![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Certainly, your new rewrite is better than your previous rewrite. I'm not sure that it is an over all improvement, but I'm will to work with you rather than start a reversion war.
I do not mind your movement of the history section. Your rewrite of the introductory section has a lot of repetition between paragraph one and paragraph two. I'm going to try to combine the two into one paragraph, so that the table of contents is visible, on an average full page screen, from the top of the page. We'll take it from there. Rick Norwood 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to combine the first two (sorry about "to" for "two" in the description of the change) paragraphs. I think it would help if you said what it is you want to achieve by your changes. I have moved economic conservatism ahead of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the opening section is very good. I like that it points out that there are several types of consevatives. My one issue is with the evangelical protestant part. There are a lot of Catholics that consider themselves conservative. I don't have any numbers, but I'd guess that a majority of regular-mass-attending-Catholics would tell you that they are conservative, rather than liberal - it's the abortion/euthanasia issue.-- Kevin 03:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a conservative Catholic and yes, true Catholics are conservative. Liberalism is actually a condemned heresy of the Church. (albeit the definition has changed a bit in recent times, but the foundation of liberalism is still the same (ie relativism)).
Talk:American Conservatism/removed
I cut two large paras, maybe more, about Burke and conservative history (non-American). They are already detailed in the main article about Conservatism and are slightly relevant, in that this article needs to have definitions of terms like "social conservative," but it was mostly off-topic - please let me know if I've overdone it. I pointedly left one large para that specifically talked about the application of these ideas in the US because it was actually about American conservatism. Kaisershatner 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I restructured the remaining paras into the following general outline
I think it might make sense to have a shortened Definition section to precede the History section, but Rick Norwood is right, things are going fast, so I'll sit back for a bit and await collaborative input. Thanks for your patience with me. Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so which needs to change, the Conservatism template or the Liberalism template? I have here what the Conservatism template would look like in the (cleaned-up) liberalism style. I haven't done the reverse yet. What do you guys think? Or should we scrap both and start over? - ElAmericano | talk 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Your quote above is from a comment I made some time ago. I'm pleased that it is remembered. However, here we are talking about American Conservatism and American Liberalism, and while they are not opposites, exactly, any more than the Sharks and the Jets are opposites, they are opposed. Certainly if the Liberal template is changed to reflect the Conservative template, I won't be the one to object. Rick Norwood 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Section 2.5 seems to repeat much what has gone before in section 2. I think it can be either cut, or else combined with the earlier sections which discuss the same subject. Comments? Rick Norwood 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The descriptions of these two branches, under separate headers, are almost identical. If they are synonyms for the same branch of conservatism, they should be merged, or a better attempt to explicate their differences should be included. I also find it highly dubious that a branch of conservatism which is described in their section as seeking to expand federal power can lay particular claim that tey regard originalism as important above all else, when so much of their Federal program would likely be struck down under any genuinely originalist jurisprudence. Simon Dodd 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Rick, first let me say that I think we're doing pretty well at keeping this article neutral, and I appreciate the general tone of your edits has been markedly different (in my opinion) than the earlier variety, which I had thought were rather strongly condemning of Conservatism in general. So, thanks. About the "originalism" section, however, the wording (NB the conservative support for originalism is decidedly fairweather, as... (I'm paraphrasing)) - to me is pretty strongly non-objective language. I understand it's your view, but it's not the only view - some conservatives have always been originalists, others may be opportunistic, etc., but I think it's a mistake to write in a conclusion that all Originalist support from Conservatives is essentially non-ideological and opportunistic. Accordingly, I toned down the language (and made the issue a subsection, as a side note). Respectfully, Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I accidently clicked on minor edit when I saved, I realize it wasn't minor, by bad. -- Jbamb 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the turning to the federal government thing is so justified. In the case of NCLB, the federal government is already in the business of education funding and standards setting. In the case of gay marriage, if one state recognized, all 50 have to (full faith and credit clause), and searches on the basis of national security are for national security. I think this playing out in the federal system is not necessarily by the nature of social conservatives but the subsuming of issues to the federal level. Before Roe, abortion was a state issue and there were no calls to make it a federal issue. Educational standards and school choice wouldn't be federal issues if it weren't for federal courts getting involved. I thikn the turning to the federal government is more a result of the feeling that it is the federal government and/or the federal courts that aren't letting the localities do their own thing, not because they favor expansionist government by design. -- Jbamb 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, he writes in an email to me, "Perhaps something like this would be better: Proponents of economic liberalism conservatism attribute the unparalleled economic boom of the early 1980s to the late 1990s to these policies, although this is a disputed claim. Paul Volcker's monetary policy of disinflation, begun in 1978, culiminated in 1983 when Volcker and the Fed released the monetary supply and inspired huge GDP growth that year. Also, GDP growth in the 1980s as a whole was only average by historical standards, and within the expectations of the normal business cycle. Furthermore, the claims of the efficacy of supply-side tax cuts should also be taken within the context of massive budget deficits accrued during that time, and the fact that taxes were in fact raised six times. Or something like that."
So what do you think? He gave me permission to bring it here, but was a little concerned it wouldn't get discussed. So...??? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, forgive my boring offering. Despite its snarkiness, my original post was just intended to provide a little balance and context to what I thought was a speculative and partisan attribution. I tried to soften it a little bit, per Voldemort's request. Quigonpaj 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I find the following confusing, and I am tempted to revert it, but I would like to give the author a chance to explain.
"The Loyalists of the American Revolution were political conservatives, but they left. The mainstream of American conservatism in the U.S. thus traces to the Founding Fathers, of whom the most important for conservatism were the Federalist followers of Alexander Hamilton. They spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the main cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories. On many issues American conservatism also derives from the Republicans who followed Thomas Jefferson, and especially John Randolph of Roanoke and his "Old Republican" followers. They idealized the yeoman farmer, and stressed states' rights and small government. In the 1830-54 period the Whig party counted most of the conservatives, such as Daniel Webster, though John C. Calhoun made significant contributins to the theory of minority rights. The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton."
1) Many loyalists remained in the US. 2) Here, it seems conservatives favor business and industry. 3) But in the next sentence we have conservatives idealizing the yeoman farmer. Did the meaning of the word change? If so, why and how? 4) The last sentence is unclear. Is the author claiming that Jefferson and Lincoln were conservatives? 5) The author should also fix the errors in spelling and grammar.
Rick Norwood 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is moving on without my concerns mentioned above being addressed, so I've restored the earlier version. It needs a rewrite, but a better one. Rick Norwood 14:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you need to make this clear. The paragraph as it stood contained false implications (that all loyalist left -- I would want to see data to believe that even a majority left) and statements that, without further explanation, seem contradictory. I agree that a rewrite is needed, and I hope you can supply one that is clear and contains references. Rick Norwood 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's looking much better. I've done a light edit.
I still have a problem with the last sentence. "The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton." Aside from the problem with agreement of subject and verb, it is not clear if you are saying that Lincoln himself was a conservative or that the Republican party in Lincoln's day was conservative. Either way, this seems doubtful. Certainly Lincoln did not support states rights! Nor did he support the upper class, most of whom looked on him with contempt. Unless you can provide a reference for this (other than the fact that both parties claim Lincoln in their political rhetoric) I think this sentence will have to go. Rick Norwood 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The most recent rewrite still seems confused, and more interested in claiming that conservatives are really good liberals -- opposed to slavery, in favor of the environment, never opposed immigration -- instead of presenting the history of American conservatism in any coherent and intellectually honest way.
As the article states, modern American conservatism is a loose coalition of diverse groups who have banded together to achieve what none of them could achieve separately. Thus some conservatives are willing to give up states' rights if it allows Christian values to be the law of the land, while others are willing to give up a balanced budget as long as they get a tax cut.
There really is an American conservative movement, based on preserving the class structure, the rights of property, free enterprise, opposition to immigration, limited federal government, states' rights, protestant Christianity, the traditional family, and a strong military; opposed to welfare, taxation, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, sex education, labor unions, women's rights, and the United Nations. Rick Norwood 18:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There's an American Communist Party too--but as homogenous entities influencing broad swaths of followers, neither is relevant in 2006. We live in a "pick your poison" age--it is THE hallmark of the age--and conservatives are not required to support "preserving...opposed..." in all those categories to obtain their "membership" in the "movement" today. Class structure, racialism (you left this one out, didn't you?), and opposition to immigration are particularly obnoxious concepts to many conservatives...what it was sixty years ago I cannot say with authority because I was not alive then. App. "coherent and intellectually honest" will never be achieved in your view until the views of yesterday are tied irreovcoably to the views today--but that ain't gonna happen. Tar the people of the past, but don't tar me with that brush.--Buckboard 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of false statements in this article. I've removed one, a statement that Reagan (like Thatcher) decreased the size of the federal government. In the last year of Carter's presidency, the US federal government spent 590 billion. In the first year of Reagan's presidency, 678 billion. In the last year of Reagan's presidency, 908 billion. (Amounts in constant 2004 dollars.) Source, The World Almanac. Rick Norwood 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree the statement needs to go--the same as I'd be opposed to lowered budget increases being termed "budget cuts". Keep political debating language--and claims--on the talk pages and out of the articles.--Buckboard 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The size of the government ought to be measured relative to the size of the economy. A nation like American can have a tiny federal government that seems enormous in terms of budget simply because of the size of our economy. The same with deficits, debts, and other absolute numbers. A $100 billion deficit means nothing. Are we talking about a $100 billion in an economy worth $200 billion, or six trillion? Huge difference. Same with size of federal budget. Also, how does the size of American government compare to other industrialized nations? Bjsiders 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your edit makes the apparent contradictions of the previous version much clearer. Rick Norwood 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
For control of Congress by the Conservative Coalition, I gave the dates 1937-49 and 1951-61 based on control of the House Rules Committee, the most important leadership body at that time. (The Coalition retained control of the House Appropriations Committee until 1963.) The current version of the article gives 1964 as the end date, persumably because that is when the civil rights filibuster was broken in the Senate. But filibusters are always the tool of the minority, not the faction in control.
That the Coalition was out of power in 1949-50 might seem like a detail, but I think it helps explain why Trilling had such a negative view of conservatism in 1950, as cited later in the article.
With the restored text, we're back to problem I mentioned earlier. To trace the "mainstream" of conservatism from the Federalists through the Whigs and to the Republicans implies that these parties were more conservative than the 19th century Democrats, which is simply not the case. Kauffner 10:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner
Several Fair Deal proposals were passed: the minimum wage was raised and bills were enacted on slum clearance and old age pensions. Certainly no major conservative bills were enacted.
I noticed that later in the article it says that the 1964 election ended the control of the Conservative Coalition. If that's what you believe, then the end date for CC control should be 1965, since that's when the Congress elected in 1964 first met. Of course, that would make the 1964 Civil Rights Act the product of a CC congress. Kauffner 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner
Rick Norwood 15:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The article needs a par or two on race and civil rights -- anyone want to volunteer? I added a full bibliography. Rjensen 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
We have had more than 40 edits already today by just two people. Leaving aside the question of the quality of the edits -- and I find some good, some bad -- this is too much change too fast. One solution would be to revert the whole thing back to where it was at midnight yesterday -- in fact, I think that might be best. But I would rather see some kind of consensus reached. Rick Norwood 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't any of you see the irony in a conservativism article being subject to rapid change? -- Rpresser 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (a liberal)
"The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as republicanism, that all groups have drawn from."
-Nice try. I don't think so.
Really? No other set of ideas is as important in American history as republicanism. And the Founding Fathers created republicanism -- they didn't borrow it from the Ancient Romans? And all groups have drawn from republicanism? All? The group who staged Woodstock? The American Communist Party? All?
Rick Norwood 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "created" is the issue here. Sarcasm aside, I agree with the criticism.--Buckboard 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1)Question: Do you want to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence? Answer: That's a hard choice, let me think a minute.
Republicanism is a form of government, not a value system. It seems to be a pretty good form of government, but, as philosophers from Aristotle on have observed, it falls apart as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves free money. It is now in the process of falling apart, and it will be interesting to see what form of government replaces it. I favor Colosus, the Forbin Project. Rick Norwood 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The introduction contains this entry in the list of American Conservative ideologies:
My problem with this statement is that I believe it misrepresents what conservative jurists stand for and what they oppose. No reasonable person believes in not "applying [the Constitution] to situations which the original framers of the law did not anticipate." Certainly an originalist must apply the true meaning of the constitution to circumstances that the founders did not anticipate. In A Mater of Interpretation Justice Scalia defends this idea, which he calls "import originalism," as the only legitimate originalism.
The phrase "do not violate the letter of the constitution" also troubles me as it seems to imply that such laws do violate the spirit of the constitution as it was originally intended. Again I turn to an example given by Scalia, not because his opinions are unique but because I have the book on my lap: Scalia refutes the idea of "strict constructionism" as following the letter of the words on the page with the example of a hand-written note. The note is not literally speech, nor is it press (published words), but it is clearly within the perview of the constitutional rule as it was originally intended, as evidenced by the textual and historical tradition of understanding of the phrase.
In this context "judicial activism" (are the scare quotes really needed?) is seen as the redefining of constitutional powers through both the New Deal court's refusal to hold certain economic laws to original constitutional limits, as well as later courts' decisions to overturn laws without a convincing connection between the original intentions of the framers and the decision reached by the court.
A possible solution would be to replace the current bullet point with two. Perhaps something like this:
A distinction such as this would seem to avoid innaccuracy and would also reflect the information in the section below. -- Isra1337 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Phocion, the paragraph has been supported with references. I can supply many more if needed. If you don't like the wording, why not fix it. I like your rewrite of the introduction, (except for excessive use of and/or). Rick Norwood 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that "heterogeneous" is the correct spelling. Rick Norwood 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
ER MD 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand some of your complaints.
Are you saying that this phrase is a NPOV violation? If so, on what grounds? I don't see any POV violation in that statement.
So? This isn't an article about liberals. Liberals and conservatives can support the same policies, why is this a POV violation if they do?
How would you phrase this? These statements also seem like pretty factual and accurate descriptions of what conservatives claim as their worldview and policies. Where is the POV? Bjsiders 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
1) there is not a parallel section in american liberalism 2) this is a distortion of positions. example "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious and sexual views". "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power" huh? what unrestriced governmental power? who are the vicitms? ER MD 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted before reading here. I'd suggest clarifying these criticisms, or removing the ones that don't make sense, and adding a section to the liberalism article. I don't think the fact that liberalism is missing a section like this is grounds for its removal here. Bjsiders 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Since we're already qualifying the bulleted list with "Opponents of conservatism accuse conservatives of", let's be clear about exactly what those accusations are, since we are making a statement about what a certain group is saying rather than fact. Stephen Compall 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good, but no list of criticism of conservatism is complete without the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" somewhere. Bjsiders 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how quoting one letter is evidence of a uniquitous belief. Bjsiders 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what ubiquitous means, it was a typo. The B is right next to the N on a qwerty keyboard. Your ability to find an example in the Sunday paper lying on your kitchen table is not evidence of a widely-held belief. That's like saying, "Everybody in my neighborhood owns a Honda," opening ONE garage door and finding one, and saying, "See? Told ya." The CATO institute is not conservative, it's libertarian. That particular link is also undated, but it reference to a recent State of the Union speech given by President Clinton about upcoming legislation that was passed in 1997, which means this analysis is ten years old and written in response to a policy that long ago became law while the Republicans, ostensibly the conservative party, controlled Congress. I understand the Congressional leadership doesn't necessarily define a movement, but this was in the heydey of the Gingrinch years, the Contract with America years, and the "Republican Revolution" years. If that class of Congress passed minimum wage increases, I'm having some serious trouble accepting your contention that this belief is "ubiquitous" among conservatives. Widespread perhaps, but clearly not enough that the people elected by a bunch of conservatives felt any compulsion to stand up for the conservative stance on it. Bjsiders 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms. I can criticize the President because I disapprove of how he demands California condor eggs for breakfast every day. I don't have to be factually correct for this to be my criticisms, it just means I'm an uninformed critic who doesn't know what he's talking about. We are turning the criticism section into a debate over what conservatives really believe, and that's not the point. The critics can criticize whatever they want. If they are criticizing views that conservatives do not actually hold, then fine. Here's my proposed rewording of this section:
I think this is a pretty comprehensive list of the charges leveled at conservatives. These charges don't have to be accurate to be leveled, and the criticism page is not the place to post a bunch of "responses" that explain why a given charge is incorrect, inaccurate, or baseless. This entire page is a refutation of those charges, and if an intelligent reader can't figure out which of these are legit and which are not, then the page needs more clarity and expansion. In any case, I think the list of criticisms is fair to include as-is, and could even be expanded along the lines of what I've presented here.
Bjsiders
20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about how this standard could be abused, but if we limit it to cited criticisms by legitimate think tanks and/or political groups, of which People for the American Way is one, it ought to be workable. The fact that there is no criticism section on American liberalism is irrelevent. Go add one, there's ample material to work with there. If they remove it, then you have grounds to keep removing this one. This is not a blog or anything approaching one, I'm not sure how you make that leap. Bjsiders 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Bjsiders By the way, I agree with you regarding the CATO inferance and your NPOV here is meritable. You wrote, "Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms." True, but as you know (and you've already pointed out) what's published here has to be accurate, and referenced by reputable sources. WP:NOR
ER MD I agree with you 1000% on the bias on Wiki, with regard to political topics. It's human nature. I've complained about the liberalism site being biased before and yes until more people like you speak out against the bias, it'll continue.
I'm OK with the criticisms here, as long as they're cited. Scribner 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
ER MD wrote in support of his most recent blanking:
"conversatives do not support hostility towards religions, do not support police powers that interfere with individual rights, and mostly do not support reduced minimum wage"
If you will read what the criticism says, it does not say that conservatives support hostility towards religions, it says that some people have said that some conservatives are hostile toward non-mainstream religious and social beliefs, such as atheism (G. H. W. Bush says atheists cannot be real Americans) and Wikans (not to be confused with Wikians). As for support of police powers that interfere with individual rights, read conservative web sites about how courts "coddle" criminals by reading them their Miranda rights and supplying them with a lawyer. As for the opposition to minimum wage, I've already supplied a reference for that.
Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I agree completely that all of these claims must be referenced. It takes time. Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand ER MD's point, we can claim that "some people have said" that conservatives are neoNazi antiChrist demonspawn who eat puppies and punch old women for fun and oil profits. That doesn't mean that criticism is worth including. That's what I call a Couric citation - where you give your own opinion but make it sound like it's somebody else's by by expressing it via the proxy of anonymous critics that may or may not exist. We need to cite whoever claims these things and we need a standard for what qualifies as a legitimate criticism. To start with, I suggest something along the lines of what I wrote in response to ER MD above. Basically, reasoned criticisms published by legitimate think tanks. Who gets to define "legitimate"? That's a tough call. I'd call People for the American Way a legitimate operation, but not MoveOn.org. We're getting into granularity that is impossible to reconcile among the number of editors these articles have. Any more ideas? Bjsiders 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, we've got the two major parties in this disagreement on this page, active, and discussing. Let's stop the blanking/reverting until we hammer something out. Bjsiders 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to pull back, count to 10, take a deep breath, and ask myself this question.
Which criticisms of American conservatism are philosophical rather than personal, important rather than trivial, and long lasting rather than ephemeral. This is what I have come up with.
These seven are the most important criticisms of conservatism that come to mind. The last is a problem. In the other six cases, conservatives are supporting past beliefs against new ideas and their critics are supporting new ideas that may overturn cherished beliefs. But even though support for the war in Iraq comes mainly from conservatives, it is hard to understand how that fits in with any conservative philosophy.
If this seems like a reasonable list, then the next step is to find references that, a) these are in fact beliefs held by large numbers of self-identified conservatives and b) that the criticism comes from reasonable people, not from a lunatic fringe. That means at least two footnotes for each criticism. No rest of the wicked. Rick Norwood 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Can someone please explain why "criticism" is spelled with an "s" but "criticize" is spelled with a "z"?
I always appreciate your input, Lord V. 1. Sadly, American conservatives are not content to censor television, some also support banning books from school libraries, including one you may have heard of about a character named Harry something. While I tend to dislike censorship, I'm not saying that the conservatives don't have a point, I'm only saying they are criticized for it. Yes? No? 2. We agree on a definite maybe. 3. Sorry, but this is a big issue with conservatives in the South. I've mentioned before, I think, the bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature to fire any professor who taught evolution as fact. It didn't pass, thank God (or whoever). These may be strange bedfellows for more intellectual conservatives, but they are very outspoken. Also we have big oil fighting the science of global warming. "Some call it polution. We call it life." And President Bush is an outspoken critic of "global warming" and an advocate of the teaching of "creationism". I don't think there will be any problem in finding references for these beliefs within conservatism. 4. We agree. 5. Help me with better wording, please. 6. Again, this is another issue where Southern (and Midwestern) conservatives would probably not be joined by more intellectual conservatives. It is important that whatever form the final draft takes, it makes clear that these are "some" criticisms of "some" conservatives. 7. I think this one should probably be dropped as too topical and too controversial within conservatism.
Thanks. Rick Norwood 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll throw my take in here. 1. People who believe in the importance of art criticize conservative calls for censorship. I'd like to see some evidence that conservatives have been calling for censorship. I've seen conservatives call for decency limits on what we broadcoast over public TV, or what kind of popular entertainment we permit minors to buy without parental supervision, but aside from a few individuals I've seen very few conservatives make a stink over passing legislation that prevents people from having access to art that they find distasteful. Conservatives generally don't like that pornography exists but I haven't observed a large segment calling for it to be banned. Only that such things are consumed in settings where they harm nobody else. 2. People who believe that freedom of religion includes the freedom not to have a religion criticize conservative calls for the introduction of religion into courts and the public schools. Again, I'd like to see some citation of conservative efforts to put religion in the courts and public schools. A statue explaining the ten commandments in the context of the history of lawmaking is not a religious symbol any more than Hammurabi's code of laws would be. I haven't heard of any efforts to put religion in public schools, unless you mean creationism, in which case this bleeds over into #3. 3. People who believe that science offers good answers to important questions criticize conservative attacks on evolution, global warming, carbon dating, and other scientific theories. I agree with you on the evolution front, but I question that mainstream conservatives want evolution REMOVED entirely. Most of the conservative think tanks that question global warming challenge the science behind it. I've never heard of conservatives challenging carbon dating. 4. People who believe that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem criticize conservative efforts to reduce capital gains and inheritance taxes. They claim that conservative politicians always favor the rich. This is a legitimate criticism. Conservative fiscal policy does indeed tend to benefit the very wealthy, usually by design. 5. People who believe that the rights of women are more important than the rights of the unborn criticize conservative attacks on birth control and abortion. Again, a legitimate criticism. 6. People who believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against criticize conservative efforts to pass a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I challenge that conservatives call for discrimination against homosexuals. Traditionalists will maintain that marriage is, by definition, man-woman, and so, by definition, gays cannot "marry" because such a union is not a marriage. In any case, I think the gay marriage issue is a legitimate criticism as well. 7. People who oppose the war in Iraq. War is not a conservative value, although a strong defense program is. I think people oppose Iraq because it's a huge friggen mess, regardless of whether it's conservatives who are running it. Bjsiders 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"*Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions." --True there may be a group that wants to have public schools teach creationism and perevent teaching of evolution, but I think that is a fringe groups. The current legal system is loosely based on all previous religous codes. In fact there is little difference between cristianity, judaism, and islam about some of the main tennets. I think that the more accurate reflection is that of religious conservatives who oppose issues such as the removal of the ten commandments from a couthouse, or eliminating time used in school for prayer. ER MD 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Some minor corrections, I don't disagree with your overall point, but your backup facts have the feel of oft-used and well-rehearsed examples, and they're a little flawed in spots: [they] say it is "only a theory" and ... pass over it lightly Well ... it IS only a theory, how else should it be described? And how much attention should we be spending on one theory in one area of biology in grade school? There's a lot of biology that can be taught without understanding evolution in the least.
A jury recently used a Bible to decide a court case. One of the most famous cases you study in law school involves the implied warranty of merchantability, and the case was ultimately decided by the judges reading through a bunch of cookbooks and recipes for New England fish chowder. Depending on the facts and statutes involved in a case, you'd be amazed and the kind of texts that can be referenced. Referencing a Bible could be completely appropriate for a given case.
What message to do you think the display of the Ten Commandments in court is designed to send? The Ten Commandments are chiseled into the walls of the Supreme Court and have been there for quite some time. Bjsiders 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Current version: Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions.
ER MD version: Religious conservatives who oppose the exlusion of religious concepts from public life.
Discussion: The ER MD version is a distortion. There is not, and never has been, any attempt to exclude religion from public life in the United States. At least four states have laws that any office holder must believe in God. No non-Christian has been president since Thomas Jefferson. Every meeting of the Senate and the House opens with a prayer. Christianity is ubiquitous in America, and probably always will be. On the other hand, our courts and our public schools are supposed to avoid supporting religion. This is written into the Constitution of the United States. To describe keeping religion out of the courts and public schools as "exclusion of religious concepts from public life" is a gross exageration.
Criticism section
Current version: Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Opponents of conservatism [2] accuse conservatives of
ER MD version: Criticism of American conservatism is often directed at positions taken by the conservative party or the Republicans, which may not actually be consertaive in nature. As an example, entitlement spending accelerated at the fastest rate under George W. Bush. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, deficit spending to expand entitlements is criticized by both liberals and conservatives alike.
Discussion: the current version is careful to point out that criticism of American conservatism should not be confused with criticism of any particular politician. ER MD tries to deflect criticism of American conservatism by using Bush as a scapegoat.
Several people of good will, some liberal and some conservative, are working to make this section more NPOV and better referenced. ER MD's constant blanking is not a constructive approach. Rick Norwood 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to disagree, Lord V, but the Supreme Court has upheld existing monuments containing the Ten Commandments on historical grounds. The cause celebre in recent years was a judge who bought and paid for a huge new monument listing the Ten Commandments and plunked it down on public property. Conservatives objected when it was removed. As for prayer in public schools, I can only speak from my own experience. When I was in public school, there was never public prayer. So, in my experience at least, attempts to convert my children to Christianity are something new. My daughter, for example, converted to Islam in High School. (I am not a Moslem.) The persecution she suffered was so great that she nearly dropped out of school. (I had to promise to buy her a car as a graduation present to get her to endure the constant taunting.) She wasn't injured, but she did have wastebaskets emptied over her head. So, the introduction of relgion into the public schools is to me both new and negative. Rick Norwood 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" are both far-reaching terms and it's extremely difficult to generalize. For example, I know there are many conservatives, e.g. Pat Robertson and friends, who are highly critical of separation of church and state and actively support prayer for public schools, and I can also point out at least one group and a pundit or two (Bush spoke here) who actively lobby on behalf of creationism instead of evolution. There are extremists on every issue. Just thought I'd point that out. Moulder 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Although the meaning of conservative and liberal are different in the US from elsewhere, the fact that American liberalism and conservatism are not entirely separate from their counterparts elsewhere would mean that, per general naming conventions (e.g. Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, not Chinese prostitution, although that's a case where "Chinese" is an ambiguous term in addition to sounding crude), this would be called Conservatism in the United States. I suppose the current name is valid, but it seems to set the US completely apart from the norm - and before you make a crack about how far, say, Anne Coulter is from conservatism in, say, anywhere on Earth, I want to add this: You forgot Poland. :) Moulder 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please look through the long history of the article. It has gone through about a dozen name changes just in the past year. It was Conservatism in the United States for a long time, and personally I prefer that name, but most of the people who changed the name did not bother to change any of the links, which now link all over the place, and so I would rather keep the name it has now, rather than make an attempt to improve on that. The attempt would fail unless someone is willing to do the huge job of 1) getting all interested parties to agree to the change and 2) fixing all the links to avoid redirects. It's a big job. Rick Norwood 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple things to consider if you want to go ahead with the name change. First, if the person who changed the article here doesn't like your change, he is apt to change it right back. Second, wiki policy really does require the person who makes a name change to fix all redirects right away. Third, the parent article Conservatism has a list of article on the subject. That list would need to be changed. Fourth, American Liberalism, which used to be Liberalism in the United States, should be changed so that parallel articles have parallel names, and all the redirects and lists containing that article have to be fixed. As I say, it's a big job. Don't undertake it lightly. Rick Norwood 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, American conservatives include the people who bomb abortion clinics and people who support the flat tax. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to think about this hard first. I think the main question comes down to whether or not there is a difference between the conservatism that takes place in the U.S. and other types of conservatism. If American conservatism is its own vein, it should stay here (see the naming conventions discussion... American X is preferred over X in the United States). If it is the same, then the move would make sense. SO is it the same? -- You Know Who (Dark Mark) 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the question of whether American conservatives are really different, do you know any other country where conservatives bomb abortion clinics? Rick Norwood 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're never going to let me live down that bumper sticker reference are you. Fair enough. No, I would never mention the abortion clinic bomber in the article. I know the difference between the mainstream and the lunitic fringe. I mentioned him as an example of something that, as far as I can tell, just doesn't happen in other countries. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that one main difference between American conservatism and conservatism in other nations is the way that American conservative politicians use religion to win votes, and try to pass laws to enforce religious beliefs -- laws against the teaching of evolution being one example. I think, in other countries, conservative politics has much more to do with economics than with religion. Not so in the US, alas. Rick Norwood 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't saying that "America" was a better name than "United States", only that there is no pleasing everybody. Rick Norwood 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If a critcism section is to stay, then attack words should be avoided and an NPOV basis explained prior to the "example". Examples:
Phrases like "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious " don't belong.
Conservatives do not oppose welfare per se, then oppose benefit expansion and perpetual welfare. Conservatives in fact support workfare. So the exclusion of positions is POV. Conservatives do not support police powers that interfer with individual rights for the mere fact of having police powers. The criticism is really the governmental programs to prevent terrorism that is viewed by some as excessive. But phrasing it as "favor of police powers" is POV since it leaves out pertinent information.
Finally there is no section in american liberalism. Establish a parallel section that is NPOV there first and then lets decide if a section is warranted here. In my opinion, this section is merely a soapbox. ER MD 08:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wiki policy is that "all points of view be represented." If you want to write a "criticism of liberalism" section, and it is well referenced, I will support it. Rick Norwood 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Capitalize "America", drop the "etc", add footnotes, and I'll support it. These are criticisms that are, in fact, made of American liberalism. They should be in the article, provided they are attributed to widely read sources. Rick Norwood 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've finished the work I wanted to do at this time on the Criticism section. I added a reference to Black conservatives who oppose affirmative to establish the fact that many conservatives do oppose affirmative action. Also, I separated the issues of religion and sexuality. I am going to let someone else add a footnote to the section on the rights of people accused of crimes if they want that documented. Rick Norwood 21:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Liberal critics respect the beliefs of others..." is a bad way to put this. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's not provable. The better sentence would read simply "Liberal critics object to particular religious beliefs...." Basically, this section is about criticism, not about the critics. If we want an article on Liberal critics of conservatism, we can make one, but it doesn't belong here. Arathon 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki's got a "Talk Radio" article here ,and it has it's own political radio section, nearly verbatim to one posted here. I'll remove the one here and if someone wants it referenced a link will work. Scribner 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith has been shown in this compromise. I dispute the claim that this section be added to this article because of POV/NOR. This article is duplicated. here and does not merit repeating, other than a link. Scribner 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You have requested a citation for the section on Bush and originalism. I think you and I agree on this one, it is too minor and topical for the article. Certainly, if nobody supplies the requested citation with 24 hours, I have no objection if you delete it.
In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This article contains disputed content. Several additions were added after a compromise. One of which to the opening paragraph and at least two to the "Criticisms" section.
This article is under dispute, as is and for similar reasons the Conservatism article. WP:POV and WP:NOR
A show of good faith would be appreciated and changes to the article's status of being placed under dispute are vandalism.
A request that all changes to the article be subject to discussion on the talk page prior to reverting or blanking, and it applies to all. Scribner 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen and I have history, "Ophelia Ford"[ [2]]. I removed your wholesale POV from the article. Wiki voted you admin powers? Now you're adding POV comments to the opening paragraph of the "American Conservatism" article, that is telling.
On to your "request":
You stated: "only specific criticisms are helpful." I refer you to the Talk Page. Did you read it? You are one of the reasons I disputed the article.
OK, per your request,
Today we discussed a "Talk Radio" section being here...after discussion here's my response: "Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)" That was a compromise, "Link preferred" indicates that I think you're wrong, but I showed good faith and compromised.
Now Rick writes: "In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"
Then I write: "Hostility toward nudity..."? Some of the section's POV may be a matter of semantics. I expect criticism in a criticism section, but there again, I only speak for myself. Scribner 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"
Next: In comes Rjensen with this POV edit to the opening paragraph: "Numerous different and somewhat contradictory mindsets and full-fledged ideologies are included under the blanket heading..."
In the opening paragraph, no less.
The other edits were to the criticism page, read it for yourself, and Rjensen, your edit to the opening paragraph is not only not factual but is also POV. Take it to a blog, pal. Scribner 03:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Hostility towards unannounced nudity in a somewhat sexual context on public television broadcasts during the most watched event in the entire world each year" is very different from "hostility towards nudity." Failure to make that distinction is inexcusable. You don't think Justin Timberlake grabbing Jackson's breast and ripping the clothes off of it during a flirtatious dance number does "not involve sexuality?" I think about 90% of viewers would disagree. John Ashcroft's covering of the breasts on the statues of Lady Justice would make for a far better example of "hostility towards nudity" in any case. Who in the hell sees that statue in a sexualized context? Bjsiders 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I was not joking. If you want an example of conservatives being "hostile towards nudity", Ashcroft is a much better example. Janet Jackson was hostility towards nudity, it was hostility towards ianppropriate nudity, a position that most sensible people can understand, regardless of their political beliefs. To bolster one's view that conservatives are hostile towards nudity in general, you need an example of appropriate nudity that was opposed by a conservative leader. Ashcroft is one such example. Bjsiders 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I stand corrected. I checked his article and found this: "In January 2002, the partially nude female statue of the Spirit of Justice, which stands in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, where Ashcroft held press conferences, was covered with blue curtains, along with its male counterpart, the Majesty of Law. It was speculated this change was made because Ashcroft felt that reporters were photographing him with the female statue in the background to make fun of his church's opposition to pornography. A Justice Department spokeswoman said that Ashcroft knew nothing of the decision to spend $8,000 for the curtains; a spokesman said the decision for permanent curtains was intended to save on the $2,000 per use rental costs of temporary curtains used for formal events." Apparantly there's no proof that this is true, so I withdraw the accusation. I picked up the story from the news, I guess that's what I get for believing everything I see on TV. Bjsiders 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
To whomever continues to blank out the criticism section, will you please refrain and join the discussion? I feel that it's inappropriate to just blank out sections without any explanation, especially when the editors in the discussion page appear to be interested in hammering out what should and should not be there and how it should be phrased. Please leave the section so that we have some source material to work with as we debate and discussion. I am going to revert your blanking once more, and ask that you please talk here instead of just blanking it out. Thank you! Bjsiders 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC):
Please note that we're looking for legitimate criticism of conservative, not just any one of a million opinions. That means the criticism has to address something conservatives can be shown to believe, and there must be some kind of evidence for this belief. For example, "conservative fiscal policy tends to favor the rich more than the poor. Proof: tax cuts benefit the wealthy by 90% blah blah." This is a legitimate criticism. There's a counterargument, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a reasoned and sourced criticism. You will eventually get banned if you continue to revert, there is a policy against such behavior. You are making no effort whatsoever to work with the rest of the editors. Bjsiders 15:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been over most of these points with you before and you've ignored my response and simply continue to restate the above. Please see my previous comments. Bjsiders 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
All Wikipedia editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The editors on this page need to review policies and guidelines about article content including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Please review the policies and guidelines about WP:CONSENSUS editing and resolving disputes. Blanking content and repeatedly reverting edits are considered disruptive editor behavoir. Editors that engage in this behavior will be blocked from editing so that other editors can engage in consensus editing. If you want to participate in the writing of this article, you need to stop being disruptive. FloNight talk 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
All these sources have a few pages on the conservative dominance of talk radio (but they should not go into the bibliography).
Your words, " The issue was: what evidence is there that talk radio is dominated by conservatives."
Wrong. A request for cite is policy for ambiguous claims. You have admin access. You should know that.
Cite this or don't remove my tag: "Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the advent of talk radio in the 1990s." Thanks. Scribner 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"Semantics of Conservatism"
This entire section of American Conservatism is committed to author, "Geoffrey Nunberg".
Here's what a search of Amazon.com reveals:
Customers who bought this item also bought:
Going Nucular[sic]: Language, Politics, and Culture in Controversial Times by Geoffrey Nunberg F.U.B.A.R. : America's Right-Wing Nightmare by Sam Seder The Way We Talk Now by Geoffrey Nunberg American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Phillips State of War : The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration by James Risen
--Geoffrey Numberg belongs in the critisism section, if at all. Wholesale bias and POV drivel.
Here's the title of the one book the entire section is dedicated to:
"Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show"
WP:POV Scribner 05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The new section on Semantics, Language and Media begins: "The use of language has been a tool used by conservatives (as well as liberals of course) to shape ..." This seems awkward to me, especially the "use ... used" construction. Everybody uses language, so why single out liberals and conservatives. Also, the incorporation of the Talk Radio section seems awkward. I think the section would be better if it were shorter and more to the point. Rick Norwood 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, there has been no consensus on the inclusion of a criticism section content. Write here prior to inclusion. ER MD 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Critics of conservatism [1] accuse conservatives of:
First of all, this section is confusing conservative ideology with republican policy. Libertarians are in fact part of a conservative ideolgy yet do you hold many of these beliefs. Futrhermore,
As an example, the first george bush raised taxes! Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, even though he opposed it on principle, because it was at the time the right thing to do. The criticism section says that conservative fiscal policies disproportionately favor the rich because they have a disproportionate amount of wealth. So writing that they support tax cuts is not necessarily true. Find me just one instance of a conservative concensus that a proposed tax cut is a bad idea. Just one.
What is more accurate is the belief in supply-side economics (monetarianism) as deficit spending to stimulate the economy versus the traditional way in which liberals perceive stimulation of the economy which is Keynesian, or the federal government increasing spending. Lowering taxes is an absolutely critical part of supply-side economic theory in most circumstances.
In addition, with 95% of all federal tax revenue generated by the top 50% of the population, anybody could make the claim that any tax cut benefits the rich, when in fact it benefits all taxpayers. I agree with you completely on this, I'm a supply-sider myself, I consider Keynes to have thoroughly debunked by credible economists. But this criticism persists, for whatever reason you want to cite (class envy, political opportunism, whatever), and it is one of the most commonly and frequently lobbed attacks at conservatism, it deserves mention.
Hence, the "favor the rich" or even upper class is not an accurate description. It's a fair and accurate description of the criticism, even if the criticism itself is FUD and obfuscation. It's not a POV problem to quote this criticism, that IS what the criticism is, it's a common charge, it's been discussed and debated ad nauseum, and it ought to be mentioned here. The criticism is NOT that conservatives favor limited government and the lowest possible tax rate. That's what conservatives believe. This section is about criticism of conservatism.
What is the majority view of conservatives on the social issues that you removed? You appear to be the resident expert on it.
Bjsiders 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, familiarize yourself with the current debate regarding this section before reverting. Your good faith is suspect. Please talk before reverting or adding content to the section. Thanks. Scribner 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What is left of the "criticism" section does not contain any criticism, only support for a certain kind of conservative view. I am not sure why so many people have trouble understanding the difference between "some" and "all". Criticism of some forms of conservatism is not the same as criticism of all forms of conservatism. I understand that some of the people who contribute to this article are passionate libertarians, but if you compare the votes won by Ralph Nader with the votes won by George Bush, you can see that small government conservatism has very little influence compared with the "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" kind of conservatism. To reason that Bush is not a conservative because he is not a libertarian is to deny the reality that American conservatism takes a variety of forms. Rick Norwood 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words
"Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources."
I hope this is clear. Rick Norwood 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Conservative advocates had replaced all of the criticisms of conservatism with praise of conservatism. Since the section is titled "Criticism of conservatism", I think praise of conservatism should go somewhere else and criticism of conservatism should go here.
Please keep in mind that for Wikipedia to say that some people criticise some forms of conservatism is not the same as agreeing with that criticism. "All points of view should be represented." Rick Norwood 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The philosophy of conservatism includes supply-side economies, and a key tenant of supply-side economics is that money ought to be freed from the wasteful spending of government to have the greatest impact on the economy. It is fair criticism of the philosophy to say that this PHILOSOPHY favors the wealthy disproportionately as they have the most to gain. This criticism may OVERLOOK that it favors everybody else, too, it overlooks all kinds of stuff and demonstrates gross ignorance of economics, but it is a fair and accurate criticism. Bjsiders 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to make an effort to include the "philosophical" criticism that you favor, as well as the ACTUAL criticism that critics often repeat. I'll post again here explaining it when I'm done, I hope it satisfies a majority of editors. Bjsiders 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I put together a list of criticisms of conservatism. It's about as softball as I can make it while still including the things that - and this is key - critics of conservatism actually criticize it for. You cannot completely divorce philosophy from policy. Conservatives believe in supply-side economics. Well, supply-side economics is ultimately a collection of monetary and fiscal policies. There's no way to describe it without talking about policy on at least a cursory level. How in the world is it not policy to talk about how conservatives were slow to adopt civil rights in 1960? That was legislation. Why is that legislation fair game but the mere concept of lower taxes is out of bounds? I don't know where you get this idea that I run around attacking conservatism. I'm a conservative-libertarian registered Republican. I love The Corner at National Review and I have a print subscription. I read the Wall Street Opinion Journal. I'm about halfway through with Scalia Dissents right now. Get off this conspiracy of people running around trying to rip up conservatism because they're a bunch of liberal jerks trying push a policy. I don't have much in the way of anti-conservative opinions. Bjsiders 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
They're the same criticisms and same references we've had up since the beginning of this, but I've changed the phrasing so that it's clear that this is a criticism of a political philosophy as well as its policy implications. Part of the problem is that ER MD divorces idealogies from policies. I think this is a silly exercise in semantics, but I also think we can make it clear WHY these criticisms apply to philosophy as well as policy. I believe I have done that to the satisfaction of any reasonable observer. Bjsiders 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservatism simply argues that taxes be sufficient to cover the expeditures of of a limited government." This quote by 162 illustrates why we have so much trouble with this section. Again and again people working on this article equate conservatism with libertarianism. But libertarianism is only one small strain of American conservatism. For example, many people who consider themselves conservative favor increased military spending. On the other hand, many conservatives who don't give a fig about big government/small government care passionately about preventing homosexual marriage. And the fact that many conservatives support lax environmental laws is well documented. In fact, the small government conservatives often want all environmental laws repealed, in the name of laize faire capitalism. The reason we have trouble understanding you is that you use the word conservatism to mean what you want it to mean, and not the way it is actually used in public discourse. You seem to only know about one kind of conservatism, and assume that all conservatives are that kind. But what does that say about reading and understanding sources. They have been provided. Rick Norwood 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes! You understand. The problem is defining American conservatism.
American conservatism is inclusive. The small government conservatives are only a part, and are not the part that is criticized in this section.
The criticism section needs to be clear on that point: that these are criticisms of some American conservatives, not of all American conservatives.
The same is true in the Conservatism article. The quotes there criticize ancient Greek and Roman conservatives, they criticize French and English conservatives. They do not criticize small government conservatives. Someone else may want to add quotes critical of small government conservatives, but if I wanted to add quotes about small government conservatives, I would add them to the article on libertarianism, not here. This is about those groups of self-identified conservatives who get by far the most criticism, which are the religious right, the war hawks, and the cut taxes but increase spending conservatives. These people are probably not even conservatives by your definition. On the other hand, if you look at the definition of conservatives, you see it is support for either existing or past status quo, which historically has often taken the form of support for the hereditary aristocracy and the established church. Support for small government used to be a liberal ideal, until the small government liberals split from the other liberals over welfare and joined the conservatives. Rick Norwood 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say above. (I never used the phrase "gay bashing" by the way.) On the other hand, religious conservatism is a major part of American conservatism, and so to talk about American conservatism without mentioning religious conservatism is to ignore what makes American conservatism different from conservatism anywhere else in the world. Rick Norwood 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh! The difference between American conservatism and conservatism everywhere else in the world is the combination of a capitalist free market with a religious conservatism. That may exist somewhere else in the world, but certainly not in Saudi Arabia, where one family owns the entire country. Rick Norwood 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The reverts are getting retarded. The philosophy is not "supply-side" per se. the philosophy is monetary policy. Liberals believe in fiscal policy as a drive to economic stimuli and to a lesser extent monetary policy. In fact, JFK embraced monetary policy but the party did not move with him. The amazing thing are the errors in this article and in the american liberalism article. Read this quote from american liberalism "After decades of the popularity of modern liberalism inspired by the progressive movement and the New Deal, classical liberalism (previously called simply "liberalism") experienced a revival in the U.S. among some thinkers, with Milton Friedman being instrumental in that regard.[1]."
Here is the referenced article quote: "With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman. One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate, on purely logical grounds, that a centrally planned economy is impossible. He also famously argued, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates, rather than by government fiscal policy—contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. Revitalized conservatives achieved power with the lengthy administrations of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Their ideology and policies, which properly belong to the history of conservatism rather than liberalism, became increasingly influential, as illustrated by the official abandonment of socialism by the British Labour Party in 1995 and by the cautiously pragmatic policies of U.S. President Bill Clinton in the 1990s." Once people know what they are writing about I will have better faith inthis process. But the constant edits back to POV by people who do not know what they are talking about is, again, retarded. PLEASE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU START WRITTING. Otherwise, you end up with such glarring errors like the one in american liberalism. ER MD 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion with people who do not know the differences between the two subjects. I will work to try and make these things more evident in the next few weeks. As an example that I already mentioned, somebody incorrectly wrote that american liberalism embraced monetary policy which is not true. Here is a quote from JFK on the subject matter of government and taxes (since I did not support my statement above appropriately):
Its a pretty good quote since it comes from one of the smartest presidents we have even had... Maybe it should be included in the article. The opperative line is "a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent" which is a supply-side argument as opposed to a more traditional liberal philosophy esposed by Keynes. ER MD 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Before reading your latest rewrite, I want to say that I really hope that it is something we can live with. Thanks for rewriting rather than reverting. Rick Norwood 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Economic conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, an income tax, a consumption tax, and "double taxation" such as cpital gains and the inheritance tas."
Is this what you intended? Rick Norwood 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section also looks good, except for some typos which I will fix. But you've omitted the footnotes! I assume this was an oversight, but you need to footnote the economic stuff, which is not my main interest. I'll restore the footnotes to the criticism of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This section has been populated by some amazingly dumb comments. As an example of a criticism, "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power, as in the case of limitations on the rights of those accused of crimes, and support for broader powers for law enforcement agencies." There is no context. It is simply a soapbox.
Here is my opinion on the format for criticism to avoid POV. (and hence, to avoid the need for me to delete it)
1)specific group that the criticism is directed against.
2)the position in the afirmative that the group being criticized holds
3)specific group making the criticism
4)and the position or beliefs of the group making the criticism.
5)optional rebuttal by #1
Example: Religious conservatives (1-the group) often (because not all of them) believe that the family is the central unit of american life and seek to preserve its integrity. Some religious conservative oppose same-sex marriage because of their belief that it is unnatural and threatens the interpretations of marriage as a religous concept (2-their opinion of same-sex marriage). Liberals (3-group making the accusation) criticize the religious conservatives view on same-sex marriage stating that it is disciminatory and violates civil rights. Some liberals state that the movement, as demonstrated by efforts to make a constitutional amendment, tantamount to hatred (4-the groups criticism). Some, but not all, religious conservatives counter that civil unions are middle ground that preserves legal rights for same-sex couples that does not change the meaning of what they view as the religious connotations in the term marriage. (5- counterargument)
My inclusion:
The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, american conservatism supported economic liberalism and limited government, whereas its current application has deviated to an amalgam of limited government and social programs not specifically deliniated in the US constitution (first two sentences are 1 and 2 on the list). Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism (3), believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to discrepancies in wealth and impedes social justice and equality. (4)
This is perfect context... Who holds the beliefs, what the beliefs are, who criticizes, and what is the content of the criticsim. It could use some word changes though as it is not as precise as it could be.
This puts all criticism into perspective and the more information, the less POV. That is all that I am asking for. ER MD 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The same problem exists with the intro: ie. statements that are not specific and are not referenced. In addition, it is POV that some positions are represented while others are not. So the summary is inherently POV. as examples: Social conservatives who seek to defend what they see as traditional values especially regarding gender roles and sexual norms. ---what gender roles are they advocating? what do sexual norms mean? is it even explained in the body of the article? (if not, then it should be removed) Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into government activities, such as the public schools and the criminal code. --religious conservatives what religion in the criminal code??? I've never hear of the that before. What percentage of religious conservatives support the aformentioned facts? Supporters of a strong American military. -- okay, but also not explained in the body of the work. Supporters judicial restraint and opponents of judicial activism. -- fair statment. Supporters of states' rights. --not discussed in the article. Philosophically, conservatives have attacked Cultural relativism and postmodern critiques, insisting instead on the existence of objective truth. --huh? again this is not even in the article. the positions and terms are not explained. a one-liner here is not appropriate. ER MD 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree, i see tons of states-rights conservatives especially on the issue of abortion.
Fine--put explanations in the body of the text as opposed to trying to place positions in the intoduction section. ER MD 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Why just the liberal and conservative point of view! What about the Communist, and libertarians. The anarchists, and the Humanist. Isn’t Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV. I agree with ER MD the placement of some content is poor form, and lacks clarity.-- MadDogCrog 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to ER MD: Of course, not all social conservatives believe everything on the list. The list reflects the beliefs of many American social conservatives. By the way, is User: ED MD the same person as User: ER MD?
Rick to MadDogCrog: You say, "Isn't Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV." No. Here is what Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View says, "All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Now, obviously we need to be reasonable, and begin with major ideas, and eventually we reach ideas so minor they are not worth including. Rick Norwood 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is definitely biased towards a positive point of view for conservatism and has little elaboration on each point.
Rjensen, you're wrong. See these examples: The ACLU article is biased toward the ACLU and it should be. The NRA article is biased toward the the NRA and it should be. Each article is to provide an overview of the topic, not a debate of the topic, and not all views expressed.
Wikipedia is wrong for teaching bias, but the ACLU is a good example of how to handle critisism. Please keep in mind the vast majority of topics should be %100 npov or sightly biased toward the topic. Not a debate, Rjensen, et al, an encyclopedia. Scribner 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Scribner, I understand that you are expressing your strongly held belief, but Wikipedia policy supports Rjensen in this. Here are the relevant quotes, cut and pasted from [3]:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.
Rick Norwood 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good edit, ED MD. By the way, just curious, are you the same person as User: ER MD? Rick Norwood 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I dropped ER_MD since people kept on harrasing me about keeping the "talk page" archived (something that I prefer not to do). ER MD 13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
this was inappropriate for the talk pages. So I erased them! these pages are not for blogging!-- MadDogCrog 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The form of Conservatism we are used to did not spring forth from Whole Cloth in the 20th Century. It had its precursors in each of the formative centuries, and yet you start your discussion with the 20th Century. You need to expand the article acordingly.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Scribner reverts anything that is remotely critical of conservatism, no matter how well documented. Maybe we need to do away with the section entirely, but to have a section titled "criticism" which consists of arguments in favor of conservatism is unreasonable. Rick Norwood 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that a conservative would prefer the section on criticism of conservatism be written by a conservative and contain nothing but praise of conservatism. This is not, however, reasonable. Do you maintain that nobody has ever criticized American conservatism? The criticisms are all sourced, the sources are mainstream.
I have no objection with removing the criticism section and incorporating the criticism throughout the article. Would you prefer that? Rick Norwood 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Rick, I can't tell just how seriously to take you when it comes to this. Just saying over and over again that it's referenced doesn't mean that much when your first reference is The Nation - please. Finding a POV about anything on the net is not hard to do - but just being able to give a POV a footnote doesn't change the fact that it's a POV. Other edits at this section have certainly been more studious in their approach - something you declare to be praise (which I wish you could better explain). Do you really think the end user of the article would walk away better informed by just throwing out:
One of the most common criticisms of conservatism is that it favors the rich, and leads to an extreme concentration of wealth.
instead of
The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy, specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, American conservatism support economic liberalism and limited government. Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism, believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to concentration of wealth and impedes social justice and equality.
Which one do you think helps an objective reader to connect the dots and leave better armed to develop their opinion? You're obvious problem is that it is not harsh enough. But then again, one of the critisms of your brand of liberalism is that it's ilk tend to prefer that others adopt your opinions instead of developing their own - feel free to reference me in the critism section of social liberalism. Have you considered venting your distaste for conservatism via a blog instead of Wiki?
Thanks for your rewrite. Your version is much better than the old one. Rick Norwood 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the section, which was once again deleted. When I have more time, I'll try to spread the information in that section throughout the article, instead of having it gathered together at the end. Liberals and conservatives working together on the article agreed that it should be saved for a final section, but repeated deletions suggest that this compromise is no longer operative. Rick Norwood 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
to quote our rulebook: Wikipedia:Describing points of view: An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.) That means the serious criticisms of conservatism must be included, clearly stated and not suppressed. Rjensen 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Whether or not the US is an Christian nation is not part of "conservatism" per se; besides, this topic is discussed in depth elsewhere. In fact, this is a matter of debate BETWEEN conservatives.
2. Affirmative action is a public policy issue that is covered elesewhere; it is not part of the definition of conservatism; in fact, there are conservatives who support AA. Also, whether or not AA is a conservative issue is part of the paleocon/neocon debate, which is beyond the scope of this article.
3. There simply isn't room to discuss every position that a conservative might take: line item veto, repealing unfunded mandates, stem-cell research, capital gains tax cuts, nuclear proliferation, increased military spending, voucher programs, English-only, etc. There's a certain kernel that makes "conservatism" of various stripes. The criticism that conservatism favors the rich covers conservatism, writ large, so it fits.
Yakuman
01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
+ *Opponents to economic liberalism, including supporters of modern liberalism, believe that such economic policies tend to create a concentration of wealth that impedes social justice and liberty.
+ *Many conservatives defend America's Christian traditions. There is strong debate surrounding religion's role (if any) in government and public affairs (including prayer and creationism in public schools, religious displays on public property, etc.). Many of these issues have been and continue to be adjudicated in the courts. [7]
+ *Proponents of affirmative action often argue that a race-blind meritocracy advocated by many conservatives could lead to a return to de facto segregation. [9]
I recently tried to fix the grammar and moderate the claims in this section, and was promptly reverted with an accusation of original research. Is fixing grammar origial research? Here is just one paragraph that the revert restored.
1) an important component of what? 2) Is the claim that anti-intellectualism has always been an important component less original research than the claim that this is only sometimes the case? 3) the link to prohibition in the United States refers to prohibition of alcohol, not Darwinism.
I really would like to see this section improved. Instead of reverting, why not work toward improving the section? Rick Norwood 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a critism section for American Conservatism and none for American Liberalism? This reeks of PoV, and not unbiased material.
For criticism of liberalism, go to the "Criticism of Liberalism" section in the liberalism article. The point about prohibition is that the link to prohibition in the United States is worse than pointless. Click on it and see. The point about reverts is that people who revert entire edits instead of working to improve the article do not help improve Wikipedia. Rick Norwood 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoever first wrote that deserves a gold star in my book; no word could better sum up the state of American political parties than "constellation": multiple points of light that people have a tendency (and an incentive) to group together in their minds, yet have little connection in reality. Kudos! -- Xyzzyva 11:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Rick, a reference to a two paragraph article highlighting that a concentration of wealth is creating a political opportunity for progressives is not support for an assertion that conservatism favors the rich. The article doesn't even mention conservatism and from what I can tell would provide you with a better indictment of capitalism or America in general.
I can only assume that a link to a racist, Christian Party website as support for the assertion that "Many American conservatives believe that America is or should be a Christian nation" was an ill attempt at humor or vandalism. Peddle that kool-aid on your blog - not here. Thanks.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Certainly, your new rewrite is better than your previous rewrite. I'm not sure that it is an over all improvement, but I'm will to work with you rather than start a reversion war.
I do not mind your movement of the history section. Your rewrite of the introductory section has a lot of repetition between paragraph one and paragraph two. I'm going to try to combine the two into one paragraph, so that the table of contents is visible, on an average full page screen, from the top of the page. We'll take it from there. Rick Norwood 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to combine the first two (sorry about "to" for "two" in the description of the change) paragraphs. I think it would help if you said what it is you want to achieve by your changes. I have moved economic conservatism ahead of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the opening section is very good. I like that it points out that there are several types of consevatives. My one issue is with the evangelical protestant part. There are a lot of Catholics that consider themselves conservative. I don't have any numbers, but I'd guess that a majority of regular-mass-attending-Catholics would tell you that they are conservative, rather than liberal - it's the abortion/euthanasia issue.-- Kevin 03:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a conservative Catholic and yes, true Catholics are conservative. Liberalism is actually a condemned heresy of the Church. (albeit the definition has changed a bit in recent times, but the foundation of liberalism is still the same (ie relativism)).
Talk:American Conservatism/removed
I cut two large paras, maybe more, about Burke and conservative history (non-American). They are already detailed in the main article about Conservatism and are slightly relevant, in that this article needs to have definitions of terms like "social conservative," but it was mostly off-topic - please let me know if I've overdone it. I pointedly left one large para that specifically talked about the application of these ideas in the US because it was actually about American conservatism. Kaisershatner 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I restructured the remaining paras into the following general outline
I think it might make sense to have a shortened Definition section to precede the History section, but Rick Norwood is right, things are going fast, so I'll sit back for a bit and await collaborative input. Thanks for your patience with me. Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so which needs to change, the Conservatism template or the Liberalism template? I have here what the Conservatism template would look like in the (cleaned-up) liberalism style. I haven't done the reverse yet. What do you guys think? Or should we scrap both and start over? - ElAmericano | talk 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Your quote above is from a comment I made some time ago. I'm pleased that it is remembered. However, here we are talking about American Conservatism and American Liberalism, and while they are not opposites, exactly, any more than the Sharks and the Jets are opposites, they are opposed. Certainly if the Liberal template is changed to reflect the Conservative template, I won't be the one to object. Rick Norwood 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Section 2.5 seems to repeat much what has gone before in section 2. I think it can be either cut, or else combined with the earlier sections which discuss the same subject. Comments? Rick Norwood 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The descriptions of these two branches, under separate headers, are almost identical. If they are synonyms for the same branch of conservatism, they should be merged, or a better attempt to explicate their differences should be included. I also find it highly dubious that a branch of conservatism which is described in their section as seeking to expand federal power can lay particular claim that tey regard originalism as important above all else, when so much of their Federal program would likely be struck down under any genuinely originalist jurisprudence. Simon Dodd 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Rick, first let me say that I think we're doing pretty well at keeping this article neutral, and I appreciate the general tone of your edits has been markedly different (in my opinion) than the earlier variety, which I had thought were rather strongly condemning of Conservatism in general. So, thanks. About the "originalism" section, however, the wording (NB the conservative support for originalism is decidedly fairweather, as... (I'm paraphrasing)) - to me is pretty strongly non-objective language. I understand it's your view, but it's not the only view - some conservatives have always been originalists, others may be opportunistic, etc., but I think it's a mistake to write in a conclusion that all Originalist support from Conservatives is essentially non-ideological and opportunistic. Accordingly, I toned down the language (and made the issue a subsection, as a side note). Respectfully, Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I accidently clicked on minor edit when I saved, I realize it wasn't minor, by bad. -- Jbamb 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the turning to the federal government thing is so justified. In the case of NCLB, the federal government is already in the business of education funding and standards setting. In the case of gay marriage, if one state recognized, all 50 have to (full faith and credit clause), and searches on the basis of national security are for national security. I think this playing out in the federal system is not necessarily by the nature of social conservatives but the subsuming of issues to the federal level. Before Roe, abortion was a state issue and there were no calls to make it a federal issue. Educational standards and school choice wouldn't be federal issues if it weren't for federal courts getting involved. I thikn the turning to the federal government is more a result of the feeling that it is the federal government and/or the federal courts that aren't letting the localities do their own thing, not because they favor expansionist government by design. -- Jbamb 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, he writes in an email to me, "Perhaps something like this would be better: Proponents of economic liberalism conservatism attribute the unparalleled economic boom of the early 1980s to the late 1990s to these policies, although this is a disputed claim. Paul Volcker's monetary policy of disinflation, begun in 1978, culiminated in 1983 when Volcker and the Fed released the monetary supply and inspired huge GDP growth that year. Also, GDP growth in the 1980s as a whole was only average by historical standards, and within the expectations of the normal business cycle. Furthermore, the claims of the efficacy of supply-side tax cuts should also be taken within the context of massive budget deficits accrued during that time, and the fact that taxes were in fact raised six times. Or something like that."
So what do you think? He gave me permission to bring it here, but was a little concerned it wouldn't get discussed. So...??? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, forgive my boring offering. Despite its snarkiness, my original post was just intended to provide a little balance and context to what I thought was a speculative and partisan attribution. I tried to soften it a little bit, per Voldemort's request. Quigonpaj 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I find the following confusing, and I am tempted to revert it, but I would like to give the author a chance to explain.
"The Loyalists of the American Revolution were political conservatives, but they left. The mainstream of American conservatism in the U.S. thus traces to the Founding Fathers, of whom the most important for conservatism were the Federalist followers of Alexander Hamilton. They spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the main cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories. On many issues American conservatism also derives from the Republicans who followed Thomas Jefferson, and especially John Randolph of Roanoke and his "Old Republican" followers. They idealized the yeoman farmer, and stressed states' rights and small government. In the 1830-54 period the Whig party counted most of the conservatives, such as Daniel Webster, though John C. Calhoun made significant contributins to the theory of minority rights. The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton."
1) Many loyalists remained in the US. 2) Here, it seems conservatives favor business and industry. 3) But in the next sentence we have conservatives idealizing the yeoman farmer. Did the meaning of the word change? If so, why and how? 4) The last sentence is unclear. Is the author claiming that Jefferson and Lincoln were conservatives? 5) The author should also fix the errors in spelling and grammar.
Rick Norwood 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is moving on without my concerns mentioned above being addressed, so I've restored the earlier version. It needs a rewrite, but a better one. Rick Norwood 14:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you need to make this clear. The paragraph as it stood contained false implications (that all loyalist left -- I would want to see data to believe that even a majority left) and statements that, without further explanation, seem contradictory. I agree that a rewrite is needed, and I hope you can supply one that is clear and contains references. Rick Norwood 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's looking much better. I've done a light edit.
I still have a problem with the last sentence. "The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton." Aside from the problem with agreement of subject and verb, it is not clear if you are saying that Lincoln himself was a conservative or that the Republican party in Lincoln's day was conservative. Either way, this seems doubtful. Certainly Lincoln did not support states rights! Nor did he support the upper class, most of whom looked on him with contempt. Unless you can provide a reference for this (other than the fact that both parties claim Lincoln in their political rhetoric) I think this sentence will have to go. Rick Norwood 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The most recent rewrite still seems confused, and more interested in claiming that conservatives are really good liberals -- opposed to slavery, in favor of the environment, never opposed immigration -- instead of presenting the history of American conservatism in any coherent and intellectually honest way.
As the article states, modern American conservatism is a loose coalition of diverse groups who have banded together to achieve what none of them could achieve separately. Thus some conservatives are willing to give up states' rights if it allows Christian values to be the law of the land, while others are willing to give up a balanced budget as long as they get a tax cut.
There really is an American conservative movement, based on preserving the class structure, the rights of property, free enterprise, opposition to immigration, limited federal government, states' rights, protestant Christianity, the traditional family, and a strong military; opposed to welfare, taxation, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, sex education, labor unions, women's rights, and the United Nations. Rick Norwood 18:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There's an American Communist Party too--but as homogenous entities influencing broad swaths of followers, neither is relevant in 2006. We live in a "pick your poison" age--it is THE hallmark of the age--and conservatives are not required to support "preserving...opposed..." in all those categories to obtain their "membership" in the "movement" today. Class structure, racialism (you left this one out, didn't you?), and opposition to immigration are particularly obnoxious concepts to many conservatives...what it was sixty years ago I cannot say with authority because I was not alive then. App. "coherent and intellectually honest" will never be achieved in your view until the views of yesterday are tied irreovcoably to the views today--but that ain't gonna happen. Tar the people of the past, but don't tar me with that brush.--Buckboard 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of false statements in this article. I've removed one, a statement that Reagan (like Thatcher) decreased the size of the federal government. In the last year of Carter's presidency, the US federal government spent 590 billion. In the first year of Reagan's presidency, 678 billion. In the last year of Reagan's presidency, 908 billion. (Amounts in constant 2004 dollars.) Source, The World Almanac. Rick Norwood 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree the statement needs to go--the same as I'd be opposed to lowered budget increases being termed "budget cuts". Keep political debating language--and claims--on the talk pages and out of the articles.--Buckboard 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The size of the government ought to be measured relative to the size of the economy. A nation like American can have a tiny federal government that seems enormous in terms of budget simply because of the size of our economy. The same with deficits, debts, and other absolute numbers. A $100 billion deficit means nothing. Are we talking about a $100 billion in an economy worth $200 billion, or six trillion? Huge difference. Same with size of federal budget. Also, how does the size of American government compare to other industrialized nations? Bjsiders 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your edit makes the apparent contradictions of the previous version much clearer. Rick Norwood 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
For control of Congress by the Conservative Coalition, I gave the dates 1937-49 and 1951-61 based on control of the House Rules Committee, the most important leadership body at that time. (The Coalition retained control of the House Appropriations Committee until 1963.) The current version of the article gives 1964 as the end date, persumably because that is when the civil rights filibuster was broken in the Senate. But filibusters are always the tool of the minority, not the faction in control.
That the Coalition was out of power in 1949-50 might seem like a detail, but I think it helps explain why Trilling had such a negative view of conservatism in 1950, as cited later in the article.
With the restored text, we're back to problem I mentioned earlier. To trace the "mainstream" of conservatism from the Federalists through the Whigs and to the Republicans implies that these parties were more conservative than the 19th century Democrats, which is simply not the case. Kauffner 10:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner
Several Fair Deal proposals were passed: the minimum wage was raised and bills were enacted on slum clearance and old age pensions. Certainly no major conservative bills were enacted.
I noticed that later in the article it says that the 1964 election ended the control of the Conservative Coalition. If that's what you believe, then the end date for CC control should be 1965, since that's when the Congress elected in 1964 first met. Of course, that would make the 1964 Civil Rights Act the product of a CC congress. Kauffner 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner
Rick Norwood 15:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The article needs a par or two on race and civil rights -- anyone want to volunteer? I added a full bibliography. Rjensen 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
We have had more than 40 edits already today by just two people. Leaving aside the question of the quality of the edits -- and I find some good, some bad -- this is too much change too fast. One solution would be to revert the whole thing back to where it was at midnight yesterday -- in fact, I think that might be best. But I would rather see some kind of consensus reached. Rick Norwood 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't any of you see the irony in a conservativism article being subject to rapid change? -- Rpresser 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (a liberal)
"The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as republicanism, that all groups have drawn from."
-Nice try. I don't think so.
Really? No other set of ideas is as important in American history as republicanism. And the Founding Fathers created republicanism -- they didn't borrow it from the Ancient Romans? And all groups have drawn from republicanism? All? The group who staged Woodstock? The American Communist Party? All?
Rick Norwood 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "created" is the issue here. Sarcasm aside, I agree with the criticism.--Buckboard 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1)Question: Do you want to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence? Answer: That's a hard choice, let me think a minute.
Republicanism is a form of government, not a value system. It seems to be a pretty good form of government, but, as philosophers from Aristotle on have observed, it falls apart as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves free money. It is now in the process of falling apart, and it will be interesting to see what form of government replaces it. I favor Colosus, the Forbin Project. Rick Norwood 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The introduction contains this entry in the list of American Conservative ideologies:
My problem with this statement is that I believe it misrepresents what conservative jurists stand for and what they oppose. No reasonable person believes in not "applying [the Constitution] to situations which the original framers of the law did not anticipate." Certainly an originalist must apply the true meaning of the constitution to circumstances that the founders did not anticipate. In A Mater of Interpretation Justice Scalia defends this idea, which he calls "import originalism," as the only legitimate originalism.
The phrase "do not violate the letter of the constitution" also troubles me as it seems to imply that such laws do violate the spirit of the constitution as it was originally intended. Again I turn to an example given by Scalia, not because his opinions are unique but because I have the book on my lap: Scalia refutes the idea of "strict constructionism" as following the letter of the words on the page with the example of a hand-written note. The note is not literally speech, nor is it press (published words), but it is clearly within the perview of the constitutional rule as it was originally intended, as evidenced by the textual and historical tradition of understanding of the phrase.
In this context "judicial activism" (are the scare quotes really needed?) is seen as the redefining of constitutional powers through both the New Deal court's refusal to hold certain economic laws to original constitutional limits, as well as later courts' decisions to overturn laws without a convincing connection between the original intentions of the framers and the decision reached by the court.
A possible solution would be to replace the current bullet point with two. Perhaps something like this:
A distinction such as this would seem to avoid innaccuracy and would also reflect the information in the section below. -- Isra1337 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Phocion, the paragraph has been supported with references. I can supply many more if needed. If you don't like the wording, why not fix it. I like your rewrite of the introduction, (except for excessive use of and/or). Rick Norwood 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that "heterogeneous" is the correct spelling. Rick Norwood 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
ER MD 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand some of your complaints.
Are you saying that this phrase is a NPOV violation? If so, on what grounds? I don't see any POV violation in that statement.
So? This isn't an article about liberals. Liberals and conservatives can support the same policies, why is this a POV violation if they do?
How would you phrase this? These statements also seem like pretty factual and accurate descriptions of what conservatives claim as their worldview and policies. Where is the POV? Bjsiders 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
1) there is not a parallel section in american liberalism 2) this is a distortion of positions. example "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious and sexual views". "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power" huh? what unrestriced governmental power? who are the vicitms? ER MD 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted before reading here. I'd suggest clarifying these criticisms, or removing the ones that don't make sense, and adding a section to the liberalism article. I don't think the fact that liberalism is missing a section like this is grounds for its removal here. Bjsiders 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Since we're already qualifying the bulleted list with "Opponents of conservatism accuse conservatives of", let's be clear about exactly what those accusations are, since we are making a statement about what a certain group is saying rather than fact. Stephen Compall 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty good, but no list of criticism of conservatism is complete without the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" somewhere. Bjsiders 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how quoting one letter is evidence of a uniquitous belief. Bjsiders 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what ubiquitous means, it was a typo. The B is right next to the N on a qwerty keyboard. Your ability to find an example in the Sunday paper lying on your kitchen table is not evidence of a widely-held belief. That's like saying, "Everybody in my neighborhood owns a Honda," opening ONE garage door and finding one, and saying, "See? Told ya." The CATO institute is not conservative, it's libertarian. That particular link is also undated, but it reference to a recent State of the Union speech given by President Clinton about upcoming legislation that was passed in 1997, which means this analysis is ten years old and written in response to a policy that long ago became law while the Republicans, ostensibly the conservative party, controlled Congress. I understand the Congressional leadership doesn't necessarily define a movement, but this was in the heydey of the Gingrinch years, the Contract with America years, and the "Republican Revolution" years. If that class of Congress passed minimum wage increases, I'm having some serious trouble accepting your contention that this belief is "ubiquitous" among conservatives. Widespread perhaps, but clearly not enough that the people elected by a bunch of conservatives felt any compulsion to stand up for the conservative stance on it. Bjsiders 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms. I can criticize the President because I disapprove of how he demands California condor eggs for breakfast every day. I don't have to be factually correct for this to be my criticisms, it just means I'm an uninformed critic who doesn't know what he's talking about. We are turning the criticism section into a debate over what conservatives really believe, and that's not the point. The critics can criticize whatever they want. If they are criticizing views that conservatives do not actually hold, then fine. Here's my proposed rewording of this section:
I think this is a pretty comprehensive list of the charges leveled at conservatives. These charges don't have to be accurate to be leveled, and the criticism page is not the place to post a bunch of "responses" that explain why a given charge is incorrect, inaccurate, or baseless. This entire page is a refutation of those charges, and if an intelligent reader can't figure out which of these are legit and which are not, then the page needs more clarity and expansion. In any case, I think the list of criticisms is fair to include as-is, and could even be expanded along the lines of what I've presented here.
Bjsiders
20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about how this standard could be abused, but if we limit it to cited criticisms by legitimate think tanks and/or political groups, of which People for the American Way is one, it ought to be workable. The fact that there is no criticism section on American liberalism is irrelevent. Go add one, there's ample material to work with there. If they remove it, then you have grounds to keep removing this one. This is not a blog or anything approaching one, I'm not sure how you make that leap. Bjsiders 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Bjsiders By the way, I agree with you regarding the CATO inferance and your NPOV here is meritable. You wrote, "Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms." True, but as you know (and you've already pointed out) what's published here has to be accurate, and referenced by reputable sources. WP:NOR
ER MD I agree with you 1000% on the bias on Wiki, with regard to political topics. It's human nature. I've complained about the liberalism site being biased before and yes until more people like you speak out against the bias, it'll continue.
I'm OK with the criticisms here, as long as they're cited. Scribner 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
ER MD wrote in support of his most recent blanking:
"conversatives do not support hostility towards religions, do not support police powers that interfere with individual rights, and mostly do not support reduced minimum wage"
If you will read what the criticism says, it does not say that conservatives support hostility towards religions, it says that some people have said that some conservatives are hostile toward non-mainstream religious and social beliefs, such as atheism (G. H. W. Bush says atheists cannot be real Americans) and Wikans (not to be confused with Wikians). As for support of police powers that interfere with individual rights, read conservative web sites about how courts "coddle" criminals by reading them their Miranda rights and supplying them with a lawyer. As for the opposition to minimum wage, I've already supplied a reference for that.
Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I agree completely that all of these claims must be referenced. It takes time. Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand ER MD's point, we can claim that "some people have said" that conservatives are neoNazi antiChrist demonspawn who eat puppies and punch old women for fun and oil profits. That doesn't mean that criticism is worth including. That's what I call a Couric citation - where you give your own opinion but make it sound like it's somebody else's by by expressing it via the proxy of anonymous critics that may or may not exist. We need to cite whoever claims these things and we need a standard for what qualifies as a legitimate criticism. To start with, I suggest something along the lines of what I wrote in response to ER MD above. Basically, reasoned criticisms published by legitimate think tanks. Who gets to define "legitimate"? That's a tough call. I'd call People for the American Way a legitimate operation, but not MoveOn.org. We're getting into granularity that is impossible to reconcile among the number of editors these articles have. Any more ideas? Bjsiders 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, we've got the two major parties in this disagreement on this page, active, and discussing. Let's stop the blanking/reverting until we hammer something out. Bjsiders 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to pull back, count to 10, take a deep breath, and ask myself this question.
Which criticisms of American conservatism are philosophical rather than personal, important rather than trivial, and long lasting rather than ephemeral. This is what I have come up with.
These seven are the most important criticisms of conservatism that come to mind. The last is a problem. In the other six cases, conservatives are supporting past beliefs against new ideas and their critics are supporting new ideas that may overturn cherished beliefs. But even though support for the war in Iraq comes mainly from conservatives, it is hard to understand how that fits in with any conservative philosophy.
If this seems like a reasonable list, then the next step is to find references that, a) these are in fact beliefs held by large numbers of self-identified conservatives and b) that the criticism comes from reasonable people, not from a lunatic fringe. That means at least two footnotes for each criticism. No rest of the wicked. Rick Norwood 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Can someone please explain why "criticism" is spelled with an "s" but "criticize" is spelled with a "z"?
I always appreciate your input, Lord V. 1. Sadly, American conservatives are not content to censor television, some also support banning books from school libraries, including one you may have heard of about a character named Harry something. While I tend to dislike censorship, I'm not saying that the conservatives don't have a point, I'm only saying they are criticized for it. Yes? No? 2. We agree on a definite maybe. 3. Sorry, but this is a big issue with conservatives in the South. I've mentioned before, I think, the bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature to fire any professor who taught evolution as fact. It didn't pass, thank God (or whoever). These may be strange bedfellows for more intellectual conservatives, but they are very outspoken. Also we have big oil fighting the science of global warming. "Some call it polution. We call it life." And President Bush is an outspoken critic of "global warming" and an advocate of the teaching of "creationism". I don't think there will be any problem in finding references for these beliefs within conservatism. 4. We agree. 5. Help me with better wording, please. 6. Again, this is another issue where Southern (and Midwestern) conservatives would probably not be joined by more intellectual conservatives. It is important that whatever form the final draft takes, it makes clear that these are "some" criticisms of "some" conservatives. 7. I think this one should probably be dropped as too topical and too controversial within conservatism.
Thanks. Rick Norwood 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll throw my take in here. 1. People who believe in the importance of art criticize conservative calls for censorship. I'd like to see some evidence that conservatives have been calling for censorship. I've seen conservatives call for decency limits on what we broadcoast over public TV, or what kind of popular entertainment we permit minors to buy without parental supervision, but aside from a few individuals I've seen very few conservatives make a stink over passing legislation that prevents people from having access to art that they find distasteful. Conservatives generally don't like that pornography exists but I haven't observed a large segment calling for it to be banned. Only that such things are consumed in settings where they harm nobody else. 2. People who believe that freedom of religion includes the freedom not to have a religion criticize conservative calls for the introduction of religion into courts and the public schools. Again, I'd like to see some citation of conservative efforts to put religion in the courts and public schools. A statue explaining the ten commandments in the context of the history of lawmaking is not a religious symbol any more than Hammurabi's code of laws would be. I haven't heard of any efforts to put religion in public schools, unless you mean creationism, in which case this bleeds over into #3. 3. People who believe that science offers good answers to important questions criticize conservative attacks on evolution, global warming, carbon dating, and other scientific theories. I agree with you on the evolution front, but I question that mainstream conservatives want evolution REMOVED entirely. Most of the conservative think tanks that question global warming challenge the science behind it. I've never heard of conservatives challenging carbon dating. 4. People who believe that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem criticize conservative efforts to reduce capital gains and inheritance taxes. They claim that conservative politicians always favor the rich. This is a legitimate criticism. Conservative fiscal policy does indeed tend to benefit the very wealthy, usually by design. 5. People who believe that the rights of women are more important than the rights of the unborn criticize conservative attacks on birth control and abortion. Again, a legitimate criticism. 6. People who believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against criticize conservative efforts to pass a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I challenge that conservatives call for discrimination against homosexuals. Traditionalists will maintain that marriage is, by definition, man-woman, and so, by definition, gays cannot "marry" because such a union is not a marriage. In any case, I think the gay marriage issue is a legitimate criticism as well. 7. People who oppose the war in Iraq. War is not a conservative value, although a strong defense program is. I think people oppose Iraq because it's a huge friggen mess, regardless of whether it's conservatives who are running it. Bjsiders 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"*Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions." --True there may be a group that wants to have public schools teach creationism and perevent teaching of evolution, but I think that is a fringe groups. The current legal system is loosely based on all previous religous codes. In fact there is little difference between cristianity, judaism, and islam about some of the main tennets. I think that the more accurate reflection is that of religious conservatives who oppose issues such as the removal of the ten commandments from a couthouse, or eliminating time used in school for prayer. ER MD 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Some minor corrections, I don't disagree with your overall point, but your backup facts have the feel of oft-used and well-rehearsed examples, and they're a little flawed in spots: [they] say it is "only a theory" and ... pass over it lightly Well ... it IS only a theory, how else should it be described? And how much attention should we be spending on one theory in one area of biology in grade school? There's a lot of biology that can be taught without understanding evolution in the least.
A jury recently used a Bible to decide a court case. One of the most famous cases you study in law school involves the implied warranty of merchantability, and the case was ultimately decided by the judges reading through a bunch of cookbooks and recipes for New England fish chowder. Depending on the facts and statutes involved in a case, you'd be amazed and the kind of texts that can be referenced. Referencing a Bible could be completely appropriate for a given case.
What message to do you think the display of the Ten Commandments in court is designed to send? The Ten Commandments are chiseled into the walls of the Supreme Court and have been there for quite some time. Bjsiders 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Current version: Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions.
ER MD version: Religious conservatives who oppose the exlusion of religious concepts from public life.
Discussion: The ER MD version is a distortion. There is not, and never has been, any attempt to exclude religion from public life in the United States. At least four states have laws that any office holder must believe in God. No non-Christian has been president since Thomas Jefferson. Every meeting of the Senate and the House opens with a prayer. Christianity is ubiquitous in America, and probably always will be. On the other hand, our courts and our public schools are supposed to avoid supporting religion. This is written into the Constitution of the United States. To describe keeping religion out of the courts and public schools as "exclusion of religious concepts from public life" is a gross exageration.
Criticism section
Current version: Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Opponents of conservatism [2] accuse conservatives of
ER MD version: Criticism of American conservatism is often directed at positions taken by the conservative party or the Republicans, which may not actually be consertaive in nature. As an example, entitlement spending accelerated at the fastest rate under George W. Bush. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, deficit spending to expand entitlements is criticized by both liberals and conservatives alike.
Discussion: the current version is careful to point out that criticism of American conservatism should not be confused with criticism of any particular politician. ER MD tries to deflect criticism of American conservatism by using Bush as a scapegoat.
Several people of good will, some liberal and some conservative, are working to make this section more NPOV and better referenced. ER MD's constant blanking is not a constructive approach. Rick Norwood 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to disagree, Lord V, but the Supreme Court has upheld existing monuments containing the Ten Commandments on historical grounds. The cause celebre in recent years was a judge who bought and paid for a huge new monument listing the Ten Commandments and plunked it down on public property. Conservatives objected when it was removed. As for prayer in public schools, I can only speak from my own experience. When I was in public school, there was never public prayer. So, in my experience at least, attempts to convert my children to Christianity are something new. My daughter, for example, converted to Islam in High School. (I am not a Moslem.) The persecution she suffered was so great that she nearly dropped out of school. (I had to promise to buy her a car as a graduation present to get her to endure the constant taunting.) She wasn't injured, but she did have wastebaskets emptied over her head. So, the introduction of relgion into the public schools is to me both new and negative. Rick Norwood 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" are both far-reaching terms and it's extremely difficult to generalize. For example, I know there are many conservatives, e.g. Pat Robertson and friends, who are highly critical of separation of church and state and actively support prayer for public schools, and I can also point out at least one group and a pundit or two (Bush spoke here) who actively lobby on behalf of creationism instead of evolution. There are extremists on every issue. Just thought I'd point that out. Moulder 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Although the meaning of conservative and liberal are different in the US from elsewhere, the fact that American liberalism and conservatism are not entirely separate from their counterparts elsewhere would mean that, per general naming conventions (e.g. Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, not Chinese prostitution, although that's a case where "Chinese" is an ambiguous term in addition to sounding crude), this would be called Conservatism in the United States. I suppose the current name is valid, but it seems to set the US completely apart from the norm - and before you make a crack about how far, say, Anne Coulter is from conservatism in, say, anywhere on Earth, I want to add this: You forgot Poland. :) Moulder 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please look through the long history of the article. It has gone through about a dozen name changes just in the past year. It was Conservatism in the United States for a long time, and personally I prefer that name, but most of the people who changed the name did not bother to change any of the links, which now link all over the place, and so I would rather keep the name it has now, rather than make an attempt to improve on that. The attempt would fail unless someone is willing to do the huge job of 1) getting all interested parties to agree to the change and 2) fixing all the links to avoid redirects. It's a big job. Rick Norwood 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple things to consider if you want to go ahead with the name change. First, if the person who changed the article here doesn't like your change, he is apt to change it right back. Second, wiki policy really does require the person who makes a name change to fix all redirects right away. Third, the parent article Conservatism has a list of article on the subject. That list would need to be changed. Fourth, American Liberalism, which used to be Liberalism in the United States, should be changed so that parallel articles have parallel names, and all the redirects and lists containing that article have to be fixed. As I say, it's a big job. Don't undertake it lightly. Rick Norwood 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, American conservatives include the people who bomb abortion clinics and people who support the flat tax. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to think about this hard first. I think the main question comes down to whether or not there is a difference between the conservatism that takes place in the U.S. and other types of conservatism. If American conservatism is its own vein, it should stay here (see the naming conventions discussion... American X is preferred over X in the United States). If it is the same, then the move would make sense. SO is it the same? -- You Know Who (Dark Mark) 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the question of whether American conservatives are really different, do you know any other country where conservatives bomb abortion clinics? Rick Norwood 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're never going to let me live down that bumper sticker reference are you. Fair enough. No, I would never mention the abortion clinic bomber in the article. I know the difference between the mainstream and the lunitic fringe. I mentioned him as an example of something that, as far as I can tell, just doesn't happen in other countries. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that one main difference between American conservatism and conservatism in other nations is the way that American conservative politicians use religion to win votes, and try to pass laws to enforce religious beliefs -- laws against the teaching of evolution being one example. I think, in other countries, conservative politics has much more to do with economics than with religion. Not so in the US, alas. Rick Norwood 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't saying that "America" was a better name than "United States", only that there is no pleasing everybody. Rick Norwood 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If a critcism section is to stay, then attack words should be avoided and an NPOV basis explained prior to the "example". Examples:
Phrases like "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious " don't belong.
Conservatives do not oppose welfare per se, then oppose benefit expansion and perpetual welfare. Conservatives in fact support workfare. So the exclusion of positions is POV. Conservatives do not support police powers that interfer with individual rights for the mere fact of having police powers. The criticism is really the governmental programs to prevent terrorism that is viewed by some as excessive. But phrasing it as "favor of police powers" is POV since it leaves out pertinent information.
Finally there is no section in american liberalism. Establish a parallel section that is NPOV there first and then lets decide if a section is warranted here. In my opinion, this section is merely a soapbox. ER MD 08:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wiki policy is that "all points of view be represented." If you want to write a "criticism of liberalism" section, and it is well referenced, I will support it. Rick Norwood 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Capitalize "America", drop the "etc", add footnotes, and I'll support it. These are criticisms that are, in fact, made of American liberalism. They should be in the article, provided they are attributed to widely read sources. Rick Norwood 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've finished the work I wanted to do at this time on the Criticism section. I added a reference to Black conservatives who oppose affirmative to establish the fact that many conservatives do oppose affirmative action. Also, I separated the issues of religion and sexuality. I am going to let someone else add a footnote to the section on the rights of people accused of crimes if they want that documented. Rick Norwood 21:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Liberal critics respect the beliefs of others..." is a bad way to put this. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's not provable. The better sentence would read simply "Liberal critics object to particular religious beliefs...." Basically, this section is about criticism, not about the critics. If we want an article on Liberal critics of conservatism, we can make one, but it doesn't belong here. Arathon 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki's got a "Talk Radio" article here ,and it has it's own political radio section, nearly verbatim to one posted here. I'll remove the one here and if someone wants it referenced a link will work. Scribner 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith has been shown in this compromise. I dispute the claim that this section be added to this article because of POV/NOR. This article is duplicated. here and does not merit repeating, other than a link. Scribner 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You have requested a citation for the section on Bush and originalism. I think you and I agree on this one, it is too minor and topical for the article. Certainly, if nobody supplies the requested citation with 24 hours, I have no objection if you delete it.
In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This article contains disputed content. Several additions were added after a compromise. One of which to the opening paragraph and at least two to the "Criticisms" section.
This article is under dispute, as is and for similar reasons the Conservatism article. WP:POV and WP:NOR
A show of good faith would be appreciated and changes to the article's status of being placed under dispute are vandalism.
A request that all changes to the article be subject to discussion on the talk page prior to reverting or blanking, and it applies to all. Scribner 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen and I have history, "Ophelia Ford"[ [2]]. I removed your wholesale POV from the article. Wiki voted you admin powers? Now you're adding POV comments to the opening paragraph of the "American Conservatism" article, that is telling.
On to your "request":
You stated: "only specific criticisms are helpful." I refer you to the Talk Page. Did you read it? You are one of the reasons I disputed the article.
OK, per your request,
Today we discussed a "Talk Radio" section being here...after discussion here's my response: "Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)" That was a compromise, "Link preferred" indicates that I think you're wrong, but I showed good faith and compromised.
Now Rick writes: "In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"
Then I write: "Hostility toward nudity..."? Some of the section's POV may be a matter of semantics. I expect criticism in a criticism section, but there again, I only speak for myself. Scribner 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"
Next: In comes Rjensen with this POV edit to the opening paragraph: "Numerous different and somewhat contradictory mindsets and full-fledged ideologies are included under the blanket heading..."
In the opening paragraph, no less.
The other edits were to the criticism page, read it for yourself, and Rjensen, your edit to the opening paragraph is not only not factual but is also POV. Take it to a blog, pal. Scribner 03:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Hostility towards unannounced nudity in a somewhat sexual context on public television broadcasts during the most watched event in the entire world each year" is very different from "hostility towards nudity." Failure to make that distinction is inexcusable. You don't think Justin Timberlake grabbing Jackson's breast and ripping the clothes off of it during a flirtatious dance number does "not involve sexuality?" I think about 90% of viewers would disagree. John Ashcroft's covering of the breasts on the statues of Lady Justice would make for a far better example of "hostility towards nudity" in any case. Who in the hell sees that statue in a sexualized context? Bjsiders 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I was not joking. If you want an example of conservatives being "hostile towards nudity", Ashcroft is a much better example. Janet Jackson was hostility towards nudity, it was hostility towards ianppropriate nudity, a position that most sensible people can understand, regardless of their political beliefs. To bolster one's view that conservatives are hostile towards nudity in general, you need an example of appropriate nudity that was opposed by a conservative leader. Ashcroft is one such example. Bjsiders 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I stand corrected. I checked his article and found this: "In January 2002, the partially nude female statue of the Spirit of Justice, which stands in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, where Ashcroft held press conferences, was covered with blue curtains, along with its male counterpart, the Majesty of Law. It was speculated this change was made because Ashcroft felt that reporters were photographing him with the female statue in the background to make fun of his church's opposition to pornography. A Justice Department spokeswoman said that Ashcroft knew nothing of the decision to spend $8,000 for the curtains; a spokesman said the decision for permanent curtains was intended to save on the $2,000 per use rental costs of temporary curtains used for formal events." Apparantly there's no proof that this is true, so I withdraw the accusation. I picked up the story from the news, I guess that's what I get for believing everything I see on TV. Bjsiders 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
To whomever continues to blank out the criticism section, will you please refrain and join the discussion? I feel that it's inappropriate to just blank out sections without any explanation, especially when the editors in the discussion page appear to be interested in hammering out what should and should not be there and how it should be phrased. Please leave the section so that we have some source material to work with as we debate and discussion. I am going to revert your blanking once more, and ask that you please talk here instead of just blanking it out. Thank you! Bjsiders 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC):
Please note that we're looking for legitimate criticism of conservative, not just any one of a million opinions. That means the criticism has to address something conservatives can be shown to believe, and there must be some kind of evidence for this belief. For example, "conservative fiscal policy tends to favor the rich more than the poor. Proof: tax cuts benefit the wealthy by 90% blah blah." This is a legitimate criticism. There's a counterargument, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a reasoned and sourced criticism. You will eventually get banned if you continue to revert, there is a policy against such behavior. You are making no effort whatsoever to work with the rest of the editors. Bjsiders 15:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been over most of these points with you before and you've ignored my response and simply continue to restate the above. Please see my previous comments. Bjsiders 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
All Wikipedia editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The editors on this page need to review policies and guidelines about article content including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Please review the policies and guidelines about WP:CONSENSUS editing and resolving disputes. Blanking content and repeatedly reverting edits are considered disruptive editor behavoir. Editors that engage in this behavior will be blocked from editing so that other editors can engage in consensus editing. If you want to participate in the writing of this article, you need to stop being disruptive. FloNight talk 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
All these sources have a few pages on the conservative dominance of talk radio (but they should not go into the bibliography).
Your words, " The issue was: what evidence is there that talk radio is dominated by conservatives."
Wrong. A request for cite is policy for ambiguous claims. You have admin access. You should know that.
Cite this or don't remove my tag: "Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the advent of talk radio in the 1990s." Thanks. Scribner 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"Semantics of Conservatism"
This entire section of American Conservatism is committed to author, "Geoffrey Nunberg".
Here's what a search of Amazon.com reveals:
Customers who bought this item also bought:
Going Nucular[sic]: Language, Politics, and Culture in Controversial Times by Geoffrey Nunberg F.U.B.A.R. : America's Right-Wing Nightmare by Sam Seder The Way We Talk Now by Geoffrey Nunberg American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Phillips State of War : The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration by James Risen
--Geoffrey Numberg belongs in the critisism section, if at all. Wholesale bias and POV drivel.
Here's the title of the one book the entire section is dedicated to:
"Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show"
WP:POV Scribner 05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The new section on Semantics, Language and Media begins: "The use of language has been a tool used by conservatives (as well as liberals of course) to shape ..." This seems awkward to me, especially the "use ... used" construction. Everybody uses language, so why single out liberals and conservatives. Also, the incorporation of the Talk Radio section seems awkward. I think the section would be better if it were shorter and more to the point. Rick Norwood 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, there has been no consensus on the inclusion of a criticism section content. Write here prior to inclusion. ER MD 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Critics of conservatism [1] accuse conservatives of:
First of all, this section is confusing conservative ideology with republican policy. Libertarians are in fact part of a conservative ideolgy yet do you hold many of these beliefs. Futrhermore,
As an example, the first george bush raised taxes! Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, even though he opposed it on principle, because it was at the time the right thing to do. The criticism section says that conservative fiscal policies disproportionately favor the rich because they have a disproportionate amount of wealth. So writing that they support tax cuts is not necessarily true. Find me just one instance of a conservative concensus that a proposed tax cut is a bad idea. Just one.
What is more accurate is the belief in supply-side economics (monetarianism) as deficit spending to stimulate the economy versus the traditional way in which liberals perceive stimulation of the economy which is Keynesian, or the federal government increasing spending. Lowering taxes is an absolutely critical part of supply-side economic theory in most circumstances.
In addition, with 95% of all federal tax revenue generated by the top 50% of the population, anybody could make the claim that any tax cut benefits the rich, when in fact it benefits all taxpayers. I agree with you completely on this, I'm a supply-sider myself, I consider Keynes to have thoroughly debunked by credible economists. But this criticism persists, for whatever reason you want to cite (class envy, political opportunism, whatever), and it is one of the most commonly and frequently lobbed attacks at conservatism, it deserves mention.
Hence, the "favor the rich" or even upper class is not an accurate description. It's a fair and accurate description of the criticism, even if the criticism itself is FUD and obfuscation. It's not a POV problem to quote this criticism, that IS what the criticism is, it's a common charge, it's been discussed and debated ad nauseum, and it ought to be mentioned here. The criticism is NOT that conservatives favor limited government and the lowest possible tax rate. That's what conservatives believe. This section is about criticism of conservatism.
What is the majority view of conservatives on the social issues that you removed? You appear to be the resident expert on it.
Bjsiders 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, familiarize yourself with the current debate regarding this section before reverting. Your good faith is suspect. Please talk before reverting or adding content to the section. Thanks. Scribner 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What is left of the "criticism" section does not contain any criticism, only support for a certain kind of conservative view. I am not sure why so many people have trouble understanding the difference between "some" and "all". Criticism of some forms of conservatism is not the same as criticism of all forms of conservatism. I understand that some of the people who contribute to this article are passionate libertarians, but if you compare the votes won by Ralph Nader with the votes won by George Bush, you can see that small government conservatism has very little influence compared with the "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" kind of conservatism. To reason that Bush is not a conservative because he is not a libertarian is to deny the reality that American conservatism takes a variety of forms. Rick Norwood 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words
"Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources."
I hope this is clear. Rick Norwood 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Conservative advocates had replaced all of the criticisms of conservatism with praise of conservatism. Since the section is titled "Criticism of conservatism", I think praise of conservatism should go somewhere else and criticism of conservatism should go here.
Please keep in mind that for Wikipedia to say that some people criticise some forms of conservatism is not the same as agreeing with that criticism. "All points of view should be represented." Rick Norwood 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The philosophy of conservatism includes supply-side economies, and a key tenant of supply-side economics is that money ought to be freed from the wasteful spending of government to have the greatest impact on the economy. It is fair criticism of the philosophy to say that this PHILOSOPHY favors the wealthy disproportionately as they have the most to gain. This criticism may OVERLOOK that it favors everybody else, too, it overlooks all kinds of stuff and demonstrates gross ignorance of economics, but it is a fair and accurate criticism. Bjsiders 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to make an effort to include the "philosophical" criticism that you favor, as well as the ACTUAL criticism that critics often repeat. I'll post again here explaining it when I'm done, I hope it satisfies a majority of editors. Bjsiders 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I put together a list of criticisms of conservatism. It's about as softball as I can make it while still including the things that - and this is key - critics of conservatism actually criticize it for. You cannot completely divorce philosophy from policy. Conservatives believe in supply-side economics. Well, supply-side economics is ultimately a collection of monetary and fiscal policies. There's no way to describe it without talking about policy on at least a cursory level. How in the world is it not policy to talk about how conservatives were slow to adopt civil rights in 1960? That was legislation. Why is that legislation fair game but the mere concept of lower taxes is out of bounds? I don't know where you get this idea that I run around attacking conservatism. I'm a conservative-libertarian registered Republican. I love The Corner at National Review and I have a print subscription. I read the Wall Street Opinion Journal. I'm about halfway through with Scalia Dissents right now. Get off this conspiracy of people running around trying to rip up conservatism because they're a bunch of liberal jerks trying push a policy. I don't have much in the way of anti-conservative opinions. Bjsiders 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
They're the same criticisms and same references we've had up since the beginning of this, but I've changed the phrasing so that it's clear that this is a criticism of a political philosophy as well as its policy implications. Part of the problem is that ER MD divorces idealogies from policies. I think this is a silly exercise in semantics, but I also think we can make it clear WHY these criticisms apply to philosophy as well as policy. I believe I have done that to the satisfaction of any reasonable observer. Bjsiders 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservatism simply argues that taxes be sufficient to cover the expeditures of of a limited government." This quote by 162 illustrates why we have so much trouble with this section. Again and again people working on this article equate conservatism with libertarianism. But libertarianism is only one small strain of American conservatism. For example, many people who consider themselves conservative favor increased military spending. On the other hand, many conservatives who don't give a fig about big government/small government care passionately about preventing homosexual marriage. And the fact that many conservatives support lax environmental laws is well documented. In fact, the small government conservatives often want all environmental laws repealed, in the name of laize faire capitalism. The reason we have trouble understanding you is that you use the word conservatism to mean what you want it to mean, and not the way it is actually used in public discourse. You seem to only know about one kind of conservatism, and assume that all conservatives are that kind. But what does that say about reading and understanding sources. They have been provided. Rick Norwood 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes! You understand. The problem is defining American conservatism.
American conservatism is inclusive. The small government conservatives are only a part, and are not the part that is criticized in this section.
The criticism section needs to be clear on that point: that these are criticisms of some American conservatives, not of all American conservatives.
The same is true in the Conservatism article. The quotes there criticize ancient Greek and Roman conservatives, they criticize French and English conservatives. They do not criticize small government conservatives. Someone else may want to add quotes critical of small government conservatives, but if I wanted to add quotes about small government conservatives, I would add them to the article on libertarianism, not here. This is about those groups of self-identified conservatives who get by far the most criticism, which are the religious right, the war hawks, and the cut taxes but increase spending conservatives. These people are probably not even conservatives by your definition. On the other hand, if you look at the definition of conservatives, you see it is support for either existing or past status quo, which historically has often taken the form of support for the hereditary aristocracy and the established church. Support for small government used to be a liberal ideal, until the small government liberals split from the other liberals over welfare and joined the conservatives. Rick Norwood 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say above. (I never used the phrase "gay bashing" by the way.) On the other hand, religious conservatism is a major part of American conservatism, and so to talk about American conservatism without mentioning religious conservatism is to ignore what makes American conservatism different from conservatism anywhere else in the world. Rick Norwood 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh! The difference between American conservatism and conservatism everywhere else in the world is the combination of a capitalist free market with a religious conservatism. That may exist somewhere else in the world, but certainly not in Saudi Arabia, where one family owns the entire country. Rick Norwood 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The reverts are getting retarded. The philosophy is not "supply-side" per se. the philosophy is monetary policy. Liberals believe in fiscal policy as a drive to economic stimuli and to a lesser extent monetary policy. In fact, JFK embraced monetary policy but the party did not move with him. The amazing thing are the errors in this article and in the american liberalism article. Read this quote from american liberalism "After decades of the popularity of modern liberalism inspired by the progressive movement and the New Deal, classical liberalism (previously called simply "liberalism") experienced a revival in the U.S. among some thinkers, with Milton Friedman being instrumental in that regard.[1]."
Here is the referenced article quote: "With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman. One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate, on purely logical grounds, that a centrally planned economy is impossible. He also famously argued, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates, rather than by government fiscal policy—contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. Revitalized conservatives achieved power with the lengthy administrations of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Their ideology and policies, which properly belong to the history of conservatism rather than liberalism, became increasingly influential, as illustrated by the official abandonment of socialism by the British Labour Party in 1995 and by the cautiously pragmatic policies of U.S. President Bill Clinton in the 1990s." Once people know what they are writing about I will have better faith inthis process. But the constant edits back to POV by people who do not know what they are talking about is, again, retarded. PLEASE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU START WRITTING. Otherwise, you end up with such glarring errors like the one in american liberalism. ER MD 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion with people who do not know the differences between the two subjects. I will work to try and make these things more evident in the next few weeks. As an example that I already mentioned, somebody incorrectly wrote that american liberalism embraced monetary policy which is not true. Here is a quote from JFK on the subject matter of government and taxes (since I did not support my statement above appropriately):
Its a pretty good quote since it comes from one of the smartest presidents we have even had... Maybe it should be included in the article. The opperative line is "a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent" which is a supply-side argument as opposed to a more traditional liberal philosophy esposed by Keynes. ER MD 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Before reading your latest rewrite, I want to say that I really hope that it is something we can live with. Thanks for rewriting rather than reverting. Rick Norwood 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Economic conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, an income tax, a consumption tax, and "double taxation" such as cpital gains and the inheritance tas."
Is this what you intended? Rick Norwood 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section also looks good, except for some typos which I will fix. But you've omitted the footnotes! I assume this was an oversight, but you need to footnote the economic stuff, which is not my main interest. I'll restore the footnotes to the criticism of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This section has been populated by some amazingly dumb comments. As an example of a criticism, "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power, as in the case of limitations on the rights of those accused of crimes, and support for broader powers for law enforcement agencies." There is no context. It is simply a soapbox.
Here is my opinion on the format for criticism to avoid POV. (and hence, to avoid the need for me to delete it)
1)specific group that the criticism is directed against.
2)the position in the afirmative that the group being criticized holds
3)specific group making the criticism
4)and the position or beliefs of the group making the criticism.
5)optional rebuttal by #1
Example: Religious conservatives (1-the group) often (because not all of them) believe that the family is the central unit of american life and seek to preserve its integrity. Some religious conservative oppose same-sex marriage because of their belief that it is unnatural and threatens the interpretations of marriage as a religous concept (2-their opinion of same-sex marriage). Liberals (3-group making the accusation) criticize the religious conservatives view on same-sex marriage stating that it is disciminatory and violates civil rights. Some liberals state that the movement, as demonstrated by efforts to make a constitutional amendment, tantamount to hatred (4-the groups criticism). Some, but not all, religious conservatives counter that civil unions are middle ground that preserves legal rights for same-sex couples that does not change the meaning of what they view as the religious connotations in the term marriage. (5- counterargument)
My inclusion:
The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, american conservatism supported economic liberalism and limited government, whereas its current application has deviated to an amalgam of limited government and social programs not specifically deliniated in the US constitution (first two sentences are 1 and 2 on the list). Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism (3), believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to discrepancies in wealth and impedes social justice and equality. (4)
This is perfect context... Who holds the beliefs, what the beliefs are, who criticizes, and what is the content of the criticsim. It could use some word changes though as it is not as precise as it could be.
This puts all criticism into perspective and the more information, the less POV. That is all that I am asking for. ER MD 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The same problem exists with the intro: ie. statements that are not specific and are not referenced. In addition, it is POV that some positions are represented while others are not. So the summary is inherently POV. as examples: Social conservatives who seek to defend what they see as traditional values especially regarding gender roles and sexual norms. ---what gender roles are they advocating? what do sexual norms mean? is it even explained in the body of the article? (if not, then it should be removed) Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into government activities, such as the public schools and the criminal code. --religious conservatives what religion in the criminal code??? I've never hear of the that before. What percentage of religious conservatives support the aformentioned facts? Supporters of a strong American military. -- okay, but also not explained in the body of the work. Supporters judicial restraint and opponents of judicial activism. -- fair statment. Supporters of states' rights. --not discussed in the article. Philosophically, conservatives have attacked Cultural relativism and postmodern critiques, insisting instead on the existence of objective truth. --huh? again this is not even in the article. the positions and terms are not explained. a one-liner here is not appropriate. ER MD 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree, i see tons of states-rights conservatives especially on the issue of abortion.
Fine--put explanations in the body of the text as opposed to trying to place positions in the intoduction section. ER MD 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Why just the liberal and conservative point of view! What about the Communist, and libertarians. The anarchists, and the Humanist. Isn’t Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV. I agree with ER MD the placement of some content is poor form, and lacks clarity.-- MadDogCrog 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to ER MD: Of course, not all social conservatives believe everything on the list. The list reflects the beliefs of many American social conservatives. By the way, is User: ED MD the same person as User: ER MD?
Rick to MadDogCrog: You say, "Isn't Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV." No. Here is what Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View says, "All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Now, obviously we need to be reasonable, and begin with major ideas, and eventually we reach ideas so minor they are not worth including. Rick Norwood 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is definitely biased towards a positive point of view for conservatism and has little elaboration on each point.
Rjensen, you're wrong. See these examples: The ACLU article is biased toward the ACLU and it should be. The NRA article is biased toward the the NRA and it should be. Each article is to provide an overview of the topic, not a debate of the topic, and not all views expressed.
Wikipedia is wrong for teaching bias, but the ACLU is a good example of how to handle critisism. Please keep in mind the vast majority of topics should be %100 npov or sightly biased toward the topic. Not a debate, Rjensen, et al, an encyclopedia. Scribner 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Scribner, I understand that you are expressing your strongly held belief, but Wikipedia policy supports Rjensen in this. Here are the relevant quotes, cut and pasted from [3]:
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.
Rick Norwood 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good edit, ED MD. By the way, just curious, are you the same person as User: ER MD? Rick Norwood 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I dropped ER_MD since people kept on harrasing me about keeping the "talk page" archived (something that I prefer not to do). ER MD 13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
this was inappropriate for the talk pages. So I erased them! these pages are not for blogging!-- MadDogCrog 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The form of Conservatism we are used to did not spring forth from Whole Cloth in the 20th Century. It had its precursors in each of the formative centuries, and yet you start your discussion with the 20th Century. You need to expand the article acordingly.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Scribner reverts anything that is remotely critical of conservatism, no matter how well documented. Maybe we need to do away with the section entirely, but to have a section titled "criticism" which consists of arguments in favor of conservatism is unreasonable. Rick Norwood 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that a conservative would prefer the section on criticism of conservatism be written by a conservative and contain nothing but praise of conservatism. This is not, however, reasonable. Do you maintain that nobody has ever criticized American conservatism? The criticisms are all sourced, the sources are mainstream.
I have no objection with removing the criticism section and incorporating the criticism throughout the article. Would you prefer that? Rick Norwood 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Rick, I can't tell just how seriously to take you when it comes to this. Just saying over and over again that it's referenced doesn't mean that much when your first reference is The Nation - please. Finding a POV about anything on the net is not hard to do - but just being able to give a POV a footnote doesn't change the fact that it's a POV. Other edits at this section have certainly been more studious in their approach - something you declare to be praise (which I wish you could better explain). Do you really think the end user of the article would walk away better informed by just throwing out:
One of the most common criticisms of conservatism is that it favors the rich, and leads to an extreme concentration of wealth.
instead of
The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy, specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, American conservatism support economic liberalism and limited government. Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism, believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to concentration of wealth and impedes social justice and equality.
Which one do you think helps an objective reader to connect the dots and leave better armed to develop their opinion? You're obvious problem is that it is not harsh enough. But then again, one of the critisms of your brand of liberalism is that it's ilk tend to prefer that others adopt your opinions instead of developing their own - feel free to reference me in the critism section of social liberalism. Have you considered venting your distaste for conservatism via a blog instead of Wiki?
Thanks for your rewrite. Your version is much better than the old one. Rick Norwood 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the section, which was once again deleted. When I have more time, I'll try to spread the information in that section throughout the article, instead of having it gathered together at the end. Liberals and conservatives working together on the article agreed that it should be saved for a final section, but repeated deletions suggest that this compromise is no longer operative. Rick Norwood 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
to quote our rulebook: Wikipedia:Describing points of view: An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.) That means the serious criticisms of conservatism must be included, clearly stated and not suppressed. Rjensen 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Whether or not the US is an Christian nation is not part of "conservatism" per se; besides, this topic is discussed in depth elsewhere. In fact, this is a matter of debate BETWEEN conservatives.
2. Affirmative action is a public policy issue that is covered elesewhere; it is not part of the definition of conservatism; in fact, there are conservatives who support AA. Also, whether or not AA is a conservative issue is part of the paleocon/neocon debate, which is beyond the scope of this article.
3. There simply isn't room to discuss every position that a conservative might take: line item veto, repealing unfunded mandates, stem-cell research, capital gains tax cuts, nuclear proliferation, increased military spending, voucher programs, English-only, etc. There's a certain kernel that makes "conservatism" of various stripes. The criticism that conservatism favors the rich covers conservatism, writ large, so it fits.
Yakuman
01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
+ *Opponents to economic liberalism, including supporters of modern liberalism, believe that such economic policies tend to create a concentration of wealth that impedes social justice and liberty.
+ *Many conservatives defend America's Christian traditions. There is strong debate surrounding religion's role (if any) in government and public affairs (including prayer and creationism in public schools, religious displays on public property, etc.). Many of these issues have been and continue to be adjudicated in the courts. [7]
+ *Proponents of affirmative action often argue that a race-blind meritocracy advocated by many conservatives could lead to a return to de facto segregation. [9]
I recently tried to fix the grammar and moderate the claims in this section, and was promptly reverted with an accusation of original research. Is fixing grammar origial research? Here is just one paragraph that the revert restored.
1) an important component of what? 2) Is the claim that anti-intellectualism has always been an important component less original research than the claim that this is only sometimes the case? 3) the link to prohibition in the United States refers to prohibition of alcohol, not Darwinism.
I really would like to see this section improved. Instead of reverting, why not work toward improving the section? Rick Norwood 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a critism section for American Conservatism and none for American Liberalism? This reeks of PoV, and not unbiased material.
For criticism of liberalism, go to the "Criticism of Liberalism" section in the liberalism article. The point about prohibition is that the link to prohibition in the United States is worse than pointless. Click on it and see. The point about reverts is that people who revert entire edits instead of working to improve the article do not help improve Wikipedia. Rick Norwood 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoever first wrote that deserves a gold star in my book; no word could better sum up the state of American political parties than "constellation": multiple points of light that people have a tendency (and an incentive) to group together in their minds, yet have little connection in reality. Kudos! -- Xyzzyva 11:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Rick, a reference to a two paragraph article highlighting that a concentration of wealth is creating a political opportunity for progressives is not support for an assertion that conservatism favors the rich. The article doesn't even mention conservatism and from what I can tell would provide you with a better indictment of capitalism or America in general.
I can only assume that a link to a racist, Christian Party website as support for the assertion that "Many American conservatives believe that America is or should be a Christian nation" was an ill attempt at humor or vandalism. Peddle that kool-aid on your blog - not here. Thanks.