conservatives would favor, but by their general views of society.

Edmund Burke too has been claimed both by liberals and conservatives. In the 19th century, liberals cited his support for merchants and Catholic emancipation, while in the 20th century, conservatives cited his defense of aristocracy. Modern American conservatives could find in him both a defense both of tradition and classical liberalism, even a precursor to anti-Communism.

TFD (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Macon and Taylor

I've been engaged in a dispute with User:Adityaindumdum, who incidentally should read WP:BRD, over whether Nathaniel Macon and John Taylor of Caroline deserve inclusion. He claims they are too little known to deserve inclusion (which in my opinion is true, but is also true of almost all others in the list, many of whom are even less known and influential), and done qualify as conservatives, i.e. on the basis that Jeffersonian anti-federalists were not conservatives. The latter part I find patently false considering how essential a doctrine local autonomy and states' rights has historically been to conservatives. Any other editors care to way in? Rwenonah (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Macon and Taylor bitterly fought against the conservatives of the day--conservatives as defined by RS like Rossiter. That may not make them "liberals" but it does disqualify them from the conservative temple. Local autonomy / states rights was NOT a conservative doctrine in the days of Adams, Hamilton, Marshall and Webster. Macon/ Taylor opposed American nationalism and were secessionists of the sort that no longer exist anywhere in the US spectrum in 2016 (today we DO see genuine secessionists in Scotland and Quebec who reject British/Canadian nationalism but not in Texas or Alaska.). Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a wrong to evaluate political views of past centuries by comparing them with what policies modern day liberals and conservatives advocate. Rjensen provides two good modern examples where most decentralists are on the left of the spectrum. Closer to home, aboriginal groups and secessionists in Hawaii and Puerto Rico are not necessarily conservative, at least as it is understood in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Americans for Self-Government: Non-notable?

I noticed Rjensen said the organization was not notable, when they are, through the Convention of States Project, trying to amend the United States Constitution, via the States; I believe that is notable.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry everyone (Rjensen especially), as I found I was using the wrong name for the group. I am being WP:BOLD, and readding Citizens for Self-Governance.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think they have the same notablity as George Washington or Ronald Reagan? TFD (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a red herring and strawman re:WP:Notability, as basically, they just have to be mentioned in a WP:reliable source.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

there are hundreds of conservative organizations out there. Our goal as editors should be to ensure that the major ones are visible, not buried. As for Citizens for Self-Governance --various conservatives for six decades have called for a new constitutional convention, but few proponents reference this one-man group that lacks membership or budget data. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

this is a one-man group with zero chapters, 2 self-appointed officers, zero members, no budget, no IRS report. it has one highly vocal leader who is reselling a plan that conservatives have promoted for 60+ years. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

American conservatives are really liberals?

Can anyone explain the following: "As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism" (Leo P. Ribuffo, "20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy," Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp. 2–6, quote on p. 6)."

I'm not a political scientist or American but in terms of contemporary British, European, or Canadian politics this is nonsense. I would delete, but it looks like an editor has mangled a valid point about the history of American conservatism's relationship with early liberal philosophy – see below in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It is true for continental Europe and South America where social liberalism never had much influence on liberalism. In the UK and Canada the term is more likely to be associated with the big "L" liberals, rather than an ideology. TFD (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are mostly right here. Neoliberalism emphasizes on economic freedom, small government etc. It is more like libertarianism in the U.S. However, american conservatism has a strong social conservative side as well. It has it's roots in american traditions, Judeo-Christian values, and especially Burkean consetvatism. Russell Kirk, Richard M. Weaver, Robert Nisbet, Henry Adams etc. are it's chief propagator. It is called traditional consetvatism. Though, in some countries, it can really get confusing. For example, in Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party is more or less similar to American conservative Republican Party. In Australia, it's the Liberal Party, which is American-style conservative. Adityaindumdum (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The argument is that one could be a conservative in the U.S. by preserving U.S. traditions. But those traditions are liberal. See for example Hayek's article, "Why I am not a conservative." "Social conservatism" comes from 19th century liberalism with its emphasis on Protestant sects and morality. TFD (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Writers and intellectuals

This section needs to be more focussed. It starts by mentioning a conflict between intellectuals and conservatives – "A tension between intellectuals and conservatism has been a factor for generations – but then abandons this topic and moves on to discuss intellectuals who are conservatives. I'm presuming that amongst some conservatives the conflict continues.

What is meant by "for generations"? – does it mean from the founding of the Republic until today, or a more recent time frame? Rwood128 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the conflict mentioned is not among conservatives, but between mainstream academia and conservatives. Conservative ideas are virtually banned in mainstream academia, including elite ivy league universities. This led to the emergence of conservative policy-oriented think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. This topic id discussed in "admission to academe" section and doesn't need much mention here. Secondly, you're right that this section needs to be more balanced and focused about conservative intellectuals' role during early 20th century, because that is the topic it means to discuss. Adityaindumdum (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't true, in addition, that amongst some conservatives there is a strong anti-intellectual tradition? A distrust of science, as well as academia generally, along with liberal policies, which fuels, for example, the views of some on climate change, and other things? Though the distrust of science and rationalism is not, obviously, confined to conservatives!

Also do the majority of American conservatives still reject climate change, or do they now just favour a slower approach than the Left? That is the article up-to-date? See

In a January 2013 survey, Pew found that 69% of Americans say there is solid evidence that the Earth's average temperature has got warmer over the past few decades, up six points since November 2011 and 12 points since 2009.

Rwood128 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I'm a very naïve, and should also have read more of the article. Rwood128 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

On climate change he issue is not temperature but whether human activity/industry caused it and therefore should be regulated to prevent futher damage. Conservatives deny humans caused it because they do not want more regulations. Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Rjensen, but 25% of Republicans say warming is "just not happening". http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/

The section "Environmentalism" from this article has the following: "73% of Republicans believed humans were uninvolved in causing global warming, according to a 2015 poll by Pew Research."

Rwood128 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

I have a problem with platitudes like: "that is characterized by respect for American traditions" and "Liberty is a core value". Surely most American citizens would claim this, whatever their politics. The article is insufficiently neutral for an encyclopaedia.

The fact that conservatives believe that their interpretation of "American traditions" is superior to that of others, needs to be indicated as a neutral fact.

Re liberty: Is this what is meant: conservatives place a greater value on personal liberty than liberals, who emphasize X as of greater importance? Rwood128 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Conservatives use the term "creeping socialism" very often. This sentence uses the words "perceived threats", which means it is stating conservatives' version of socialism. Moreover, it uses " " signs to describe the term. So, there's no reason to think that it is stating this as unquestionable truth and so, the sentence is completely neutral. Adityaindumdum (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I may be out of my depth here. However, my point really was that I guessed that this might well be a term used solely by conservatives, and which liberals might reject. Isn't my revision more neutral? ––– I have just noted your edit, which I'm considering revising.Rwood128 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberals and conservatives overlap, but liberals emphasize equality over liberty. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way isn't this lede a little too long? Rwood128 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't much of the second half of the lede be made into a new section? Rwood128 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

no. the lede is short and terse and summarizes the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen are you referring to the revised lede that existed at 16:36, or the one that existed a little earlier? As a someone who isn't American or a political scientist I find the following section of the lede "wordy", and still think that the version that existed before (Adityaindumdum) recent edits more succinct – and that the new section was an improvement.

The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions .... On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

Rwood128 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The qualifier "what it sees as" is sufficient to explain that make the statement neutral. RJensen is of course right that there is overlap between liberals and conservatives. That is because there is not one issue that divides them, like the monarchy in 19th century France, but a series of issues (the New Deal, abortion, etc.) that have led to continuous realignment. So key conservative tenets are accepted by most liberals. TFD (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a principle in wikipedia. We, as editors should honor it. But, when neutrality means abandoning truth and facts for political correctness then it is not the real, desired neutrality. Wikipedia provides information to the general viewers, and we have a responsibility to provide them correct information and factual truth. Adityaindumdum (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

McCarthyism: 1950–54

Re recent edits and the use of the word "careless". I'd accept "excessive zeal", but that also isn't neutral. What do contemporary conservative historians say about McCarthy? Rwood128 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

He was careless in the sense that many of the claims he made were not true and he made contradictory claims. For example, he called a cleaning woman as a witness because she had the same name as someone who belonged to the Communist Party and the number of Communists he said were in the State Department kept changing. That's not necessarily excessive zeal, but it is careless. TFD (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

McCarthy was careless. There is no debate among historians about it. It doesn't imply that he was right about his allegations. Writing anything else would be simply wrong. Adityaindumdum (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I withdraw my objection. However, is the word "tactics" quite right, in view of TFD's comment? Rwood128 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Would "methods" or "procedures" be more accurate? Rwood128 (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What is an appeal to tradition?

One way to look at the role of "tradition" is thinking of tradition as a major pattern that strongly flourished in the past, and is much weaker today. Look at presidential politics in 2016. We have a conservative Republican presidential candidate talking a great deal about making America great AGAIN. He appeals to a past of 4 or 5 decades ago --to an era when when manufacturing was flourishing and there were lots of well-paid blue-collar jobs for less educated white men. He says things have really deteriorated and that must be reversed. That appeal definitely seems to be resonating with Truimp supporters this year. However, it does not resonate with liberal elements--minorities, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, LGBQT and career women – conditions were much rougher 40 years ago for them and that was not a golden era that they wish to return to. So we have a polarization between right and left on the appeal to “tradition” Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen isn't this about economic history rather than American traditions? Though it is of course related to how people may feel about traditions.Rwood128 (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

it's a matter of operationalizing "tradition". Politicians are doing it right now in VERY dramatic fashion. I think Trump this year is operationalizing tradition in terms of economics (jobs disappear, factories disappears, middle class disappears) as well as uniformity (immigrant appear and take over with alien traditions like Sharia), peace (crime now controls the cities, police are under attack). religion is under attack; traditional sex norms are under attack (eg bathrooms), schools have declined. etc etc I note that Dems/liberals in 2016 seldom talk about the "good old days". Rjensen (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

American traditions

Re the recent unexplained reversion, an explanation is surely needed. I commented on this previously, above, under "Neutral point of view". What was wrong with making a link to American culture? What are conservative American traditions and how do they differ from liberal traditions? What is meant by traditions – the celebration of Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc? That's what the word "tradition" means to me. The following is a typical example found online:

Traditions

Although in the grand scheme of things, America is a relatively young nation, in its 237 year (as of 2013) history it has created and nurtured its own flourishing traditions and customs. Thanksgiving and the 4th July are known the world over, but there are other peculiarities that make up American culture.

For example, the voting of the presidential election only ever takes place on a Tuesday. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, confused? Therefore November 2nd is the earliest date it can fall on and November 8th the latest.

Groundhog Day, made famous by the 90s comedy film of the same name, is the 2nd February. Folklore has it that if, when a groundhog emerges from its burrow on the 2nd of February it is cloudy, then spring will come early. If it is sunny, however, the groundhog will upon seeing its shadow retreat back underground and winter weather will continue for another 6 weeks.[[8]]

Rwood128 (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They are not "conservative American traditions," but American and culture and tradition are not the same things. Rap music is part of U.S. culture for example but it is not traditional. Note that in other countries traditions are routinely explicitly attacked by the Left ("No more tradition’s chains shall bind us"). U.S. conservatives see their "left-wing" opponents as opposing U.S. traditions. TFD (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian values are a set of moral values with social conservatism. Evangelical protestants are it's strongest advocate. They started using the term during 1930s to oppose anti-Jewish views among many in home or abroad(Fascists). It exlains american conservatives' strong support for Israel.

I'm an atheist but value the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, which adds to my perplexity with the vague genreralising at the beginning of the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Is there really just one Judeo-Christian tradition? I don't think so. For one thing, don't American conservatives tend to emphasise the Old Testament (and have a fundamentalist beliefs), whereas other traditions would look more to the New Testament (and/or are not fundamentalists)? Rwood128 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually "Judeo" isn't really part of my tradition, but rather simply the "Christian tradition". What the article is concerned with is "the conservative American Judeo-Christian tradition", so that is what should be there, to distinguish it from the shared "Western Judeo-Christian tradition". All I am asking for is a more careful use of words. Rwood128 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Historian Andrew Preston shows how the various conservative Catholic, Jewish, Mormon & evangelical Protestant groups formed a "conservative ecumenism". People like Reagan, Pope John Paul II (who was Polish) and Billy Graham were all involved. He says the new coalition was facilitated "by the rise of a Judeo-Christian ethic." To form a coalition they of course emphasized their points of agreement. Andrew Preston (2012). Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy. pp. 546–47. is chapter 28 is entitled "A Judeo-Christian Foreign Policy." Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

American traditions are far more wide. These include political traditions of John Locke, checks and balances system, strict constitutionalism, freedom of speech and presss, individual liberty etc. Economic traditions of laissez-faire(Adam Smith), distaste for big government and collectivism etc. That is why America is far more individualistic and less welfare state than European countries. These traditions are far wider than mere Judeo-Christian socio-religious values. That's what conservatives claim they are protecting from various outside influence(socialism, moral relativism, internationalism etc.) These are the values conservatives say make America "exceptional". Mixing it with Judeo-Christian values would be a terrible mistake, Rwood128. I hope you understand it now. I recommend you to read George Nash's Conservative tradition since 1945. It'll clear your doubts. Adityaindumdum (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberals and conservatives emphasize different themes & ideas & terms. Our job is to sort them out. "Judeo Christian" terminology since about 1970 is much more common among conservatives than liberals. See the article on Judeo Christian ethics for details. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Adityaindumdum while I generally agree with your approach to editing, it is not polite to revert before the discussion is complete (doesn't it contravene Wikipedia's established policy too).

I'm not a student of politics, so will not being reading your recommendation. My concern is not with facts but with the way that they are expressed here; that is the lack of clarity. As I have previously indicated I do not understand how "American traditions" can only apply to conservatives. This is imprecise writing. That conservatives support traditional marriage and families, as opposed to liberal support for alternative life styles, does make sense. However, the distaste for big government is not an "American tradition" but an American conservative tradition. I also suppose that most liberals in America support republicanism, liberty, free speech, etc..

This is a copy editing problem not one relating to political science. Rwood128 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberals support many American traditions too. But, that doesn't mean that conservatives don't support them. There are overlaps, of course; but that isn't that we can't write them in this article. For example, there are overlaps between American and European conservatism also. That doesn't mean that an article about American conservatism can't claim something they honor only because European conservatives believe in that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaindumdum (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored the main point of my comment, which is that the wording of the lede ignores the overlaps. Rwood128 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above, when we refer to conservatives defending tradition, we are not referring to their conservative tradition but the tradition of their nation. In France that meant the King, aristocracy, the established church; in the U.S. it meant the Constitution, individualism, capitalism, and religion. (The lists are not exhaustive.) As acknowledged by some writers there is are problems with applying the concept of conservatism to the U.S. What is tradition in the U.S. is liberalism in France. And most "liberals" in the U.S. support the American tradition. And in Europe, traditional institutions have either been eliminated or lost their power, removing them as major political issues. TFD (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD, I realise that Adityaindumdum's reason for sticking with the phrase "American traditions" is that conservatives see liberals as undermining some "American traditions". I see that more clearly now. However, doesn't this need to be said near the beginning, to keep things neutral? The article seems to do this pretty well otherwise. Rwood128 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Following on the above: would the following revision be acceptable? "'that is characterized by respect for American traditions, some of which conservatives see liberals undermining, support for Judeo-Christian values ...."'

I would also prefer some qualifier, like "certain" or "some", before "Judeo-Christian", because Americans do not own that tradition. Rwood128 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No i think bringing opposition to liberals in too soon is confusing. As for thr Judeo-Christian tradition, it has largely become an ideal of American (and Australian) conservatives. Liberals increasingly see it as rejecting other religions and rejecting secularism. Rjensen (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I too think that it is not necessary to mention that conservatives think liberals are undermining the U.S. tradition. It is not a core tenet of conservatism and may not be believed by all of them. Most liberals for example support the Bill of Rights but do so because they think the enumerated substantive rights are universal, while a conservative might support them because they are part of the U.S. tradition. So while a liberal might argue for extension of these rights to other nations, a conservative might not. TFD (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I give up! To me the phrase "American traditions", as used in the lede, implies that conservatives own them – as well as Judeo-Christian values. Anyhow it seems that I am the only one who is confused. Rwood128 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The difference is not that U.S. liberals reject tradition, but that preserving tradition does not drive their actions. I think Tony Blair (although not an American or a liberal) expressed it well: "My argument today is this.• Britain is stronger together, than separated apart.• True Britishness lies in our values not unchanging institutions."[9] Hillary Clinton actually picked up the slogan "Stronger Together." Bill Clinton said, "Now, here’s the main idea. I love and revere the rich and proud history of America. And I am determined to take our best traditions into the future. But with all respect, we do not need to build a bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future. And that is what I commit to you to do." TFD (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, that does help make it much clearer. Rwood128 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinkers and leaders

Is there someone with more skill than me who can fix the formatting of the columns for this section? I've tried but I've been on my computer far too long today! Rwood128 (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

These lists keep getting longer and longer. It makes more sense to focus on the most important. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is out of control. See WP:ListFormat under "Size". Rwood128 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re Rick Norwood's comment, would it be appropriate to turn the lists at the end of this article into a separate article (appendix)? List: American Conservative thinkers. leaders and organizations

Anyhow it needs to be reformatted in double columns – I presume Adityaindumdum that my version was too crude. It should be done for each subsection. Rwood128 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This list really needs to be shortened. Only conservatives with national influence belongs here. Moreover, we need to be very careful about people before the modern conservative movement (before 1930s, when opposition to the New Deal began to take form of modern conservatism). Who and how many of them belong to "conservative" category? There are much debate about people like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and their conservative status. We need to be careful and shorten the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaindumdum (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the reason for this list. In many cases, for example Thomas Jefferson, it is a matter of judgment whether they were conservatives, and since half the country self-identify as conservative, it is hard to determine who should be in the list. It is valid to include lists by experts, such as Rossiter's giants. Any person significant to conservatism should already be mentioned in the article, which should explain their significance. TFD (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is really useful for lists. It's the basis for example a student can use to look at conservative judges over time. Leadership roles are important--that's why Wiki covers far more generals than colonels. Jefferson has been a hero to both liberals and conservatives,but at DIFFERENT points of time. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

But just listing Jefferson as a conservative thinker is confusing, particularly considering that Hamilton and Adams are also listed, and of course Lord North was also a conservative, as were Burke, Adam Smith and Pitt. TFD (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson is sui generis --he was such a powerful thinker who explored so many ideas--everyone finds something to like about his ideas--there is a major book on his image by Peterson The Jeffersonian image in the American mind (1960) that I highly recommend. As for Britain they have their own style of conservatism based on monarchy, aristocracy, established church & powerful army traditions that USA revolted against. Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The list keeps getting longer and longer -- it is already longer than many Wikipedia articles -- and the longer it gets, the more useless it becomes. Many of these names and organizations I've never heard of. I would support some conservative Wikipedian cutting it down to size. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that this list be hidded using a "Nowiki" tag, until we can form a consensus as to who should, and shouldn't be on the list?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need to hide the list. Give everyone a chance to work on it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not turn it into a separate article, as an appendix to this one? Rwood128 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

George Wallace

Rjensen removed George Wallace from the list of conservative politicians with the comment that he "was liberal on all issues except race". I have mixed feelings about the removal. On the one hand, the list is too long. On the other hand, Donald Trump is on the list, and until he got into politics he was liberal on all issues, and many conservatives refused to vote for him. And yet both are now major figures in the history of the conservative movement, particularly the more racist far right wing. What should this article do about people who are not really conservative, but who pretend to be conservative for political gain? That seems to me like a slippery slope, since nobody can ever know what a person is really thinking. What do you think? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Trump is not in this list. There were several attempts to include him in this list, but I and some other editors removed him every time.

Secondly, Wallace was a racist, populist demagogue; never a true conservative. Now you can question that what is conservatism and what are it's boundaries. We can't determine that as mere editors. But, modern conservatism, which has it's roots in the anti-New Deal politics during 1930s and started to develop as a coherent, unified movement during 1950s. It's patron-saint, William F. Buckley Jr. defined it's boundaries clearly. It includes traditionalism, libertarianism, and anti-communism. With the course of time, neoconservatism and paleoconservatism developed as branches of conservatism. Conservatism is a center-right position, not far-right. It never includes racism or white supremacy as a position. Conservatism supports color-blind society and oppose both white supremacy and affirmative action (which they lebel as "reverse discrimination"). Conservatives do oppose some civil rights and racial equality measures, not because of racism but because they believe in states' rights and oppose federal power becoming a leviathan. Leading conservaives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Wallace strongly and never included him as one of their own. Now, you can argue that why racists like Howard W. Smith, Harry F. Byrd, Richard Russell Jr. etc. are in this list. They are here for two reasons. Firstly, they were conservative in almost every matter; economic, small government, social etc. which Wallace was not. Moreover, they were leading members of the Old Right; Wallace was not in the case of New Right. Secondly, we need to distinguish between our time and earlier times. Among the Founding Fathers, a lot of were slave owners. But conservatives; with their sense of time in histoty, do not dub them as racist, because it was an era when social and cultural values were much different from our own. Some liberals do so, as Jefferson and Jackson, once liberal icons, now despised as racists. This is nothing but seeing history through our the prism of our time, rather than having a sense of time in history. But, this is a list of prominent conservatives, so we have to judge from a conservative perspective, not a liberal one. Adityaindumdum (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adityaindumdum. Wiki follows the reliable sources on the history of conservatism and they generally do not include Wallace. He appealed to racist liberal whites in South--and North too. In primaries he did well among white labor union members, a core New Deal constituency. In Alabama he did poorly among the middle class whites who at the time (and today) form the core conservative vote. When he was shot & dropped the racism theme he was welcomed by Ted Kennedy and many liberals --but before or after he was never welcomed by any conservative leaders. "Ted reached out to George Wallace, the former segregationist governor of Alabama who had embraced civil rights." Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Conservatism in the United States" vs mainstream conservatism

This article fails to adequately explain the relationship between "Conservatism in the United States" and conservatism as it is generally understood everwhere else. As the main conservatism article notes, "The meaning of "conservatism" in the United States has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere". We should have a brief explanation along similar lines in the lead section here. --Tataral (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanos54!'s edit

Thanos54! has added 13 more names, none I've ever heard of, to a list which already has more than 200 names on it. I suppose with 200+ names 13 more is no big deal, but a list this long is useless to a person looking for names of important US conservatives. I wish some knowledgeable conservative would prune the list down to about 100 really major figures in US Conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And the list continues to grow. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this list is growing to be really gigantic and unless we trim it soon, the heading "prominent figures" is going to be a farce. Adityaindumdum (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If Thanos54 continues to make this kind of edits (replacing Adams/Hamilton/Webster with very disputed choice Jefferson/Randolph and some very obscure Senator, we have to be concerned about this kind of editing. Adityaindumdum (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Adityaindumdum, for beginning a necessary pruning of the list. None of the names you removed were names I had ever heard of. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To be very clear, I don't think editors should be removing people from this list based on their personal conception of what a conservative is without any discussion, as opposed to removing irrelevant figures who are undisputedly part of the conservative movement. Rwenonah (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is about Ben Carson, I agree. He is clearly a conservative, and a well-known conservative.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=251788
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404045829/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-60 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-60

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The second link is fine but the first leads to "Page Not Found". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

sourcechecked=true – @Rick Norwood:: the 404 error for the first url listed in this message is more-or-less expected. What the bot has done is arrange the cite so that the original url remains the original url and the archiveurl is designated as the archive url. How the links get presented to the user depends on the state of the deadurl parameter.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Goodone121's edit to Social issues subsection, and Rwenonah's reversion

I am Goodone121, and I want to replace (with the replaced wording bolded)

 They typically organize to strongly oppose abortion and are very reluctant to extend equal rights to homosexuals

with (again, replacement bolded)

 They typically organize to strongly oppose abortion and are very reluctant to extend gender-protection rights to LGBT identity

as I believe it is 1.more NPOV, and 2.more inclusive of LGBT identities, as in my edit 756286913. Immediately after, Rwenonah reverted my changes, as shown in the edit current as of 12:57, December 23, 2016 (using what I believe to be a POV edit summary, "many conservatives factually want to give homosexuals access to fewer legal rights, no need to sugarcoat it"); however, not wanting to start an edit war, I took it to this talk page.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

With North Carolina's famous bathrooms again in the news today it's hard to find organized social conservatives who ignore the issue of gar rights. For good coverage see Anthony Stanford (2013). Homophobia in the Black Church: How Faith, Politics, and Fear Divide the Black Community. ABC-CLIO. p. 101. end of page. Rjensen (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying conservatives ignore them, but the current wording is not NPOV.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

the current wording has changed. read it more carefully. "gender-protection rights to LGBT identity" is much too narrow--misses issues such as adoption & marriage & getting fired. Rjensen (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) How about "define LGBT identity as a suspect class", then? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What RS are you using? "identity" is problematic. as is "suspect class" --it narrows the range too much and helps no one. I think social conservatives oppose gays on issues A to Z -- but each year topics move up or down the list (eg 2016=bathrooms; 2015= marriage). Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll think a bit about the wording, but please, leave the template in place (this is not just for you, Rjensen, but everyone who removed it). Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

the problem is that you have not explained why all the different wordings you dislike are all POV -- POV is defined as unfairly misrepresenting the RS and you have not given us the RS you are using. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think opposition to anti-discrimination laws would be neutral. Adityaindumdum (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of my tweaks to your wording? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

colonial conservatives need coverage here

Conservatives in the European style dominated colonial politics--so what happened to them? This is a major puzzle for lots of readers: why is American conservatism today more like European liberalism (it was a topic that esp bothered Hayek when he tried to explain "Why I am not a conservative"). To explain it we need to show that there were two stages of American conservatism, the first colonial stage until 1776 resembled European conservatism, and its leadership either left America during the revolution (like many leading landowners and merchants, or kept quiet and accepted the new regime (like Seabury). Therefore, we need some coverage of the colonial era and an explanation of what happened to that first stage old conservatism. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree - I think the deleted material on this subject should be restored. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of it has now been added. We should also mention that these elite groups formed "court" parties, and were opposed by "country" parties. But little has been written about them as far as I know. Certainly they were conservative in some sense, they supported the appointed governors, but it is debatable whether they had the same ideology as European conservatives, since the feudal institutions conservatives defended had not been transferred to the New World. 18:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

the local ruling elites are usually called "conservative" by historians & they were tied closely to the king & other conservative leaders back in Britain. They tried hard to get a bishop, for example, setting up a big battle and failed. But they did establish the Church of England in some key colonies like Virginia. In some places esp New York you had the same sort of very-large-landholders with many tenants that followed the British model. Here are some RS: 1) Brian Farmer American Conservatism: History, Theory and Practice (2008) writes: "Colonial conservative elites typically viewed social and income inequality as naturally right and inherent in mankind. To most colonial merchants and southern planters, it was inequality among men ..." 2) Liberalism and American Identity - Page 53 by Patrick M. Garry (1992): "The movement for independence was not only aimed against British rule but against an old colonial elite that refused to..." 3) The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon Wood - 2011: "a revolution that was about much more than a break from England, rather it transformed an almost feudal society into a democratic one". Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Template "{{News media}}" OK for "article" - or Not?

{{News media}} The "{{News media}}" template includes a link to the "Conservatism in the United States" article and was "added" to the article - but was "later reverted" - Should the "{{News media}}" template be included in the "article" - or Not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

OK by me. seems like a useful template. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Rjensen: Thank you for the comment - "edit re-added" - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about consetvatism. It discusses conservative media and the allegation of liberal bias in the media. It isn't a place for discussing the news media in general. There can be huge debate about the groupings and it will lead only to confusion. For example, is MSNBC really neutral, or the most liberal among tv news? Conservatives allege that CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC- all are liberal. Wall Street Journal- it is moderately liberal about news reporting and pro-business conservative about op-ed page. How can it be regarded as neutral? So, this portal is not only largely an outside topic, but also confusing and misleading. What we really need is to move beyond the "Talk radio" and "Fox news" portion and address generally the conservative media (which are listed in the media portion of "thinkerd and leaders") and their allegation of liberal bias in media with reliable sources. [Note: added unsigned signature/date (to be clear) => Adityaindumdum (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)]

• Keep – FWIW - in support of including the "{{News media}}" template in the article, the following related references may be helpful:

• Pew Research Center (2016)
• Journalism (2014)
• VOtero Chart (2016)
• VOtero Chart/original (2016)
• VOtero Chart (2016) - Rationale

hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove – the template is fine for articles in which the topic is News media or the various outlets mentioned. But the topic of this article is the "–ism" and not whether the outlets lean towards any particular –ism. Nor would it be appropriate for any of the other –ism articles. – S. Rich (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The template is not helpful without explanation. The Pew report actually says where readers place on the spectrum, not the actual publications. The Wall Street Journal for example attracts readers evenly from across the political spectrum.[10] That does not make it politically unbiased. In fact a study of media bias showed its news reporting was more liberal than other mainstream media. Readership for the New York Times probably skews liberal because it is the only quality newspaper of New York City. A Dallas newspaper would have a more conservative readership even if it was just as liberal as the New York Times, because of the political orientation of Dallas residents. Also, pPart of what skews audience is the show hosts. Joe Scarborough for example is popular with some conservatives, even though the network is perceived as liberal. TFD (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes - agreed - added more explanation to the "{{News media}}" template caption as follows: "(Study: "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience")" - perhaps better - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The question of outlet political leanings and readership political leanings is best described at Media bias in the United States, where the template is used. As there is no clear section in this article which gets into media leanings, I've added that page as a See also. – S. Rich (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This portal deals with complete political leanings of various news sources, which is not part of this "ism" article. Morever, the leanings mentioned here (MSNBC-neutral, WSJ-neutral etc.) are clearly questionable and dubious. It would be misleading and confusing for general viewers. We should remove it as soon as podsible. Adityaindumdum (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - please note that the "{{News media}}" has now been updated - and clarified - and is now *more complete* (in noted news sources), *more accurate* (in rankings across the political spectrum) and *more clear* (in presenting the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum) - hope this update and clarification helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Notable classification of media outlets used by conservatives and seems to have outside notability, as pointed by the sources listed by Drbogdan. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep useful for our readers....useful for me too. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Need additional sections

A few more sections should be added:

A "Critique" section should point out how this orientation supports white male supremacism and human supremacism over other-than-humans. It supports entrenched hierarchies as if they are ordained by God or evolution.

A "Psychological Studies" section should point out that conservatives tend on average to be more stress reactive, less flexible in their responses to others (confirmed by brain function analyses). And they tend to be more "us-against-them" oriented. They tend to be raised harshly by parents (perhaps in early life where memories are not explicit).

There is a delusional quality to the disbelief in climate change, pollutants, the value of people other than white males.

A section on "Conservatism in the Trump era": Trump puts on display the extremes of many American conservative positions (to the horror of many Americans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfnarvaez (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to break up the chronology to separate President Trump from what has gone before

Time flies. To have the section on the Tea Party follow the section which introduces President Trump causes a reader to flinch. We need a section on Reagan Republicans, and a separate section on post-Bush II Republicans. I suggest 2008 is a natural point for that split. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of references recently that reliable sources appear to look at the subject as (for recent history) 1980-2008, and 2008-present. Other sources suggest to a 1964-2008 division, or a 1994 to 2008 time division. If this is the case it means re-structuring the history section. Tea Party is a result to the end of the "conservative era", IMHO. I have provided reliable sources that Trump, while presently a registered Republican, is not a conservative. such a restructuring would make sense. IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)