Talk:Conservative liberalism

A joke?

This article is obviously a joke. If William F. Buckley fathered an illegitimate child with Hilary Clinton as its mother, perhaps the offspring might adopt a political philosophy of conservative liberalism, but I doubt it.

Not necessarily. It's no more ridiculous than conservatives who believe in deficit spending. There are all kind of strange combinations of beliefs and stances out there. Fan-1967 23:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Both anonimous contributor and Fan-1967 are probably from the US. Remember that when you use terms as "conservative" and "liberal" in Europe, they have a different meaning. In some European countries the two terms are almost synonims and they both are often connected with the political right. Conservative liberalism is a typical European ideology, combining economic libertarianism and (some) social liberalism. A conservative liberal is a liberal (see for the European meaning...) who hails to the right. In the US we can consider as conservative liberals both the Libertarian Party and many moderate Republican Party's members, like those who are members of the Republican Main-Street Partnership. --Checco 09:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense but this is the most retarded article ever. Delete it now.

If you disagree with me, try reading the introductory paragraph without bursting out laughing or slapping your forehead in contempt.

its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you from the US? --Checco (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

I'm no specialist of Swiss politics, but I do want to point out that I have problems with this edit of Checco. There are two (federally represented) liberal parties in Switzerland the Liberal Party of Switzerland and the Freethinking Democratic Party of Switzerland. Judging by their history, name and what I could figure from the German and the English wiki's, the Liberal Party of Switzerland is certainly the more conservative of the two liberal parties. Therefore I have reverted Checco's edit. C mon 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear C mon, I think you're wrong. How can a liberal party (LPS) which is strong in cities and urban French-speaking areas be more conservative than a mostly German-speaking and agrarian-based liberal party (FDP)? Anyway, 'cos I am not a specialist of Swiss politics too, I won't revert your last edit, but simply add FDP in the list of conservative-liberal parties, alongside with LPS. Indeed I'm sure of the fact that FDP is a conservative-liberal party (it is considered to be at the right of the political spectrum in Switzerland), and if you say that LPS is more conservative than FDP, this doesn't mean consequently that FDP doesn't fit the conservative-liberal category. Anyway we need badly a specialist to have a final answer to our questions. --Checco 18:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Checco. I think we have a bigger problem. This list is original research if ever I saw it. Original research which I like to do, but not wikipedia material. We need to find sources for every party (and most of the article). BTW I think the FDP is inbetween conservative and progressive liberal, leaning towards progressive. See here their four projects for Switzerland (German, also in French): which are 1) investing in science and education, 2) free market economy, 3) welfare state and 4) international openess. The program also emphasizes openess to migration, equal chances and social tolerance. For me that is a program closer to D66 (the Dutch progressive liberals), then the VVD (conservative liberals). C mon 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

This article is very confusing in that it fails to make a clear distinction between "Conservative Liberalism" and the more well-known and widely mentioned ideology of Liberal conservatism. Most if not all parties mentioned here as "Conservative Liberal" are actually Liberal Conservative (the "compromise" of parties that can be described as both is a rather poor solution and offers neither a citation nor any real argument in its support) and the purportedly distinctive ideology of these parties is about the same as the one described in Liberal conservatism. Either this article was created based on the false assumption that there really is a distinction between the two (while it is another name for the same ideology varying according to the sources, which in fact I think is very likely), in which case it should go for AfD, or there is indeed a distinct concept of "Conservative Liberalism", but it is not explained in this page at all. Clarifications, please.Justice III 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is big: Liberal Conservatives are primarily conservatives (with some liberal tendencies, especially over the economy), Conservative Liberals are primarily liberals (although being more conservative that Social Liberals over many issues). This is not something you can refuse to observe. As you can see there are many differencies between Forza Italia (a liberal-conservative party) and Dutch VVD (a conservative-liberal one) over moral issues: most Forza Italia's members, although being liberal-conservative for their free-market creed, defend traditional values. The Republican Party (United States) is liberal-conservative, but we wouldn't find anyone saying that it is also conservative-liberal. Liberal Conservatism and Conservative Liberalism are different ideologies, the first being part of Conservatism and the second being part of Liberalism. I think thw distinction is very logical, don't you? See also Parties-and-Elections, and especially Parties-and-Elections - Explanations. --Checco 11:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

UMP, PP and RN

I put a wrong title to my last edit: obviously I made rollback 'cos I think that UMP, PP and RN are not conservative-liberal parties. Maybe they have some conservative-liberal members, but UMP, PP and RN are definitely conservative (not even liberal-conservative, I guess) parties. Sorry. --Checco 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

CNIP

I disagree with this edit of Checco's for two reasons:

1. Formal: any one can tag for a reference, saying that something is widely known or refering to wikipedia does not solve this. Personally I'd prefer to see a reference for every party on this list.
2. Substantial: I can find no external resources that describe the CNIP as conservative liberal. Knapp's Parties and the Party System in France characterizes the CNIP as conservative:

• in his model of French parties on p.5
• "(...) the conservatives now regrouped in the Centre National des Indépendants et Paysans (CNIP) (...)" (p.11)
• "(...) the conservatives' Centre National des Indépendants et Paysans (CNIP) (...)" (p.75)
• "(...) the old conservative Centre National des Indépendants et Paysans (...)" p.361.
  

I think their conservative and dispute their liberalism, unless you can provide me with references. BTW VGE is described as conservative on his wiki and his Independent Republicans as rightwing and not as liberal. C mon 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the party of Reynaud, Pinay, Giscard and so on... and they were liberals: see Giscard's stances on economy and moral issues, it is difficult to consider him as a conservative. Anyway, remember that in some European countries conservatism and liberalism are conseidered similar concepts (see Italy). If Republicans (then Republican Party / Liberal Democracy), which were a splinter group from CNIP, were liberals (they even joined the LDR group at the European Parliament) I can't understand how the party from which they come from can't be considered at least conservative-liberal or as a party with conservative-liberal wings.

Anyway look at: [1] (an interview of Gilles Richard, Professor of history at Rennes), [2] (from the Portail Politique Francaise) and [3].

CNIP is now a small conservative party, but in the Fourth Republic it was a typical example of that parties stuck between Conservative liberalism and Liberal conservatism, so that it is important to not confuse it with the current one. --Checco 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly I don't see your proof: it is based on a small interview (which does not characterize the party as conservative liberal!), a reference to french wikipedia (the third reference) and to the new CNIP you yourself exclude (the second). Furthermore you give me circumstancial evidence: they joined the ELDR, as the Portugese Social-Democratic Party, but I don't consider that liberal; VGE was a liberal, while he is characterized as a conservative! While I gave you references to the standard work on French Politics. C mon 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that in the interview Professor Richard says that CNIP was designed by its founders in order to unite "moderate liberals and radicals", that it was based on three principles, "ecomomic liberalism", "decentralization" and "European integration", and that it was formed basically by the so-called Third Republic Republicans (in Franch Republican is a synonim of "liberal"), I want you to note that in the second reference (from one of the most important sites about French politics) there is a list of liberal parties in France, in which we can read ARD, FR, PRL, CNIP, FNRI, PR, PPDF and DL. These are the parties correctly cited as liberal in Liberalism and radicalism in France. I can't understand why you are so diffident about the liberal (off course conservative-liberal) nature of CNIP, and you have no problems at all about Chilean RN or about Spanish PP, anyway you're always an interesting user to talk with. --Checco 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Always happy to discuss things with you. The interview provides me with no proof on it own that the CNIP is conservative liberal. It's just guess work. I wouldn't call a party committed to moderate liberalism and EU integration very conservative liberal. Furthermore an internal reference to wikipedia or to some 'important site' is not proof (the sites reference for the CNIP is the site of the CNI which you claim is not liberal).

I propose we settle this agreement by moving the CNIP to "parties with CL factions". C mon 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article and see if it is now ok. The problem is that CNIP is to be considered an historical party. The current CNI claims to be its continuation but it is quite different, as, for instance, the Italian Democratic Socialist Party is not the same thing as the Italian Democratic Socialist Party (historical), whatever it claims to be. --Checco 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay. C mon 10:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference?

The article doesn't really make clear, the - if any, differences between conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism. What are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.215.96 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. Anyway conservative liberalism is the conservative wing of liberalism, while liberal conservatism is the liberal wing of conservatism. There is a difference. --Checco 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with those who say that insufficient distinction is made between the (more well accepted) definition of liberal conservative and this one of 'conservative liberal'. So, we are told that the distinction is that the 'conservative liberal' is still, fundamentally, a liberal and not a conservative, but can we be told what it is that makes them a liberal, other than a preference for the free market, which Liberal Conservatives also hold?

Another problem, I think, is that these 'conservative liberals' also must be more fully distinguished from the classical liberal. We are told that 'conservative liberals' are different from liberal conservatives because they may not necessarily adhere to traditional social values, and likewise are different from social liberals because they are more wedded to the free market, but surely it would suffice to say, then, that they are classical liberals.

Finally, the argument that they are 'conservative liberals' because they inhabit political communities in which liberalism is well established, is like saying that social liberals, if they happen to be in nations that have a well-established social liberal tradition, are likewise 'conservative liberals'. --User:Objective Hack

Your opinion is very interesting and I don't know if I'm able to answer you with a similar eloquence (I'm not an English mother-tongue). There are at least three big differencies between conervative and social liberals and these differencies are explained in the article. Maybe we could work it out in a better way, but the differencies still exist. We are not talking about theoretical things, otherwise we are simply observing that there is a difference between, say, VVD and D66 in the Netherlands, Venstre and RV in Denmark and so on. I come from Italy, where there had been basically two liberal parties: the Liberal Party (PLI) and the Republican Party (PRI). Why didn't these parties merge in a single party? The reason was that there were differences between them: the first was centre-right the second centre-left, the first was monarchist the second republican, the first was first of all a free-market party the second a "welfare and market" party... the first was conservative liberal and the second social liberal. --Checco 07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, do you have any sources to prove that 'liberal conservative' is "more well accepted" than 'conservative liberal', or is it just your intuition?

Second, I think that what distinguishes liberal conservatives from conservative liberals, is the formers commitment to religion and tradition, and the latters commitment to secularism and individualism.

Third, what makes conservative liberals liberals is their commitment to free market economics, individual freedoms (gay rights, abortion, euthanasia etc.) and economic globalization.

Fourth, they differ from classical liberals in their opposition to migration, multiculturalism and their law and order-policies. Furthermore historically (or atleast in the Netherlands) conservative liberals tended to be more skeptical about universal suffrage.

Fifth, nobody claims that 'conservative liberals' are that because they inhabit political communities in which liberalism is well established".

All in all, I hope this helps to distinguish them and realize, although it is difficult to distinguish a Thomson's Gazelle from a Blackbuck it is still scientific to do so. C mon 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear C mon, can you add to the article some of the information that you explained very interestingly here? --Checco 08:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to be careful not to invoke Original Research here. I can make a simple argument that Hayek too is a conservative liberal based on his theories of spontaneous order. Yet, Hayek always refused the conservative label. I have had a hard time finding good sources about the terms conservative liberalism or liberal conservatism. If the terminology is not used in the English language, one should really be thinking twice about starting to introduce it here. One is not trying to make history here at Wikipedia. Intangible2.0 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This terminology is clearly not notable enough to deserve a separate article. We should keep only the article on liberal conservatism, which is admittedly supported by an overwhelmingly greater amount of sources, and have this one odd page here deleted as non-notable and too fringe (if not OR).Justice III 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, I am of the opinion that the difference as described above does exist. —Nightstallion (?) 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is a difference, but the fact that this difference is logical and used by a few people (and a few fringe authors) doesn't mean that it is used consistenly by notable sources. And unless it is used consistenly by notable sources and you can pinpoint exactly where they characterize such and such party as "conservative liberal" (as opposed to the well-known label "liberal-conservative", or simply "liberal") it shouldn't have an article of its own and you shouldn't label parties based on interviews and OR as "liberal conservative". So the fact is that it just doesn't meet the criterion of notability and non-OR.Justice III 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can provide references for the use of this term by prominent authors in the field of Dutch politican parties (professors like Andeweg, Koole, Irwin) both in English-language and Dutch-language sources. They characterize the Dutch VVD as a conservative liberal party in Politics & Governance in the Netherlands (p.49) and in Politieke partijen in Nederland (p.290). The term is also used in Laver, Gallagher and Mair Representative government in Modern Europe. Even a quick scholar.google search gives multiple hits in established journals for the use of this characterization (in this case for the VVD). Dick Pels, a prominent Dutch publicist discussed the difference between left or social-liberalism and right or conservative liberalism in his Een Zwak voor Nederland. Ideeën voor een nieuwe politiek and in a chapter in Snels' Vrijheid als Ideaal.

I think we have to watch to dismiss translations of terms which are not used in the English language. I would for instance draw your attention to the articles "Translating "law" to other European languages" (which has survived an AFD) and Rechtsstaat. Appearantly wikipedia does allow articles which are not subjects unknown in the English language.

So I think the issues of notability, fringe and original research are addressed. But they can be addressed better I invite all contributors to work constructively and find sources for the use of this term.

BTW note that quick google, scholar.google and social science citation searches do not indicate that "conservative liberalism" is more (or less!) widely used than "liberal conservatism", they both have around 30.000 google hits, 400 scholar.google hits and 10 SSI hits. Off course we do not write an encyclopedia based on google searches but is in indication. C mon 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That suggests that the term is nothing more than a quick placeholder (in a certain context). Anyways I did find some obscure references. One is to F. M. Cornford: [4], who used it in a description of academics. Intangible2.0 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, that reference is obviously intended to be nothing more than a sophomorish joke. The ones provided by C mon are narrow descriptions of the political scene of just one country, the Netherlands, and it is used specifically to distinguish VVD and D'66, nothing else. It is not even used as a term, just as an ad-hoc word to label VVD, and therefore certainly not an encyclopedic subject at all, at least not an encyclopedic subject with international significance. We are still faced with the fact that this non-English-term was coined specifically in Dutch to address a specific Dutch need to distinguish two liberal Dutch parties in the Netherlands. Sorry for the redundancy, but you get it. If this fact were made explicit in the text, that would be okay. Now, to extend that opportunistic Dutch neologism to all of the world, and arbitrarily classify world parties based on it is simply absurd.Justice III 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a Dutch neologism, indeed also in Italy we speak of liberalismo conservatore (conservative liberalism) and liberalismo sociale (social liberalism), and the two terms are used to define European political parties by Wolfram Nordsieck (Parties and Elections in Europe) --Checco 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There are only two instances of the word "(Conserv.) liberal" in the list, as opposed to several dozens of "Liberal-Conservative" or simply "Liberal". And the only non-Dutch party to be characterized as "(Conserv.) liberal", the Croatian Social Liberal Party, is described in its own wikipedia article as "liberal conservative", not "conservative liberal". And Checco, in Italy Ronald Reagan, the American Neocons and much of the European EPP-ED are called "liberali conservatori"! In other words, it is pretty much the same as the English "Liberal Conservative", used indiscriminately from "conservatori liberali", specially in translations from English. I noticed you are the only user in the Italian wikipedia to have made that distinction creating the short article on the subject there, and, telllingly, the only one to have edited its content. The fact is that the distinction you made is usually applied to Forza italia, which is indeed divided, but between former Christian-Democrats as "liberal-conservatives" (neocons, if you will) and former Liberals as "liberal" or "social-liberal" (who are not social-liberal per se, but only "socially liberal"). So, you don't have to search for obscure, fringe references using ad-hoc classifications to coin a new term. It is there already, "liberal conservative", but some people are confused about its use and making distinctions that may be useful, but are not standard scholarly classifications used consistently in English, and therefore not encyclopedic.Justice III 13:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not call Peter Mair or Michael Gallagher (academic) fringe theorists. Note that both Mair and Gallagher are native speakers of English. They also describe the Free Democratic Party (in their comparative politics handbook Representatitve government in modern Europe p.179) Italian Liberal Party as conservative liberal (p.186). They go on to distinguish two major strands of liberal parties in Europe, the conservative liberals such as the VVD, the FDP, the VLD, Luxembourgish Democratic Party, the Italian Liberal Party, Irish Progressive Democrats and the Swiss Radicals which combine an emphasis on a minimal state and anticlericalism and the progressive liberals such as D66 and the Norwegian, Swedish, and UK liberal parties. So I think that this classification is based on external, verifiable, reliable, academics sources. C mon 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how on earth do you fail the easiest test of verifiability in not being able to link the claims and broad, arbitrary classifications of parties put forward by this article to specific references from these alleged "sources"? Second, nowhere else in the English Wikipedia is their any mention of a clear-cut "conservative liberal" ideology in the description of any party claimed by this article to be "conservative liberal", except the already highlighted Dutch case and a few more edits, ALL of them from user Checco and from noone else: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civic_Platform&diff=108429907&oldid=103477539 References keep popping up in this talk page from apologists of the distinction, yet there are no references whatsoever in the article.Justice III 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would urge to read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, in this encyclopedia we judge content and not the people who edit. It does not matter who put a link to conservative liberalism somewhere, as long as it is externally verifiable that it should be their.

Furthermore wikipedia-links is not (and I stress this without feeling the urge to write all capital letters) an indicator of notability. For that we have notability guide lines, which have been met (namely external verifiable reliable academic sources). C mon 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These issues matter if only one editor out of myriad contributors decides on his own to add multiple instances of an obscure classification without any external verifiable source being provided to justify these changes. Let me ask you again: if it is indeed externally verifiable, how come this is one of the most barren politics articles of wikipedia in terms of inline references, scholarly quotations and external links? In the course of this debate, you quoted references for less than one tenth of the parties that you claim to be "conservative liberal" in the article (why do you think it has been tagged by the wikipedia community?) - and even so you have deigned to mention these elusive sources only in this talk page! Justice III 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have more problems with the introduction here than with the list of parties (which is OR btw, because no one source calls all these parties conservative liberal). Intangible2.0 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A question of alliteration or do you mean Free Market Liberals?

As someone who proclaims himself to be a Liberal Conservative I would say that there is no real difference; however Liberal Conservative rolls of the tongue in a more pleasant way than Conservative Liberal.

Liberal Conservatives are those who eschew the more authoritarian parts of Conservatism.

Surely a Conservative Liberal would be one who was more interested in continuing the traditional role of the Church as guardian of our morals? (The four estates etc.)

Thatcherites would be 'Free Market Conservatives' since they differ from traditional Conservatives in that respect. Liberals who espouse support for the free market should be 'Free Market Liberals'? Bearing in mind that both Conservatism and Liberalism pre-date Adam Smith it seems sensible that some Conservatives and some Liberals would not support the free market.

Another difference could be expressed as those liberals who believe in 'Equality of Opportunity' (the defining quality of Liberal Conservatism) as Conservative Liberals and those who believe in 'Equality of Reward' as being Socialist Liberals.

RichardColgate 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are the following parties on the list

Why are the following parties on the list? Belgium: New-Flemish Alliance, Dedecker List (what is liberal in the ideology of these parties) Bulgaria: National Movement Simeon II Croatia: Croatian People's Party (seems to be more centrist or even social liberal) Czechia: Civic Democratic Alliance (Klaus party liberal?) Denmark: Liberal Party of Denmark (classical liberal?) Estonia: Estonian Reform Party (classical liberal?) Germany: Free Democratic Party (broad party) Luxembourg: Democratic Party (centrist liberal?) Netherlands: Party for Freedom (liberal?) Peru: Popular Action Poland: Real Politics Union (liberal?) Romania: National Liberal Party and Liberal Democratic Party (centrist liberal?) Serbia: G17 Plus (liberal?) and Liberals of Serbia (liberal?) Maybe it is better not to have a list. Electionworld Talk? 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:EuropeanPoliticalSpectrum

I'll remove that image again because it is not appropriate in this page, as in every article about political ideologies. It is only an original reserch spam and there's no consensus for keeping it in the page. --Checco (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Checco, it's individuals like you that make me sick when they don't follow wikipedia guidelines of discussing to achieve consensus before blind blanket reversions. You aren't worth any more of my time, hopefully you find a corner to crawl in to somewhere and never get out. Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither you deserve my time, if you insult me and you don't explain why you support an edit, while you ask me to argue about my opposition of it. --Checco (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I believe it's informative? Why else would I want it? It is you that kept on and kept on removing, without any justification or reason why. In the words of a child, you started it. Timeshift (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it beacause is it was too big, too spamming and too original research. Also anthore user removed it, I guess for the same resons. I even asked to an administrator what was his opinion and he told me that he supported the removal. Stop insulting and being arrogant with me, please. --Checco (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it sure is great to see all of that here on the talk page. Timeshift (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Checco -- the image is completely POV and OR, I haven't seen a single source cited which supports this classification of political ideologies -- and even assuming it's correct, I'm not quite sure that it's appropriate to employ this image in every single article on one of the ideologies in the image. —Nightstallion 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote Nightstallion. Indeed the image may be an interesting classification of political ideologies and I saved it in my computer, but I really think that it is not appropriate to employ it in every single article about ideologies, as Nightstallion just wrote above. --Checco (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm the person who placed the offending image into this article. I would really appreciate a number of things:

• To have been invited to this discussion about why it was deleted.
• To have people actually do real research into the image. Had any of you done this you would have discovered that it was based upon a drawing from European Politics into the Twenty-First Century by Hans Slomp[5]. This reference was given on the image page itself, so anyone saying they "haven't seen a single cited source which supports this classification of political ideologies" forgot to somehow check the actual page the image is sourced from.
• Moreover, since you have essentially told me that this image is "completely POV" and "OR" you have done yourself a disservice by not including me in your discussion. Had you checked my userpage you will discover that I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004 - longer than most of you - and am considered to be a good editor by many people. I even set up a meeting of Wikipedians in my home town. FWIW, here's my picture with someone. To be honest, I feel as though you have slighted me and questioned my contributions.

Just recently, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been reading about some of the "dark practices" that go on here at Wikipedia, including keeping contributors out of the loop in the name of keeping things "npov" in order to push a pov of their own. Now that you are armed with some facts, such as the fact that the drawing comes from a book written by a political historian, would you like to reconsider? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything you write is true, but I simply consider that image not useful for these articles: it is too big and spamming and, even if a political historian drew it, this does not mean that it can be an opinion, nothing more. You can put it in some articles about ideology classification but I really do not think that it fits well here. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And you find the best way to deal with it is to blanket revert, repeatedly, without any discussion. Well GOOD FOR YOU Checco! Timeshift (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning I thought it was simply a bizzarre edit to be reverted quickly, but as so many respected users hold a different opinion, we are discussing about it since the day after. Why do you continue to stick with the past instead of discussing? --Checco (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You reverted more than a couple of times... my beef was more in the way it was removed more than the reasons for removing it. Timeshift (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, a discussion should certainly have been started after the removal, I agree with you there. —Nightstallion 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and sorry, but stop speaking about something we already fixed ten days ago. --Checco (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't insist that people stop talking about things. Wikipedians can mention and discuss anything they want. Just because it reflects badly upon yourself, does not mean we shouldn't talk about it. But finally, 10 days later, you are prepared to acknowledge the problem was the way you went about it. So now perhaps I can stop talking about it. Timeshift (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are free to say what you want. No doubt about it. Since the beginning I understood that I could have been less rough, but your comments have always been so rough that I alaways answered with your tone. I do not think that the events reflect badly on myself or on Nightstallion who too dismissed those edits. I am sorry I you felt offended by my actions and words, but, you know, there are so many vandalisms in Wikipedia that you can understand why sometimes I rollback an edit without opening a discussion about it. Then there was the discussion and, as you can see, I have no problems with it: I like to discuss on everything. --Checco (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Checco: The article link which was added discusses this subject (conservative liberalism) explicitly and at length. Why do you say it is somehow off-subject? It considers the origins -- and relationship between -- conservatism, liberalism, and their nexus. What other article link do you know that does that? What do you have against this highly-relevant link? Why do you call it "spam"? KyZan (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan

The article is written by you and is spam. It is anyway off-subject, in particular because this article is about conservative liberalism, not liberal conservatism. Please don't use Wikipedia in order to advertise your articles. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical case of Wikipedia:Spam if I ever saw one: Links mainly intended to promote a website. Moreover a blog, should not be linked to see Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID C mon (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Checco and C mon: Few things are as innocous as a link to an article supplying further germane and important information. The modest link added let people know exactly what it was by its title. If anyone didn't WANT to read about the origin and relationship between conservatism and liberalism they didn't have to. So congratulations to all of you! You've helped write a truly poor and confusing article. I understand this issue a lot better than any of you -- and you know it. I WAS going to help revise it. But not any more. Good job on vandalizing an article with your ignorance, guys! KyZan (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan

From the article you linked it doesn't seem that you know many things but not especially on conservative liberalism as the article was about a different subject, but I believe to you when you say that you are an expert on conservative liberalism (I have no reason for denying it). In any case, I would be very glad if you help us with the article. --Checco (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: What does "germane" mean? --Checco (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Checco: You say I "don't seem to know many things." But the article I linked to is FAR better than anything you'll ever write in your life. If you dare to deny this, give us a link to one of YOUR pieces so we can all laugh. You're an insect who isn't worth talking to. You're a Wikipedia vandal who isn't worth my time. Please do NOT reply to me ever again. KyZan (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan

I asked for your help and the only thing you did was to offend me. Offending people is not a good way to provide arguments. Your article is very interesting but has nothing to do with conservative liberalism. As I told you I would be very happy you you help us with the article, instead of offending or simply linking your article. --Checco (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Checco's revert

Checco appears to be pushing his POV on this article, by re-adding his unsourced view on conservative liberalism. His article does not even contain any pages that defines conservative liberalism (except the this unreliable webpage). This article contains many contradictory definitions and positions and synthesizes sources that use definitions of conservative liberalism to merge it into one contradictory definition. I sourced the original definition of conservative liberalism. CounterEconomics (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not write the article, or at least not the part you changed, and I think that your version is even worse. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was not ok both with my and by Wikipedia standards and indeed C mon and I talked about improving it starting from September. I put together your contributions with the content you deleted. I appreciated your work and I consider this just the beginning of the improvement the article needs. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, remember that the meaning of "conservative liberalism" may be very different in Europe from the US. Conservative liberals are not just post-1917 liberal, but, in general, the political elite of many European parties before WWI. --Checco (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The word liberalism originally meant classical liberalism throughout the world, but in the 1940's in the United States, it become corrupted. The definition of liberalism is US-centric, and does not apply to other countries. Enforcing the definition of liberalism to mean only the US ideology is POV. The recent addition to this article is pushing the American POV that liberalism cannot be conservative, and adding the adjective "conservative" would make it more classical liberal. "Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement." This quote suggests that liberalism is always left-wing and does not respect economic freedom. Thus, this statement is POV. I suggest to remove your compromise because it is POVand contradicts the official and commonly accepted definition. CounterEconomics (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With your last post it is clear that we are talking about different things. From an European perspective liberals were to the left of conservatives and, then, with the entry of socialists and social democrats in the political spectrum, they held a centrist position. In Europe liberals are divided basically between social liberals and conservative liberals, so there is no US-centric POV in the article. If there is something US-centric it is probably what you added, but it is good to have both American and European definitions.

"Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement." What is the problem with that sentence? Yes, in Europe (not in the US, we are talking basically about Europe because "conservative liberalism" is a concept which applies better to Europe, as C mon reminded us) conservative liberals are the right-wing of the liberal movement, while social liberals are the left-wing of it. Maybe you misunderstood the subject as you come from the US, where liberalism is the opposite of conservatism and where social liberalism is the opposite of social conservatism. That is not the case of Europe. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is based on the American definition of liberalism. I created a new section that explained why it is actually the American definition and criticized this. CounterEconomics (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly the opposite: that sentence is based on the European definition of liberalism. --Checco (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The real definition of conservative liberalism

Conservative liberalism is defined as two definitions. To avoid many ambiguities and avoid many conflicts between the two definitions of the terms, please read this. This is an explanation and clarification that conservative liberalism actually means something different, not original research.

Liberalism was originally understood as minimal government intervention in both economics and both social life. Liberalism continued to be defined as minimal government intervention until the 1940s. However, during the 1940s, the United States took a drastic turn on liberalism. The New Deal policies set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt modified liberalism to have government control an increasingly large role in the economy. The New Deal policies were often called liberalism by its proponents. However, opposers of the New Deal policies continued to use the term "liberalism." This created confusion between the New Deal proponents (pro-interventionist liberals) and the New Deal oppoents (anti-interventionist liberals). Thus, many of the anti-interventionist liberals, in order to avoid confusion by the two versions of liberalism, adopted the term "classical liberalism."

Despite that liberalism was redefined as the pro-interventionist version in the United States, other countries continued to use the original, minimal government, version of liberalism. Although European contries eventually become pro-interventionist, the term "liberal" used in Europe isn't exclusively referred to the pro-interventionist. In Europe and the other countries, "liberalism" often means the anti-interventionist, minimal government version. Generally, the internationally accepted definition of liberalism (except the United States), is a synonym of classical liberalism.

The term conservatism has two meanings.

1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
2. the principles and practices of political conservatives.

As you can see, the first meaning is a very general definition, and can be applied to anywhere. For example, the phrase "to limit change" means "not as radical." Conservatism therefore can be treated as a synonym for moderate. For example, a conservative libertarian does not only mean a libertarian combined with socially conservative beliefes. It can also mean a moderate libertarian, or a libertarian who is not as radical other libertarians (e.g. the conservative libertarian may support moderate policies such as welfare and some government intervention).

The term conservative in the context of conservative liberalism does not necessary mean social conservative. As in the last paragraph, conservatism can also be a synonym for "moderate." Thus, the term conservative liberalism on page 2 of , is a synonym for moderate liberalism.

Please note that the reason that the dictionary was cited was because I want to demonstrate a point, and it is not to be original research. I was just demonstrating that the term conservatism in the source does not mean social conservatism, but is a synonym for moderate. (Just in case you didn't know the definition of conservative.)

Negative liberty means freedom from interference. Classical liberalism is a theory purely based on negative liberty. In classical liberalism, the government does not intervene in social or economic matters.

Positive liberty is the opposite of negative liberty. Therefore, positive liberty accepts moderate levels of intervention. Modern liberals (the pro-interventionist liberals) is based on positive liberty.

Conservative liberalism, as defined in the previous paragraphs, is a synonym of moderate liberalism. Thus, conservative liberalism, because it is moderate, may accept some form of intervention. Because intervention is a positive liberty, conservative liberalism is a form of positive liberty. Also, becuase the term moderate is a synonym for not radical, Conservative liberalism is a more positive and less radical version of classical liberalism. (you can see this statement in the second paragraph of this article)

Note that the statement is not original research. That statement is stated in . I was just explaning why the book defined conservative liberalism that way in my last paragraphs.

Let's go back and analyse conservative liberalism if the term liberalism is using the American definition. If using the American definition of liberalism (such as government intervention), then conservative liberalism is a combination of social conservatism and modern liberalism.

However, we should not use the American definition. It is not often used in America. The American and non-American definitions are jammed into this article, and produce many contradictions! Additionally, the information in the sections "Ideology and issues," "Historical development" and "Conservative-liberal parties worldwide" in the article are purely using the non-American context of conservative liberalism.

For example, in the "Ideology and issues" section, it says:

"Liberal conservatives tend to be more committed to authority, tradition and established religion, while conservative liberals are supporters of the separation between church and state."

This is compatible with the non-American definition, as the term conservatism in conservative liberals does not equate social conservatism. Conservative in the context of the sentence just means moderate, it is not used in the context of social conservatism, as they are supporters of seperation between church and state.

The section "Conservative-liberal parties worldwide" only includes parties that are conservative liberal in the non-American context. It makes no sense to include the American definition of conservative liberalism when the whole list is parties that are conservative liberal in the international (non-American context).

The historical parties use conservative liberalism in the international context.

So please, remove the American definition. These three sections (all the content sections) are using the term conservatism in the non-American context. If a the term conservative liberalism is internationally defined as a less radical version of classical liberalism and all the content sections use conservatism in the non-American context, why not just remove the American definition of "liberalism with some conservative beliefs?" Just delete the first paragraph. (I removed some content in the "Ideology and issues" section because they were unsourced, not because they were incompatible).

Thank you for you time. CounterEconomics (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Dutch and my perspective on this subject is European, with a clear focus on the Dutch case.

So, in my view, backed up by Gallagher, Laver and Mair (Representative Government in Modern Europe 2001:221-222) there are two traditions in European liberalism. One is characterized by fiscal rectitude and opposition to all but minimal state intervention in the economy. These tend to emerge in countries where there is a strong Christian-democratic party, where these parties represent rightwing secular politics. Then there is a strand of liberalism that is more committed to social justice. These have emerged in countries where the main party of the right is a conservative party. The first are "conservative liberals" and the second "progressive liberals"

In the Dutch case these two strands have existed as separate parties since 1892. The current incarnations are the VVD, a conservative liberal party, committed to reducing the size of government, and D'66, a progressive liberal party (Andeweg and Irwin, Politics and Governance in the Netherlands, 2002:48-49). The two traditions, in the Netherlands, come down to a split in the liberal elite in the late 1800s about their commitment to democratization. The progressive liberals (united in the Radical League and later the Free-minded Democratic League) and the conservative liberals (divided over the Liberal Union and the League of Free Liberals, which united in the Liberal State Party), were divided over the speed and extent to which universal suffrage should be implemented; an additional issue that divided them was the extent to which the government should interfere in the economy (Koole, Politieke Partijen in Nederland, 1995:280-283). The conservative liberal program of the LSP was further characterized by a commitment to national unity (vs. Verzuiling) and law and order (Koole, 1995:288; De Beus et al. De Ideologische Driehoek, 2003:85). These commitments to a small government and law and order still characterize the VVD (Koole, 1995:299), to which a commitment for limiting migration and enhancing integration of migrants was added in the 1990s (Koole, 1995:308).

Now I think that the article should show both the American and the European definitions which both are well-sourced. The conservative liberalism as opposed to radical forms of liberalism (in the US) and the conservative liberalism as opposed to progressive forms of liberalism. C mon (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As written below I totally agree with C mon and I ask him to write something of what he wrote in his post in the article. --Checco (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer to CounterEconomics

What you consider erroneously the "American definition" is the European defintion. I'm sorry but I find difficult to understand why you don't acknowledge it. I won't remove the part of the definition which applies to Europe exactly because "conservative liberalism" applies basically to Europe. "Conservative liberalism is liberalism with some conservative beliefs": that is the European definition, not the American one! --Checco (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your definition of conservative in this context? Do you equate conservatism with economic liberalism? Or do you equate conservatism with social conservatism. The internationally accepted definition of conservatism is equating it with social conservatism, not economic liberalism. (only Americans equate conservatism with economic conservatism) Also, the source used a very different definition of conservatism (a synonym for moderate).

The "conservative liberal" parties listed do NOT have social conservative beliefs. They support seperation of church and state and euthanasia. Because the definition of conservatism cannot also be economic liberalism, then it should be a synonym for moderate. Therefore, the American definition should be removed (the first paragraph should be removed).

The word conservative liberal used in the first paragraph is NO DIFFERENT than classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was the ideology that existed before the World Wars. Thus, the first paragraph is equating conservative liberalism with classical liberalism. The ideology and issues section says that conservative liberalism is less moderate than classical liberalism. Therefore, your American definition in the first paragraph is equating conservative liberalism and classical liberalism and the other sections do not use it that way, and should be removed. The first paragraph contradicts the rest of the article. CounterEconomics (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand your argument. The first paragraph (the European definition of conservative liberalism, which you continue to define erroneously as the American definition) is perfectly ok with the rest of the article. With "conservative" it is meant "conservative", not "social conservative" not "economic conservative". Probably you are a little bit confused about conservative liberalism in Europe... --Checco (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You quoted in CounterEconomics:

With "conservative" it is meant "conservative", not "social conservative" not "economic conservative".

What specifically is your definition of conservative? What does conservative have to do with? Does conservative mean that the economy is not regulated? If you regard to the classical political spectrum, conservatism is a synonym for economic liberalism. Europeans use conservativsm as a synonym for economic liberalism. If the opposite of conservative means socialism, then conservatism is classical liberalism.

So delete your European definition in the beginning of the article. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My definition of conservatism? See conservatism. It is not true that Europeans use conservatism as a synonym of economic liberalism. I really don't understand what your are talking about... too much confusion in your arguments! --Checco (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourced proof that conservative liberalism IS the economic liberal version of classical liberalism

See the quote here: [6]

"Conservative parties adhere to similar values, but they usually also stress national interests and tend towards economic liberalism. They often originated from the representatives of the nobility, the large landholders and the civil servants (sublabels: liberal-conserv.* and national-conserv.**)."

Therefore, the term conservative in the term conservative liberalism IS economic liberalism! CHECCO WAS WRONG! Classical liberalism is the form of liberalism which combines economic liberalism. Therefore, conservative liberalism is just a form of less radical classical liberalism, since they all value economic liberalism.

I don't know who checco cited that source that contains a definition opposing his own...65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A site operated by just any individual is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. C mon (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That link is NOT mine. That link is from the beginning paragraph that was deleted. I meant that the beginning paragraph includes my above source. So if you think that the link[7] is a unreliable source, then you should remove the beginning paragraph because it cites the unreliable source. Anyway, the beginning paragraph should be removed.

See the beginning paragraph:

'''Conservative liberalism'''<ref>http://www.ipolitique.fr/liberalisme-conservateur.htm</ref><ref>http://www.parties-and-elections.de/contents.html</ref> is a variant of [[liberalism]], combining liberal values and policies with [[Conservatism|conservative]] stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement. The roots of it are to be found at the beginning of the [[history of liberal thought|history of liberalism]]: until the [[World Wars]], in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from [[Germany]] to [[Italy]].

See, the unreliable source is included in the beginning paragraph. If you think [8] is an unreliable source, then you should removed the beginning paragraph because it includes this link. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

C mon, you misunderstood, that link [9] that includes the words:

"Conservative parties adhere to similar values, but they usually also stress national interests and tend towards economic liberalism. They often originated from the representatives of the nobility, the large landholders and the civil servants (sublabels: liberal-conserv.* and national-conserv.**)."

WERE are sourced that is cited in the beginning of the article! This source is NOT mine! 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable source. You misunderstood. I removed it before you commented: See this link [10] 65.75.189.67 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore, the term conservative in the term conservative liberalism IS economic liberalism! "

In Europe liberal means someone that defends a free market economy and has a more liberal view regarding morals. As actually the cited article says, conservative liberals are conservative because there are "more nationalist", a bit less "social liberal" in terms of morals and bit more focused on less state intervention the the economy than social liberals. Most conservative liberals will make their campaign on economic topics, but, would still vote for example for the legalization of gay marriage if some other party would bring this topic to vote. In practice, I'm talking about Europe, social liberals and conservative liberals are very often not that different and actually cooperate both on the ELDR Party (the European Liberal Democrat Party).Mcduarte2000 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. To anonymous user: find better sources, do not delete the only ones we have. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article does not have a clear definition of the subject, and unneccessarily lists parties and positions. Conservative liberalism is what liberalism was before the adoption of social liberalism (i.e., Keynsianism, the welfare state). In Europe this is normally called liberalism, while in the US it is called conservatism. The term "conservative liberalism" is rarely used. "Liberal conservatism" refers to conservatives who accept capitalism, private property and the rule of law (liberalism), but respect tradition, including monarchy, aristocracy and the established church (conservatism). They may also accept social liberalism. The most obvious example of this is the pre-Thatcher Conservative Party of the UK. They are normally just called conservatives.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no... conservative liberals are right-wing liberals and there are many of them in Europe. That's why we have this article and those lists. The article needs definitely to be improved, but not in the way you are proposing! --Checco (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces refers to classical liberalism, not conservative liberalism. C mon (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. --Checco (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by right-wing? What is the source of the list of parties? What evidence is there that conservative liberals reject classical liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. There are some sources about the parties (but I agree that we need more) and most of the articles linked have sources too. No-one ever said that conservative liberals reject classical liberalism. --Checco (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove information with a source, as several of the parties in the list had. C mon (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are hardly any sources. Take this reference: "Iceland: Liberal Party". Now look at their website: http://xf.is/pages/erlend-tungumal/english/ Why are they on the list? This is original research. There has to be a source for the list of conservative liberal parties or delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the entries have footnotes, with sources (mainly books by academics) don't delete them. C mon (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes all seem to refer to "Representative Government in Modern Europe". By the way, what did the original source say? I notice the parties cited from that book are different from when the reference was originally inserted. As for the others, I take it you're OK to remove them unless they can be properly sourced? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I see another source has been added for some of these parties and note that their list is in conflict with the original one. The problem is that parties do not normally establish themselves as "conservative liberal" parties and there is no international organization for them to belong. So classification problems will always occur. (Compare this with "liberal" parties who establish themselves as liberal parties, often call themselves liberal parties and join the Liberal International.) However I accept that there are conservative liberal parties and that it is important to provide a list for readers.

So here is a suggestion: Provide separate lists of conservative liberal parties from different sources. I.e., provide the list from the "Representative Government" and the list from the European elections websites, indicating what the writers were trying to show, viz., a representative list and a conclusive list of these parties in Europe.

I notice too that the recent source used (the website) is actually a tertiary source which itself cites secondary sources. Thus it is not wrong to cite it as an example from a reasonable source, it is not a reliable source for facts.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

With one eye on the above cleanup proposal, I'd like to begin to assemble some sources to help us nail down a definition. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Liberalism, Socialism, and Democracy, The American Prospect
• The First Days of the Loaded Political Image, The New York Times
• Liberalism's Long Goodbye, CounterPunch
• Action Liberalism, The American Prospect
• God is the new drug of choice for today’s young rebels, The Sunday Times

UK Liberal Democrats

An anonymous IP keeps adding the UK's Liberal Democrats, a party of tax-and-spend liberals who wish to cut spending on defence, to the list. No sources are provided to back up this ludicrous claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the context of the piece you would have noticed that rather than add the Liberal Democrats as a party of conservative liberalism, I had added them as a party that contains conservative liberal factions. I did indeed name these groupings as Liberal Vision and the now defunct Liberal Future until my contribution was deleted. Both of these groups (I am a member of Liberal Vision) advocate(d) a smaller role for Government, lower taxes, a commitment to human rights and civil liberties and in varying degrees tougher action on crime. Vince Cable wrote a compelling article on the latter issue for the little known 'Yellow Book' which preceded the 'Orange Book'.

Although I believe that David Cameron represents the liberal conservative tradition rather than that of conservative liberalism I am more than happy for you to add the Conservative Party to the existing list rather than simply replace the Liberal Democrat entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.95.196 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that you will need a reliable source that confirms (implicitly at the very least) what you say, otherwise it is essentially worthless. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect I'll put up a reference when you are also in a position to back up what you are saying and when you stop simply deleting my entry, which I have actually supported with examples. As you can see I have had the common decency not to delete your entry despite it not being supported by examples or any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.211.68 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I have removed uncited information that has been uncited in some cases for over two years. The fact of the matter is that none of this information is cited and it is not the responsibility of other users to cite information, it is the responsibility of the person who uploads the information. This is a violation of encyclopedic integrity and is misleading to people who read the article who do not notice that it is not sourced. If and when you upload this information back, I expect you to cite your sources. Otherwise, yoru information is biased, opinionated, and not meant to be in an encyclopedia.

68.230.134.130 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If some information is not properly sourced it is not biased itself. One can add some tags and there were tags on the section you removed. The section was written by several editors, not me alone, and what it told readers was correct from many points of view, let alone for the last paragraphs that were very and really controversial. I will upload a shortened version of the section with one source and I beg other users to improve the article in order to explain in a better way what conservative liberalism is about. --Checco (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read the term "conservative liberalism" is used to refer either to liberalism supported by business elites, such as the National Liberal Party (Germany) and the more free market-oriented members of the Liberal International, such as the Free Democratic Party (Germany). These are two separate groups. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolitique

I have started a discussion thread at the RSN noticeboard about whether Wikipolitique, used in this article, is a reliable source.[11] Since all text in this article sourced to Wikipolitique is double-sourced, it would have no effect on the text in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Sorry for the clumsy rollback! --Checco (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

At this moment, at the beginning of the article says:

Conservative liberal parties combine liberal policies with more traditional stances on social and ethical issues.[2] They are generally supporters of economic liberalism and they often identify themselves as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism.[citation needed] Conservative liberals differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism.

This is not more the definition of "liberal conservatism" than of "conservative liberalism"? At least my impression is that the meaning of the expressions is:

• Liberal Conservative - liberal in economic issues, conservative in social issues (in european words; in US, "conservative both in economic and social issues")
• Conservative Liberal - liberal both in economic and social issues (in european words; in US, "conservative in economic issues, liberal in social issues")
• Social Liberal - centrist in economic issues, liberal in social issues

--79.169.165.112 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

These terms do not appear to be clearly defined but I think the first would be a conservative, while the second two would be liberals. Economic and social policies could vary. TFD (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a 'US only' article?

This article seems to be written from a very US-centred POV.

To claim the following:

"The roots of conservative liberalism are to be found at the beginning of the history of liberalism: until the World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy".

Sorry, but "conservative liberal" is a contradiction in terms, especially when used in a historical context such as this. Until the advent of the labour parties, the classic political battles would be between conservatives, liberals and 'radicals' (today, roughly social liberals). For one such account, see Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848.

Liberalism have roots in 18th century the Enlightenment ideas such as the social contract, universal human rights, and free trade. It was thus also conceived as a universalistic ideology and explicitly opposed to conservatism.

Contrast the liberal ideas with those of conservatism which tend to stress tradition and hence NOT universalism. These traditions would, of course, depend on the context, but originally could include such concepts as divine right of kings, support for the special rights of aristocracy, various trade barriers (see the Corn Laws for one such example), and/or some form of mercantilism.

In the early 19th century liberals also tended to embrace nationalism much more readily than did conservatives (see the Revolutions of 1848) forming the 'compound ideology' of national liberalism (that article is apparently also written from a US POV and also use "conservative liberalism", linking to this article).

To claim that the liberals were somehow conservative is ridiculous. They have historically been defined exactly as NOT being conservative - or perhaps it's the other way around ;-)

Now there may be good reasons to distinguish between liberalism a la the 18th and 19th centuries and liberalism today, but if so, I would certainly prefer a merge with classical liberalism and make this a subsection. As it is, this is simply muddling the history of political thinking by retroactively introducing anachronistic current conceptualisations of the political spectrum on the past. Especially, the highly national specific current US context of "liberalism" and "conservatism".

Mojowiha (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia article. However sources draw a distinction between "social liberals" who advocated the expansion of the state in order to promote individual freedom and "conservative liberals" who saw expansion of the state as a threat to personal freedom. It does not mean that they were conservatives. Sources also draw a distinction between social and conservative liberal parties, even if the distinction is not always clear. TFD (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposal to merge conservative liberalism with classical liberalism - both are now-separate ideological strands and deserve their own articles, just as much as social liberalism is kept separate from (generic) liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

An objection and a few comments:

1) To label those liberals advocating the classic 19th century model of a "night watchman state" as representing a conservative standpoint is odd. Conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with a minimal state - except in the current US use of the term, which is where the confusion sets in. Liberals were actively trying to reduce the size of the state - against conservative opposition.

2) In which sources do you find liberals calling themselves conservative liberals? Or are you referring to US literature describing political history (and hence likely using US notions of conservatism)?

3) What gave the radicals their label was mainly their advocacy of universal (male) suffrage, where liberals preferred property qualifications (and some conservatives abhorred democracy altogether).

4) The claim in the intro that, prior to the world wars, Europe's "political class was formed by conservative liberals" doesn't even fit the source (R.T. Allen p. 13). The Allen references seem odd as he seems to prefer classical liberalism, or simply liberalism, adding radical or social when he depart from his general notion.

As I see it, the problem is that this article employs (current) US notions that conservatism = a minimal state. Apart from the (fairly recent) British Thatcherite tradition, you'll find very few conservative parties with this attitude. Outside the US, proponents of a minimal state are usually labelled (neo)liberalists, rather than conservatives. So slapping the prefix conservative on liberals sceptic of the state and its powers seems very odd.

The counter-argument seems to be that conservative is a necessary clarification added to distinguish this brand of liberalism from social liberalism. However, this seems a very weak argument, since you wouldn't call a party "conservative socialist" just because some more radical socialists exist. Also, the historical section on the 19th century seems to define the exact same characteristics as those described in the classical liberalism article (i.e. distinguishing conservative/classical liberals from radical/social liberals).

Mojowiha (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter that it is a "weak argument" to distinguish some liberal parties from social liberal parties by calling them conservative liberal. It has nothing to do with the US, where conservative liberalism is called conservatism, not conservative liberalisn. What do you think is the best term to describe these parties? TFD (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply stick with calling them liberal parties (that's also what they tend to call themselves). The added conservative prefix doesn't seem to me to add any useful information, since it's main function seems to be to distinguish liberal from social liberal parties. Or is it because liberal is reserved as a generic term describing all liberal parties?

Mojowiha (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both social and conservative liberals are called liberals. TFD (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete or merge

I will nominate this article for deletion soon. This section is an attempt to address concerns prior. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This article no more warrants deletion than do the articles for other ideological strands of liberalism (classical liberalism, social liberalism etc).--Autospark (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

perhaps then it could be better sourced? the term itself is cited in FRENCH, from a WIKIPEDIA CLONE. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

UK parties

Liberal Future was a think tank, not a political party; it no more belonged on a list of current or former parties than the Brookings Institution would belong on such with regard to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.152.32.247 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As a think tank close to the LibDems, Liberal Future can be considered a faction. What about Liberal Vision? --Checco (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Czech parties

Why are the following parties on the list?

Czechia: Civic Democratic Alliance (Klaus party liberal?)

Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA, truly conservative liberal or liberal conservative … I don’t think the distinction makes much sense) was a small party which was not the same as the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) which is the more populist liberalish party founded by Mr. Klaus and which especially later slided towards more populism and more anti-European stance. ODA didn’t make it to the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Czech parliament) in 1998 and then lingered on the fringes of the Czech politics until it was formally dissolved in 2007.

Having said that, I have removed Věci Veřejné from the list, because they have truly nothing to do with liberalism. It has been purely populist more commercial/criminal enterprise for achieving position to misuse the power without much political thinking behind it (e.g., see their pre-election poster (the text says “Vote for our girls!”).

Maybe it is better not to have a list.

I tend to agree. Especially for the crazy post-communist countries which haven’t developed stable parties yet.

--Ceplm (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ODS definitely has conservative-liberal factions, thus it might be included in the list among "parties with conservative-liberal factions", while ODA is correctly classified among "historical conservative-liberal parties or parties with conservative-liberal factions". VV might not be conservative-liberal in your view, but its conservative liberalism is sourced: what about moving it to "parties with conservative-liberal factions"? --Checco (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am OK with ODS and ODA, that's more or less correct, but really ... VV was never really a political party based on any philosophy. It was more like a criminal/commercial investment action of groups of owners of real-estate agencies and security agencies. See for example just a random search for "Věci veřejné" in the main Prague English newspapers Prague Post and articles you get. If you want to put them into any political party category, than they would fit more into content-free anti-corruption populist ad hoc groups. There is a category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-corruption_parties which I think suits them much better than any political ideology category. --Ceplm (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probaly right, but we have a source saying that VV is also conservative-liberal; I think it's correct to have it as it is now, where I would add also LIDEM, a splinter group of VV which was accepted in the ALDE Party. --Checco (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

poorly sourced

the most often cited source http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/content.html does net even mention the term in this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? You contradict yourself: "most often cited" and "does not even mention"... what does it mean? --Checco (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It uses the term "conservative liberal." TFD (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No big deal. Conservative liberal → conservative liberalism. --Checco (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• the main ideology is generally listed at the beginning, further orientations are additionally listed afterwards
• Liberalism: Conservative liberal parties combine liberal policies with more traditional stances on social and ethical issues
• Conservative: Liberal conservative parties combine conservative policies with more liberal stances on social and ethical issues.
• there is no term "conservative liberal", instead the source is describing some liberal parties with traditional social stance, yet does not elaborate? there is no party using the term, or has ever used the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to get a better source. But there is no doubt that some liberal parties, such as the Liberal Party of Australia or the Republican Party in the U.S. are more right-wing than other liberal parties. TFD (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Republicans in the USA refer to their opponents, the Democrats, as liberals. Conservative may imply fiscal, social or both. the information in this article suggest the term is actually an "orientation" of an ideology. The term does not exist in mainstream usage, nor has it ever been the slogan or ideology of any party.

• example, source 5: Beyond liberalism, p2, ...Hayek...was right to move to a more "positive" AND conservative liberalism. From the same source would could source an article about positive liberalism using such logic. TDF, it is your opinion, that Hayek's views are unrecognized by political scientists, so he wouldn't be relevant here, right?
• source 6, a book review from 2005: Mahoney argues for something called “conservative liberalism"..., the source suggests the term is obscure, and/or he is unfamiliar with its use. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We all know that in the U.S. we use the term "liberal" to refer to left-liberalism, while we use the term "conservative" to refer to right-liberalism, and as conservatism disappears with the feudal past, the rest of the world is following suit more or less. At least you have agreed that the ideological orientation of the Republican Party differs from the Democrats. So you accept the concepts are real. The problem is what to call these forms of liberalism. Any suggestions? And don't say conservative and liberal, because we already have articles with those names. TFD (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

a good question, maybe you know of some better sources. i just blanked most of the text for copyvio. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In an article in Liberal Parties in Western Europe, Gordon Smith writes that "two types of liberalism have emerged, one which still draws on original liberal inspiration and another which has gone much further in absorbing the norms of state intervention and collectivism. Labels are bound to be somewhat arbitrary, but it is useful to describe the former as 'liberal-conservative' and the latter as 'liberal-radical'. (p. 21)[12] The footnote says that different writers use different terminologies. Klaus von Beyme for example calls them liberal and radical.

I would add to that that the distinction and the definition is not always clear, and can differ at different times and in different places. Also, Smith uses the term "liberal-conservative" which is used by some writers, including the Wikipedia article, to describe conservatives who have incorporated liberal views, such as the UK Conservative Party. But again, there is not disagreement that liberalism has always had a division.

TFD (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Smith's terminology is unusual, I give you that - conservative-liberals he names liberal–conservatives, and social-liberals he labels liberal–radical (from radical liberalism, a older synonym of social liberalism that is now rarely used). Unfortunately, for most political ideologies there are various confusing synonyms in use even in academic texts.--Autospark (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservative or National?

I don't see a meaningful distinction between "conservative liberalism" and "national liberalism". The article belies this when it makes the comment that "Conservative liberal parties have tended to develop in those European countries where there was no strong secular conservative party and where the separation of church and state was less of an issue. In those countries, where the conservative parties were Christian-democratic, this conservative brand of liberalism developed". This a good description of Austria, and indeed the Freedom Party of Austria is listed below, along with several other "National Liberal Parties" or variations there upon. Look at the "National Liberalism" page and you find Austria mentioned again as a country where national liberalism is a "traditional ideological strain". This comment is admittedly uncited, but an obvious reference to the Freedom Party and its predecessors. National Liberalism is a well-recognised historic movement in Europe, especially Central Europe. And the new "Freedom" brand of right-wing parties tend to depart from free-market liberalism only on the subject of national borders and national security. But the phrase "Conservative Liberalism" seems to be simply an alternative name for "Neoconservatism" when used by American writers Robert Kraynak and Peter Augustine Lawler, who are the only two substantive references in this article. The "Liberal Conservatism" page is much better founded, with several politicians owning to the title.

I propose that this page be merged into the "National Liberalism" page, with the American references added to the "Neoconservatism" page. --90.204.27.28 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be better sourced, but "conservative liberalism" is more widely used than "national liberalism" (in Europe, at least, there is a clear distinction between "conservative liberals" and "social liberals") and, by the way, it has nothing to do with "neoconservatism". --Checco (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel I should reply to the "neoconservative" point, which I based entirely on the two citations included, by Rober Kraynak and Peter Augustine Lawler. On reading the two articles linked, it seemed clear to me that they associated the term "conservative liberalism" with neoconservatism.

Also, as a European myself, I have not heard this usage of "conservative liberalism", though I can only speak anecdotally.

From Lawler p59: 'So in America today, responsible liberals—who are usually called neoconservatives—see that liberalism depends on human beings who are somewhat child-centered, patriotic, and religious ... One of their slogans is “conservative sociology with liberal politics”'.

And: 'Neoconservatives are really conservative liberals, and we have to wonder how tenable their position is over the long run'.

Kraynak and Mahony believe of "conservative liberalism" is that it 'requires something more than the “discreet Catholic sensibility”', instead requiring 'an insight that can be found, for example, in Leo Strauss’s Platonism'. Kraynak's preference for the classics, and his belief that liberalism should be protected from its own culture, sound a lot like Irving Kristol to me. (Also I forgot to sign in last time). TrendBronco (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with the aforementioned quotes and, in fact, first-generation (American) neconservatives were (American) liberals "mugged by reality" (as Irving Kristol once said). I stress "American" beacuse liberalism in the United States, let alone modern liberalism in the United States, is quite different from liberalism in Europe and classical liberalism in general. American liberals are left-wingers and their views are comparable to those of European social democrats and democratic socialists, while most European liberals reside in the political centre or centre-right.

This article refers primarily to European conservative liberals, as opposed to social liberals, thus any reference to American (left-wing) liberalism and/or neoconservatism is frankly inappropriate. When your authors describe neoconservatives as "conservative liberals", we should "translate" it to "conservative social democrats". Several first-generation neoconservatives were closer to the Socialist Party of America (SPA) than the Democratic Party and the term "neoconservatism" was invented by Michael Harrington to describe his rivals within the SPA, whom he derided also as "socialists for Nixon".

In fact, first-generation neoconservatives were mainly social democrats who took a right-wing approach in foreign policy (see Social Democrats, USA) or Cold War liberals disgruntled with their party, the Democrats. Most of these people tried to bring the Democrats "home" or, to paraphrase Kristol, "back to reality", but, as this party tilted even more to the left, many of them supported Ronald Reagan and eventually became Republicans.

You might find interesting and have someting to add to an article I created a few weeks ago: Coalition for a Democratic Majority.

My intention was not to give you a history lesson, but to show that I am aware on what (American) neoconservatism is about. Simply, I do not think it has anything to do with this article, which is mainly about (European) conservative liberalism as opposed to (European) social liberalism.

--Checco (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You do realise I'm quoting Robert Kraynak and Peter Augustine Lawler because they are citations listed in this Wikipedia article on 'conservative liberalism'. In fact, they are the only citations in this article that refer specifically to 'conservative liberalism'. You say "this article refers primarily to European conservative liberals", yet its only meaningful citations describe American Neoconservatism. TrendBronco (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a point here (especially because both Kraynak and Lawler are Americans), but:

1. Kraynak's and Lawler's articles are not the only references to this article;
2. Kraynak does not mention "neoconservatism" nor neoconservative thinkers—at all;
3. Kraynak's definition of "conservative liberalism" perfectly applies to European conservative liberals and most of the people he cites as conservative liberals are in fact Europeans (Alexis de Tocqueville, Raymond Aron and, to some extent, Edmund Burke are models);
4. Lawler's aricle is hardly only about American neoconservatives and his thoughts apply to European conservative liberalism as well (btw, I totally agree with Lawler that Roger Scruton, who is an European, is a conservative, not a liberal).

As I said, this article definitely needs to be improved, but its focus should be primarily on European conservative liberalism, in my view. I have no problem with adding a reference on neoconservatism (in fact, I do agree that American neoconservatives are centrists and/or liberals or, even better, conservative liberals, by European standards), but that should not become the main theme of the article: American neoconservatism and European conservative liberalism may overlap, but, still, they are not the same thing. --Checco (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Kraynak mentions Leo Strauss- as a model for 'conservative liberal' thought. I think an impartial third person would have the impression that both men considered 'neoconservatism' to be a 'conservative liberalism'. The only other citation (that functions) which mentions the words 'conservative liberal' is the EU Parties and Elections page, which recognises that "in some countries" it "is traditionally known as national liberalism". If nothing else, this is a positive piece of evidence that the two are the same and there is therefore no need for two separate Wikipedia articles. But it could also be considered testimony that there is a tradition for the term 'national liberalism', but not for 'conservative liberalism'. After all, for all we know, the web-page writers could have invented the latter term themselves according to their own sensibilities. Kraynak and Lawler and a dozen other people could have done the same- each time meaning something different. 'National liberalism' at least, surely has very little in common with 'neoconservatism'. Everything you've said so far sounds like the same again- that you're making your own value judgements, rather than reporting on established practices. And the authors of this article seem to have done much the same as well. TrendBronco (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Also your assumptions on Kraynak and Strauss are "your own value judgements", for that matter! As I said, the article definitely needs to be improved, but I would not assume from its failures that conservative liberalism that it does not exist. Finally, to put things at their right place, Nordsieck writes that "[c]onservative liberal parties combine liberal policies with more traditional stances on social and ethical issues (in some countries this form of liberalism is traditionally known as national liberalism)", thus, in case, "national liberalism" should be merged with this article, not the other way around. However, I do think that the two are different liberal traditions and, don't matter how much they overlap, they deserve separate articles because the contexts in which the two expressions are used are different. --Checco (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There are overlaps between the two, but many political ideologies overlap to varying (even significant) degrees, and still are, and need to be, categorised as separate ideologies. (Also, national liberalism is more of a historical type of ideology than anything else, I'd argue.)--Autospark (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Deciding for yourself what an ideology means is a value judgement (original philosophy), and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Deciding what a text means is not a value judgement, merely a research judgement (semantics). These citations group together two groups of people - American neoconservatives and European national liberals - without any evidence at all that they would relate to each other. I don't say that conservative liberalism doesn't exist, I merely suspect it, but whether it does or not- this article shows no meaningful evidence of it. TrendBronco (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "[d]eciding for yourself what an ideology means is a value judgement" and is not something we should do in Wikipedia, but we should also be very careful with "[d]eciding what a text means". In fact, I don't see how and where the two articles don't even mention "national liberalism" and only one of the two mentions "neoconservatism". --Checco (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered that point above. I'm not going to repeat myself. TrendBronco (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I had already answered your latter point above, but, still, I repeated myself. I'm not going to repeat myself again. --Checco (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Polish parties

Hard to agree that Civic Platform is conservative-liberal. Well, maybe they claim to be. Their government between 2007 and 2015 was the opposite: taxes increase[13], punishment for doctors who were against abortion [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.129.178 (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The party was not conservative-liberal, but a liberal-conservative party with conservative-liberal factions. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative liberalism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405153134/http://www.europeanforum.net/country/moldova to http://www.europeanforum.net/country/moldova

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

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) 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

'simply' the right-wing?

Why is it in the first sentence of this article being suggested that traditionalist policies—and, in the Overview section, encouragement specifically of Christianity—are the criteria that make a particular political movement right-wing? Liberalism is already a right-wing political philosophy in itself, given its advocacy of free markets (i.e. opposition to socialism).

", or simply representing the right-wing of the liberal movement" should be removed from the first sentence. It's misleading about what both 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean; consider how liberal conservatism is a school of right-wing politics, and isn't somehow rendered 'left' by attaching 'liberal' in front of it, just as how liberalism isn't somehow unleftified by attaching 'conservative' in front of it.

BenYaMan (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the article lacks a topic. What conservative means depends on context. TFD (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If the topic in itself is ambiguous then it’s likely inaccurate to declare the whole article’s focus ‘the right-wing version of liberalism’; I’m going to remove it for now, since I don’t see what good it adds, and if people put forward a logical argument for its reinclusion… well, we’ll see. BenYaMan (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@BenYaMan: I strongly disagree with your claim of liberalism being "a right-wing political philosophy in itself". First: the definition of the political spectrum with left=statist and right=free-market may be popular among some American political scientists, but it is far from universal and barely used in (continental) Europe. Second, not all variants of liberalism are per se in favour of free markets.

The traditional European left-right spectrum emerged during the French revolution when liberalism, rooted in enlightenment and egalitarian (i.e. opposed to the feudal, corporate society of estates) was certainly on the left. As many liberal demands were accomplished during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the socialist movement emerged that was even further to the left, the mainstream of liberalism shifted toward the centre, with some liberals rather defending the (now rather liberal) status quo (=conservative liberals) and others aiming for even more progress (=radical liberals). Nowadays, in most European contries liberalism is generally considered to be in the centre of the political spectrum, with variants of liberalism leaning toward the centre-left (social liberalism) and others to the centre-right (conservative liberalism).

Therefore, in the eyes of a continental European, the statement "conservative liberalism ... represent(s) the right-wing of the liberal movement" makes perfectly sense. To American readers it may be hard to understand, given that "conservatism" and "liberalism" are an antagonism in the US and "conservative liberalism" may sound like an oxymoron. But to my understanding, conservative liberalism is a term and concept predominantly used with regard to continental-European politics, which is illustrated by the list of conservative-liberal parties that mostly occur in countries on the European continent. --RJFF (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@RJFF: I'm well aware of the origins of the left vs. right terminology, and myself know only of how it is applied in Europe, being a Briton, and this is what i'm basing my argument upon—it’s important to consider how the philosophies and goals of liberalism have changed from the time of the initial emergence of the terminology, to how it would be defined in a modern context, and thus how its label on the left-right spectrum shall also have; i am of quite the opposite understanding to what you imply—that it be in America where left=statist market control and right=free-market—and i have always been under the impression that it is there where left and right are conflated much more strongly with stances on civil freedoms.

Now, as a European myself, i can say with confidence that the sentence did not make perfect sense to me when i first read it, and even more so raises an eyebrow now i've checked other Wikipedia articles' descriptions of liberalism, just to ensure i'm properly oriented with what other information on the site points to. Liberalism at its core propounds œconomic liberties for individuals and as such their businesses, and thus freer markets, which, for the most part, would out of context make it at least centre-right by anyone's definition.

The article on Liberalism itself introduces it as a philosophy generally supporting capitalism and a limited state. Indeed, prefixing 'social' to liberalism can push it to the centre or centre-left, as the state and its restriction of economic liberties grow therewithal, but i argue it to be a great misrepresentation to suggest conservative liberalism is the right-wing branch of liberalism, as it implies that the other branches of liberalism are themselves left. Opposition to extensive civil liberties being a feature of right-wing politics is a misconceived generalization that is reinforced by the suggestion that adding conservatism to liberalism is what makes it right-wing.

For reference, as a Tory myself, i can say most of my political opinions, particularly for civil liberties, align with those of Liberalism, yet you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone anywhere to label me or people of the same sentiment 'left-wing'—including the sentence 'simply representing the right-wing of the liberal movement' is not only misrepresentative of the rest of the liberal movement as a whole, but also suggests that traditionalist social and ethical policies are what make something right-wing, and that is untrue.

Any left vs. right system of terminology that necessitates association of economic liberty with civil liberty is useless, because it intrinsically dismisses the existence of traditionalist socialists/communists and progressive(another oxymoron i know)/liberal conservatives. (Whilst this latter point would likely fall under POV if used alone to justify something, it's an important consideration in regards to how information included in an encyclopaedic article can influence the reader's perspective of how the system itself works, and the current designation of conservative liberalism being the right-wing branch seems pretty subjective to me). BenYaMan (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of where liberals sit in the political spectrum, they can still be divided by left and right, as with Yellow Book and Orange book liberals. In fact, in England, we can go back to grandees and levellers, Whigs and Radicals, and new liberals and true liberals. My point was that this division will be different in different countries at different times. And I agree that the left-right distinction is not based on the degree economic or civil liberty. Those vary depending on circumstances. TFD (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"right-wing of the liberal movement" is to be understood in a relative sense: more to the right than other variants of liberalism. This is independent from the question on which part of the political spectrum we place liberalism as such. Conservative liberalism is further to the right than the mainstream of liberalism, and further to the right than social liberalism, progressive liberalism, radical liberalism... you name it. --RJFF (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Would ‘further right’ or ‘more right-wing’ not then be more more accurate? Whilst the description ideally should be independent of liberalism’s general placement on the spectrum, the implications of the current phrasing do not make the way it is presented independent. BenYaMan (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Some writers use the term right or right-wing liberalism. But the problem remains that it is not a coherent ideology or movement, but depends on context. For example, the aristocratic wing of the Liberal party could be described as right-liberals, but so could the free market wing although it was anti-aristocratic.TFD (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=940167157

This edit is not supported by the existing citation and did not come with its own. It's some sort of original research, and it doesn't look accurate, much less neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the sources does not cover the issue properly or throughly. However, it is quite correct that both American main parties include, by European standards, conservative-liberal factions. Thus, I rollbacked your edit. Originally, at least, Democrats quintessentially a classical liberal (libertarian, on some respects) as well as conservative-liberal party and there are many sources for that: we need to find them. --Checco (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That's factually incorrect. If you disagree, find a citation to support what you say before editing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You cannot be bold on this as you are opposing a long-established consensus. Please take a look to Wikipedia:Consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." However, I am adding sources. The Blue Dog Coalition is clearly a conservative-liberal outfit, by European standards. --Checco (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. You inserted the Republican Party in the first place, without citation, and then added the Democratic Party, again without citation. Someone was kind enough to find a citation for the Republican Party, which is pretty easy because it's conservative and has libertarians. But you still have nothing to suggest that there are "conservative liberals" in the Democratic Party. The first link never even uses that phrase, and the second is all in Italian so I have no idea what it says. Neither is sufficient to support your suggested inclusion.

The law of Wikipedia is "citations needed". This sort of change needs legitimate citations that don't require original research to interpret them to support what you want the article to say. Find supporting citations in reliable sources that say what they need to say. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not insert the Republican Party in the first place. And there is no policy against non-English sources. --Checco (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But you did add the Democratic Party without citation, and even now, none of the citations offer any support for this. In fact, the two I can understand actually contradict it!

The first one is https://books.google.com/books?id=V1uzkNq8xfIC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false, and it says that conservative liberals fit into the Republican Party; not the Democratic Party. Read from "Most European liberals..." to see for yourself.

The second one is https://sites.lafayette.edu/clarkeaj/files/2019/08/Clarke_AJPS_combined.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0HCSiSSMOGJPPflMh9cYd7 and no specific part of this long article is linked to. I couldn't find the term "conservative liberal", but what I did find once again contradicts the idea of Democrats having conservative liberals. Read from "Today, Americans choose..." to see what I mean. Since the term isn't used and since it would be original research to infer that this term fits, this article is not supportive.

The third one is http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/eunomia/article/view/12738/11343, which is another large article without any specific part selected. It's in Italian, and I couldn't figure out how to get Google to translate it, so I can't read it. Given that the first two citations contradicted the claim, I'm not sure why we should give this one the benefit of the doubt. If you really think it supports the claim, it's really on you to at least specify the sentence or paragraph that says it most directly. Otherwise, I can only shrug.

Based on this, I can see no reason to leave the claim. If you can come up with a reliable source, that changes things. But until then, the claim has to go. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In an effort to be fair to you by bending over backwards, I figured out how to make sense of the Italian. Using Google, I translated "conservative liberalism" and "Democratic Party" to Italian, searched for instances of the phrases, and then translated the surrounding sentences.

I found 1 instance of the first, and 13 instances of the second, and none of them supported the claim that the Democratic Party has a faction that practices conservative liberalism. In fact, many of the extracts directly contradict this.

At this point, my initial assumption of good faith has been shattered and I am deeply disappointed in you. Please do not edit this topic again, as you have demonstrated a lack of integrity. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the IP user wrote in my talk page: "I am writing to demand that you stop edit-warring on this article. Your citations have been shown not to support the text you keep restoring. I am not going to speculate on your motivations, but it is clear that you have not been intellectually honest".

First of all, it was not me who started to edit warring as I was just defending the established version of the article. Secondly, you should seek consensus first when your bold edit is challenged: as Wikipedia:Consensus reads, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." This said, while the Democratic Party still contains (by European standards) conservative-liberal factions such as the Blue Dog Coalition, I have a compromise version to offer: the Republican Party among current parties with conservative-liberal factions, the Democratic Party among historical parties with conservative-liberal factions. --Checco (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not the established version, it's your version. You added the DNC, but you never added citations that support the addition, so it doesn't really matter whether I'm the first or third person to notice that you were dishonest. Given this dishonesty, my initial assumption of good faith has been corrected, so I see nothing further to discuss. Any additions you make that are not immediately supported by citations from reliable sources will be reverted, just as policy requires. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I just reverted your change. The source you site has already been refuted. Don't do this again or I'll report you. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Distinguishing liberal conservatives from conservative liberals

"Since classical liberal institutions were gradually accepted by conservatives, there is very little to distinguish liberal conservatives from conservative liberals." I do not dispute this in general but I think it should be said that when someone refers to liberal conservatism in certain political cultures like the UK, they are referring to a moderate strain of centre to centre-right conservativm that supports LGBT+ rights etc. It should also be said that technically speaking "liberal conservatism" is also in general a very broad term for conservatives who embrace classical liberalism, so Margaret Thatcher would technically be a liberal conservative even though I think it would be more accurate to classify her as a conservative liberal. 78.16.34.224 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The important thing is that each article have a discrete topic, which one expects in an encyclopedic article, rather than explain the different meanings a term can have. I always thought that liberal conservatism was a form of conservatism that accepted some liberal premises, such as the right to own private property, while conservative liberalism was a liberalism that refused to go beyond its core beliefs in the 19th century.

Since Thatcher was a politician not a political theorist, it is challenging to classify her. But she took her inspiration from her father, who was a Liberal Nonconformist and small businessman and Friedrich Hayek, while coming into conflict with nobility and other traditional institutions. That would make her more liberal.

While early liberals supported minority rights, that mostly meant the rights of Nonconformists, i.e., people like themselves as opposed to the elites. As conservative liberals argue, both straight and gay people have an equal right to marry people of the opposite sex. TFD (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Japan's LDP

Regarding my latest edit, whose edit summary was cut by my cat (!), I have to say that there is no way that a party can be removed from the list, when it has both consensus (a long-established one!) and sources on its side. As long as there is list comprising all the parties that are conservative-liberal or have conservative-liberal factions, the LDP should stay. Let's avoid edit wars and seek consensus before ditching the status quo! -- Checco (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not advocating the status quo. In particular, in Liberal conservatism articles, LDPJ did not originally exist on the list. The LDPJ has never been described as a conservative-liberal in the 21st century. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. The party has been on the list with at least one reference for almost seven years, it not a “new edit”. Please revert your aggressive removal of it, it isn’t consensus.— Autospark (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Conservative liberalism articles, I'm talking about the Liberal conservatism article. However, in the Conservative liberalism article, it is true that my editing is a new one. I just doubt Checco really wants to keep the "status quo". Mureungdowon (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The LDPJ has rarely been described as a conservative liberal in the 21st century. All of the English sources cited were from the '70s. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on removing the party from the list. A new consensus is needed to remove it. Please seek it, instead of edit warring. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The arguments are similar for both articles, but having the LDP on both lists creates a problem. Is it a conservative liberal or liberal conservative party? This is a problem because when authors use either term in passing, they could mean a liberal form of conservatism or a conservative form of liberalism. The first may refer to conservatives who have accepted some liberal ideas, such as private property and equality before the law. The second may refer to liberals who reject attempts to incorporate egalitarian measures such as an enhanced welfare state and equality legislation. Or they can mean vice versa. We need to clearly distinguish the two. TFD (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Many political ideologies have partial overlap; social democracy and social liberalism are arguably similar in various respects despite being distinct ideologies from different overarching ‘families’.— Autospark (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Of course there is overlap in policies among parties. All major parties in the the UK for example think that English should be the main language of government. That doesn't mean that political scientists have a hard time classifying them. Please provide me with any books or papers that clearly define the topics of these articles and explain which parties belong to them. TFD (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A party can contain both conservative (including liberal-conservative) factions and liberal (including conservative-liberal) ones. --Checco (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The LDPJ is not a liberal because it is not moderate nationalist, but an ultranationalist Mureungdowon (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, factions of the LDP are conservative-liberal. --Checco (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course they can. But you seem unable to say which of the factions of the LDP is conservative liberal or liberal conservative. TFD (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That is why we have sources supporting that. --Checco (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neoconservative?

I’ve found Peter Lawler quotation talks about responsible liberal, not conservative liberal. Are they the same? If not, this section need to be removed. 199.7.159.87 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it begins with the well-sourced claim that there is a left-right spectrum with-in liberalism, then relies on editors to list examples of liberalism that fall to the right of that spectrum. Since the fact that U.S conservatism falls along the right of the spectrum is established in the lead, neo-conservatism could be seen as a form of conservative liberalism. Of course that's OR, but so is the inclusion of most of the content in the article. TFD (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Ayn Rand?

What is the source for this? Rand advocated either minarchism or anarcho-capitalism; her views on "social and ethical issues" are profoundly un-traditional. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)