Wikipedia:Peer review/Liberalism/archive3

Liberalism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just went through a brief but extensive FAC nomination, where I withdrew it because of various concerns relating to length, prose, and content. The FAC resulted in major changes, however. The article was downsized from 113 kb to 88 kb, in keeping with summary style guidelines, and most of its images were taken down because their sources could not be verified. I look forward to more ideas and suggestions about how to improve it, after which I plan to try for another FAC in the next few weeks. Thank you very much for your help!UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pivovarov. The new version (NV) is much better than the old version (OV) in design, readability and neutrality. Unfortunately, OV addressed a lot of topics that are missing or superficial in NV.

All facts and discussions that were present in OV should also appear either in the NV parent article or in its child articles, such as History of liberalism (HOL) or Philosophy of liberalism (POL).
This may cause the size of the article to explode, so you can move all DETAILs into new child articles and add them to the navigation side bar. However, most important topics (keywords and perhaps key names) should be clearly visible in the summary sections.

Examples

NV lists liberal democracy as a fundamental idea of liberalism in the lead, which is incorrect. Liberal democracy is a "marriage", or compromise, of liberalism with democracy. Also, NV often assumes that the spread of democracy is a victory for liberalism, which is contestable, for example, Fareed Zakaria argues that you cannot have liberal democracy without liberalism.
Written constitution is not a fundamental idea of liberalism. The constitution of UK is uncodified and USSR in the 1930's adopted a "constitution," so what? Constitution is just an instrument of the rule of law.
Not all liberals strongly support international organizations like EU or UN. Some of them consider these organizations a threat to national sovereignty and ultimately to the liberties of the citizens.
HOL should talk about Scottish Enlightenment and include David Hume along with Adam Smith.
HOL should explain why communism was a threat to liberalism.
A good deal of 20th century liberal thought was on the causes of dictatorship — this should probably go to POL.
HOL should emphasize that all major parties in post-war UK embraced political liberalism and should clarify the reasons for divisions between the left and the right.
The descriptions of modern movements should include the principal actual policies, such as privatization or environmentalism.
POL should discuss, as separate topics, the rule of law, the role of the state, natural rights, human (civil) rights, free market, liberal society, democracy, economic vs social liberalism, international policy. All these keywords should be present in the summary section, too.
HOL should mention a lot more names in the context of discussions. For example, in the discussion on the causes of the Great Depression the article talks about modern and classical liberalism, but it mentions only one name — Keynes.
Political, economic and cultural liberalism have to be defined in the parent article. POL should give even more details.
Social liberalism emerged long before Great Depression and lead to liberal reforms in UK. Also, immediately after WWII it dominated liberal thought. Please include the names, such as John Kenneth Galbraith.
Libertarianism should be listed as one of modern movements in HOL. The parent article should mention about it, too. Again, there should be names, like Ludwig von Mises.
HOL should mention about Rousseau's contributions to the concepts of the rights of man and of the social contract.
Benjamin Franklin should be mentioned in the context of the Declaration of Independence and in the discussion of the role of the state.
Karl Popper should be mentioned in the context of consequentialism and open society.
HOL should carefully mention about the modern discussions on the religious fundamentalism and on the causes of the economic crisis.
NV never talks about the criticism of liberalism as such (except, perhaps, in the context of fascism). Every concept of liberalism has opponents and the article only mentions about internal discussions.

pivovarov (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your specific suggestions. I'm in the process of addressing them and I'll get back to you shortly.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done the following:

As requested, significant and appropriate chunks of the old version have been moved to the History of Liberalism article.
I've included a brief explanation about why the rise of communism represented a threat to liberalism.
I've mentioned privatization in context of neoliberalism.
Political and economic liberalism are no longer mentioned, and cultural liberalism was never mentioned, so I don't know how this came up.

Most of your other proposals center on adding individual names and ideas, but I think this strategy is flawed if those ideas and individuals essentially repeat the views or concepts of people that the article mentions right now. Again, I would sincerely hope that you appreciate the length restrictions under which I'm working. I really do not want to make this article even one iota longer, especially with unnecessary changes, after what I heard in FAC. For a few examples of what I'm talking about...

Adam Smith is mentioned in HOL in the context of classical liberalism, as are Hayek and Nozick in POL. Why add Mises? Sure he's a notable classical liberal thinker, but we only need to mention a few for people to get the gist of libertarianism or classical liberalism. We don't need to start listing every major classical liberal theorist.
Same thing for social liberalism. Why add Galbraith when we already mention Rawls and Keynes, who are both more important than the former and who all said similar things? It just doesn't feel like the article gains anything but monotonous detail.
And same thing on older liberal ideas and thinkers. Why mention Rousseau and social contract when that idea is already explained through Locke and Hobbes? Rousseau is already mentioned for the themes he struck on with his famous paper to the Academy of Dijon. Why mention Franklin and his ideas on the state when similar concepts are expounded through analyzing other philosophers? Once again, it doesn't feel like the article gains anything new but one more name in one more place.

Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hayek were among some people that you suggested in FAC, and I gladly inserted them into the article, to reveal the diversity of liberal thinkers if nothing else. But I hesitate to stuff this article with even more names if those additions will not aid our readers in understanding the topic. On some of your other points...

Whether you agree that liberal democracy is a fundamental idea of liberalism or not, you missed the point of the lead, which is simply saying that most liberals currently support liberal democracy. That's just a sociological reality. I don't see what's controversial here. If you're suggesting that they do not, then you are certainly making news. Wouldn't Fareed Zakaria have to say that you can have liberal democracy without liberalism in order to support your point? If you can't have liberal democracy without liberalism, it means that the spread of liberal democracy was, in fact, a victory for liberalism, contradicting your assertion.
On constitutions, same thing. All the lead is saying is that most liberals currently support written constitutions, and the HOL reinforces that point. You are completely wrong, just on factual grounds, when you claim that constitutions were not a liberal idea. They are very much a liberal idea, and liberals often went to war to establish or preserve them (see Spain for a prominent example). The fact that non-liberal regimes used them later on does not mean they cannot be associated with liberalism; it just means they had become so popular by that point that they had spread even among illiberal states. But again, regardless of whether you think they are or are not a liberal idea, most liberals do support them, and for that reason they count as an important part of liberal history and philosophy.
Same thing on EU and UN. True, not all liberals support these institutions, but most do, and I don't think this point needs additional clarification.
POL already discuses the vast majority of the principles you listed. Natural rights and rule of law are mentioned in the context of social contract theory. Opposition between economic and social liberalism is clearly mentioned extensively in context of positive and negative liberty. International policy (ie. liberal internationalism) is left for later on (see Impact and influence).
As you mentioned, there was extensive criticism of liberalism from fascist perspective before I had to make major cuts to HOL. Article currently does contain criticism against liberalism from feminist and conservative perspectives (see Relation to other ideologies). It also contains strong and explicit criticism of liberal internationalism (see Impact and influence). In short, it's very unfair to suggest that the article "never" criticizes liberalism. It does so in several places. I would advise you to give the article another look.

Again, thank you very much for your help! I found many of your ideas very helpful.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual names are implied references. My concern is that when the article says, for example, "classical liberals posited that completely free markets were the optimal economic units," some readers will first ask {{who}} and then {{when}}. This is why I suggest adding more names at least to the child articles.
The choice of stable political systems today is rather limited and of what is available, most liberals support liberal democracy; others prefer variations of liberal aristocracy, anarchy, etc. The article says that by the beginning of the 21st century liberal democracies had prevailed around the world, but the list of its fundamental characteristics does not include the rule of law and the protection of individual liberties—and without them the spread of democracy is hardly a victory for liberalism.
Moreover, most liberals prefer secular society, while others condemn laicism (a lot of European countries have state religion, too). Human rights include social and third-generation rights, which are preferences of some liberals, but not fundamental for liberalism. Thus, the phrase in the lead mixes fundamental ideas of liberalism (free trade, civil rights) with political preferences (democracy, secularism). Also, it does not mention market economy (e.g., labor market is not a special case of free trade) and the transparency of the government.
Constitution was a liberal idea, but not written constitutions. The struggle was not for adopting a document called "Constitution" which authorities could override or would consider as a declaration of intentions. Liberals wanted actual rule of law and they wanted the government to recognize existing social norms on liberty and equality.

pivovarov (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've addressed your concerns as follows:

"Written" has been removed from the lead and it now just says "constitutions."
"Individual liberties" are now included in introduction to HOL as part of liberal democracy.
"The market economy" has been added to the lead as part of fundamental concepts that liberals support.
Ludwig von Mises has been added to the sentence that you brought up.

Have another look and tell me what you think of my changes. Thank you very much.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nasty Housecat: Here are my initial comments on the article, focusing on the content and the philosophy in particular. The main problems I see with the article are a lack of context for a lot of the discussion and a treatment that leaves a lot of gaps in the intellectual history. I think several sections will need to be reorganized and the philosophy discussion expanded, even at the cost of adding more length. If the goal is to be comprehensive, the whole train of thought needs to be here. Particularly because none of the related articles do much justice to the philosophy, either. So if not here, where?

Here are some specific comments.

Combining the political history and the philosophy is confusing and distorts the intellectual history. I would keep the intellectual history in the philosophy section and call the rest “Historical impact”, summarize it even more than you have, and keep the bulk of it in the History article.

The History sections need to make the case that these events were directly influenced by Liberal ideas, which I know seems obvious, but it is not. There were many causes of the French Revolution, for example, and some would argue that liberal ideas were the mantle but not the motivation. The discussion should focus on how and where liberal ideas factored into these events, without claiming more cause-and-effect than you can possible prove.

The other point is that these major events (American Revolution, French Revolution) contributed to Liberal thought (Jefferson, Madison, etc) which should be mentioned, but did not create their own schools of thought. The political and intellectual history run in parallel in many ways. The tendency to combine them here makes things very confusing.

The etymology discussion is a bit rambling and does not add much. A fuller discussion when/how the term first appeared in various contexts would be much more helpful.

The article tries to break the intellectual discussion of liberalism down into the big debates. The various viewpoints are discussed out of context and without an overall framework of what the arguments are about. The various critiques of Liberalism suffer in the same way – they appear as overly general arguments and not responses to anything in particular. The arguments and critiques should be kept together as much as possible. I agree it is difficult, but I would suggest the following:

It needs a brief grounding in Enlightenment as context (with a link to the main article, which is sadly not very strong on the philosophy, but whatever). The current discussion is not helpful as it just glosses the historical events without making the main intellectual points. Discuss the collapse of traditional sources of authority and values (monarchy, church), and elevation of reason as the source of truth, and by extension the empowerment of the individual. This sets the context for Liberalism, which grappled with the political implications of a new world view devoid of traditional sources of authority and political values. Maybe discuss Erasmus and Spinoza. This is a good place to talk about Hobbes, too.

The Enlightenment (and Humanism in particular) is the intellectual heritage of Liberalism. But Liberalism is an part of the Enlightenment, as well, which some say ended with (or even after) the French Revolution. That seems like an important point.

Establish that the fundamental principle of liberalism is liberty, and all other issues stem from that. The core belief that man is naturally free and political liberty is the highest value is what binds all liberal theories together. The many debates and differences are about what liberty means and how to make liberty compatible with a political order. That ties together all of the discussions of varying theories and flavors of liberalism, which at the extremes, have nothing more in common that a fundamental commitment to their own concept of liberty.

It is worth mentioning the Roman concepts of liberty (the opposite of slavery, Cicero), but only as a contrast to modern concepts of liberty. Liberty fell out of philosophical conversation after Rome and did not reappear until the Enlightenment (in Machiavelli), in which it meant something very different. Liberty is a whole new philosophical problem which Liberalism had to solve. This sets up the discussion of Positive and Negative Liberty.

Discuss liberalism as a response to questions raised by Enlightenment thinking. If man is his own authority, what is the justification for government and what are its proper limits? Is there a political order that is compatible with human freedom and the primacy of reason? Which sets up John Locke and Classical Liberalism.

Locke’s main contributions were his concept of natural rights and theory of property. These are important to frame the liberal debates that follow.

Social contract theory is an attempt to justify limitations by political authority. This should include Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes, with a focus on how their views of the state of nature, the sovereign, and the social contract differed. Critiques: Hume

The nature of liberty deserves its own discussion, in three forks:

Positive liberty

True will (Rousseau)
Self-direction (Green)
Effective power to act (Socialism, Tawney)

Negative liberty (absence of coercion)(Berlin)
Private Property as a necessary condition of liberty (Hayeck, others?)

Modern liberalism is a major break with Classical liberalism, grounded in the view that prevailing institutions had failed to preserve liberty. It is less an intellectual debate than a response to real world events. Themes include:

Suspicion of free markets (Keynes)
New faith in government intervention (successful economic policies, global democratization)
Distrust of private property (concentration of property = inequalities in power)

Modern Liberalism redefines liberty in a radical way. First, positive notion of liberty that counts economic welfare (right to work, living wage) as a property right and associated individual rights more strongly with the common good (social justice).

Classical Liberalism actually becomes a critique of Modern Liberalism and the intellectual property of more conservative political movements post-New Deal. Critique: Neoliberalism.

Social Justice theory responds to a philosophical problem posed by modern liberalism. How can the good of the whole be compatible with individual freedom? Liberal theories of distributive justice. (Rawls, Dworkin)

Communitarian critiques – Taylor, Sandel, Walzer
Natural Law critique - Nozick

There are also debates about the scope of liberalism. Is it a political idea, and ethics, a world view? Viewpoints worth mentioning:

“Purely” Political (Rawls again). Liberalism is a political construct that mediates between all kinds of different views and values.
Perfectionism and liberal virtue. Freedom a good because it alone allows man to become his best. (Mill, Green, Dewey)
Contractualism. Society presupposes no greater good, merely a contract among persons. (Kant, Hobbes)
Pluralism. Values are plural and none more justifiable than another. We must be free to choose our own ends. (Berlin)
Subjectivism. Values rest of individual experiences and desires. (Hobbes, Locke)

The last big debate would be Individualism vs. Collectivism. On the one hand is the view that Liberalism is based on an inherently individualist view of society (Hobbes, Popper) and on the other that such views of the individual are implausibly abstract and that cultural attachments and social commitments are unavoidable aspects of human experience. (Sandel, others). This sets up the discussion of centrist liberalism vs. social liberalism, etc., which revolves around the relative importance of the community vs. the individual.

There is a whole range of debate, as well, as to the proper scope of liberalism. Is it about one state or the whole world community? How should liberals respond to illiberal regimes? How should liberalism accommodate non-liberal constituencies (e.g., religious groups)? I don’t know if you want to get into that here, but it is an important discussion with wide-ranging implications on liberal policies.

Economic liberalism deserves its own section, which I can comment on as well, but in another post. The development of economic liberalism is independent enough of liberal philosophy and has such wide ranging implications on its own that it really makes sense as its own discussion. It would make things a whole lot clearer.

The “Relation to other ideologies” section doesn’t really work. It is far too brief and lacks sufficient context. To repeat, I would discuss the various critiques as part of the discussion of specific ideas, and make this section instead an overview of “Contemporary schools of thought.” Since this is a capstone article, it should touch on at least most of the related articles and then link to them. The obvious candidates are Anarcho-liberalism · Conservative liberalism · Democratic liberalism · Green liberalism · Libertarianism · Market liberalism · National liberalism · Social liberalism. Or perhaps separate the intellectual schools of thought from the political movements. Again, for clarity.

For the same reason, some mention should be made (with brief discussion) of most of the Major Figures with links. These include. John Locke · Adam Smith · Thomas Jefferson · Thomas Paine · David Hume · Baron de Montesquieu · Immanuel Kant · Jeremy Bentham · Thomas Malthus · David Ricardo · John Stuart Mill · Thomas Hill Green · Alfred Marshall · John Maynard Keynes · Friedrich von Hayek · Milton Friedman · Isaiah Berlin · John Rawls · Robert Nozick. Some of these are here already. This is just my A-list.

I won’t comment on the Worldwide section right now. I am sure this is plenty for now. It know it is a lot. I hope it is helpful.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll get cracking on them soon, but because, as you said, this is a lot of material to fix, I also fully encourage you to make some of these changes yourself, especially some of the big decisions on categorization and philosophical analysis. I just think you would do a fundamentally better job there, so I'm open to your contributions. I understand most of your criticisms, but there are a few points on which I'm somewhat unclear, and I don't want to let my confusion get in the way of the article's clarity. I'll bring these up in the next few days as I make these changes. Thank you again.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]