Talk:Social liberalism/Archive 1

"Ideologically, all major US parties are Liberal and always have been." This claim in the United States section either needs explanation, or it needs to be removed. Liberalism is basically moderate control over the economy and extremely high emphasis on social rights. Historically, the US has been opposite of this with practically no government control over the economy and lack of civil rights; then, how can all major parties be liberal? 68.35.186.232 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So not confuse liberalism and social liberalism. I think the explanation is adequate, but the terms may be used differently today. Follow the link to Classical liberalism for additional information. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above statement is partially accurate. Both welfare liberalism and classical liberalism advocate a merit-based society, but the distinction lies in welfare liberalism's emphasis on equality of opportunity. According to welfare liberalism, being born in a higher socio-economic bracket affords an individual with greater advantage over others in society, so it is the government's duty to level access to opportunity. Thus, both classical as well as welfare liberalism are apart of the same political ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.88.219 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence:

They believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.

appears twice in the article, at the end of paragraph 2 and the second sentence of paragraph 5. It should probably be removed from one place or the other. --Haleym76 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

whoever wrote this page does not even understand what neoliberal means. This article is a missmatch of garble. It makes no sense. Who wrote this? -Gibby

It seems to me that this article is a redundant stub, and should be merged with "modern liberalism" (or whatever mod-liberalism itself needs to be merged with). I don't care what heading all this goes under, but it's excessive and confusing for three identical ideologies (American, modern, social) to have three different pages. -- Lucidish

Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. Modern liberalism has an American meaning, but most liberals around the world would consider their form of liberalism to be modern liberalism. As the article allreayd states, social liberalism has also a specific meaning for (European) progressive liberal parties. Their ideology is not identical with American liberalism, though there are similarities. Electionworld 21:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are reading a different article, because this one doesn't mention American liberalism, European liberalism -- or, actually, much of anything at all. It is a stub.

Also, what you've said here is actually very close to what I mean. The only difference of opinion, it seems, is that you think that modern liberalism is too relative, and ought to be merged into social liberalism. Well, fine. I would be satisfied if at least one of the three bit the dust.

Your "America" comment is a non-sequitur, and I have no idea how to handle it. My comments and suggestions have been very conscious of international attitudes, and are perfectly consistent with them, so far as I can tell. If there is any misunderstanding of the term "modern liberalism", it is not because it is Americacentric (the term "modern liberalism" has been used by The Economist, an English journal), but because it is simply not a very good or precise term. -- Lucidish

Sorry that I misunderstood, but in past editions of the article Liberalism, modern liberalism was used as a synomym of American liberalism. Personally I do not like the term Modern liberalism, since also free market liberals sometime use it to describe themselves. Electionworld 17:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. True, it's not a very good term; neither are "neoliberalism", "neoconservatism", etc. Sadly, we don't really get to choose the conventions people adopt.

I've understood "modern liberalism" to be a synonym for "new liberalism" (another horrible term). If anything can settle this kind of taxonomy issue, it's an analysis of scholarly literature. We'll have to do that.

In any case, so long as "modern liberalism" is understood as a variant of "social liberalism", they ought to be merged. If not, the usefulness of "modern liberalism" seems to dwindle, and one might wonder why we need it as an article at all. And if, on the other hand, "modern liberalism" is taken to mean something widely different, then the mod-lib article as it is presently written needs an overhaul. Lucidish 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

More than that -- this article seems to contain some very American references to the term "liberal"

The article states, for instance: "The ambiguous term neoliberalism has been used to describe the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, since it advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by modern liberals."

This just plainly isn't true. It may be the case that SOCIAL Liberals might disagree with MARKET Liberals in some instances but surely the defining quality of A Liberal (in general) is to be socially AND economically liberal? See the British Liberal party (as opposed to the Liberal Democrats) for a plain example of this. Fornax 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. There is a distinction between neoliberalism, market liberalism, and social liberalism. Neoliberalism is a pejorative used to slight corporate cronies who pretend to be market liberals; it is not market liberalism. Social liberalism and market liberalism both agree on the goals (increased liberty), but social liberalism accepts welfare and social programs while market liberals don't. They're mutually exclusive strains of the same ideology, not two different aspects of the ideology. Though it's easy to get confused because of the paucity of useful words we have available to make these distinctions. Lucidish 22:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is not liberalism. I agree. But it goes to far to say that market liberalism and social liberalism are mutually exclusive. Most liberal parties adhere to a mixture. Electionworld 16:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not in the way they're being formulated here. To be clear: social liberalism is modern liberalism, market liberalism is classical liberalism. That doesn't mean that social liberals hate the market or that market liberals don't fight for social justice. Lucidish 20:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your last remark. At the same time that does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. Classical liberalism (laissez-faire) is not followed by many parties, but at the same time most liberal parties favour a free market with a social framework. The theoretical difference is bigger than the practical difference. Electionworld 21:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a disagreement really just hinges on how the terms are being used. I mean to use them as they are on the present Liberalism page: as oppose strains of the same ideology. They can also be used as descriptions of issues that both ideologies try to grapple with in their own ways. Lucidish 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never before seen British conservative premier W.Churchill labelled as social liberal (=modern liberal). Could anyone explain it? Constanz 15:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What is John Stuart Mill doing in modern lib section? He is very much a classical liberal - he created plural voting (which made others more eligible for voting than others. Totally classical liberal.) This page needs fixing!

Betty

Same goes for Tocqueville. He was against government welfare and similar policies, which the article suggests is one of the major differences between Social and Neoliberalism.

Ryan

I don't know who did the edits, but as per your requests I removed the disputed names (at least until the editor can justify them). Lucidish 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I added again John Stuart Mill, he may not be a full social liberal, but, he is considered by some to be the father of Social Liberalism/Modern Liberalism. Please check wikipedia:

"John Stuart Mill (United Kingdom, 1806-1873) is one of the first champions of modern "liberalism." As such, his work on political economy and logic helped lay the foundation for advancements in empirical science and public policy based on verifiable improvements. Strongly influenced by Bentham's utilitarianism, he disagrees with Kant's intuitive notion of right and formulates the "highest normative principle" of morals as: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

Some consider Mill as the founder of Social liberalism. Although Mill was mainly for laissez faire, he accepted interventions in the economy, such as a tax on alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds. Mill was also a champion of women's rights."

mcduarte2000

Keynes should go out of this list, as he strongly argued that a hierarchy of markets exists, with financial markets taking the lead, he was in favour of countervailing individual capitalism by a strong state, including, if necessary, temporary capital controls and for him, redistribution and state activity was a way to promote growth and income, not just a redistributive issue "to help the poor". He was in favour of equal basic opportunities in real terms (as socialists are), not just equal formal chances (as liberals contend). Keynes has to be stated as Keynesian, nothing else.

(user: redwing)

Keynes wasn't a pure "social liberal", but is there such a thing as a pure thinker? He advocated free markets, with some state intervention, something that feets in social liberal thinking. Also, he is refered my some as a big influence on the social liberal ideas.

87.196.207.70 17:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hans van Mierlo, founder of the Dutch social liberal party D66 was also heavily influenced by Mill's writings. Although this is just an empirical fact, it does seem to make the case that Mill's writings can be brought into agreement with social liberalism. Intangible 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective - but also believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, healthcare etc. can be just as damaging to liberty as can an oppressive state. As a result, social liberals are generally the most outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with an enabling state providing public services to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.

If I don't get any response to this, I'm gonna contest it on the article page tonight. Thewolfstar 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense so long as an ideology is normative, and not descriptive. IE, this is normative, and is obviously true: "Social liberals believe in social liberalism; social liberalism entails belief in so-and-so; if x does not believe in so-and-so, then they are not a social liberal". This is descriptive, and may be false: "There is a set of people who call themselves 'social liberals'; and they tend to be outspoken persons on so-and-so". Lucidish 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see what's the problem with it. Please detail. Mcduarte2000 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction contradicts itself. The following statement:

"Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions, rather than the threat and use of force, to solve political controversies."

Is inconsistent with:

"Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens, and advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.") "

Since things like price controls depend on the threat of force.

The whole intro section is insideously POV, not just descriptive. Salvor Hardin 11:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not contradictory, because in (1) the emphasis which social liberals (and all theorists, including advocates of most sorts of anarchism) place upon non-coercive solutions cannot possibly be universal in policy, whereas (2) uses the language of rights, which are supposed to be a universal policy. Lucidish 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all obvious from reading it. It need to be reworded. Salvor Hardin 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For me this is more than obvious. You my "emphasize mutual collaboration", this is your prefered method of action, but of course, sometimes your prefered way doesn't work. In no where is writen "social liberals always use mutual collaboration". Mcduarte2000 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It says "mutual collaboration through liberal institutions, rather than the threat and use of force" and then goes on to describe the many ways that social liberals use force of threat of force to get what they want. There is not a single example of "mutual collaboration" given in the article. Either the article is seriously incomplete or the intro is seriously misrepresenting what the philosophy is about. Salvor Hardin 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It should now be crystal clear. Removed the contradiction tag, which wasn't appropriate anyway.

I'm also removing the Original Research tag. If somebody puts it back up, it is up to them to point out what's original research, and also to point out what they think the appropriate standard is for verification of the content of an ideology. Lucidish 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement is absurdly POV:

"social liberals are generally the most outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties,"

Salvor Hardin 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Lucidish 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement is a bit problematic:

"Social liberalism is a political philosophy that prioritizes mutual collaboration where possible over the threat and use of force, while recommending the exercise of liberal democratic institutions in situations where they believe collaboration is impossible. "

Since "threat and use of force" means the same thing as "liberal democratic institutions", don't you think both instances ought to be changed to one or the other? Salvor Hardin 03:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not identical. In order for your statement to be true, you would have to be implying that those states of affairs which do not include liberal democratic institutions are states of affairs which would not include threats of the use of force. And that's absurd. Nazi Germany, to name one. Civil war era America, to name another.

What you might have said is that all political institutions are based upon power. And, indeed, one of the forms of power is threat of the use of force; and, indeed, that's present in liberal democratic scenarios. But this is not unique to liberalism, or even to statehood. So I fail to see the problem. Lucidish 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democratic institutions are exactly the ones that prevent the use of force. You have separate powers, you have parliaments, you have a lot of different institutions that avoid war, revolutions or dictatorship. Also, at an international level, generally, social liberals prefer to use institutions like European Union and United Nations, to solve international disagreements, than simply go to war (this is one of the reasons why European liberals are the most federalist group on the European Parliament or were mostly against the war in Iraq) .

The opposite of this would be to impose a dictatorship, which would almost only allow others to solve their disagreements with it, by the use of force. Or at an international level to defend policies like attacking a country before being attacked. Probably you argue that liberal democratic institutions use the force to impose themselves, but this type of "use of force" is present in any other political system (even in an anarchy, where citizens would use also force to protect their interests). Mcduarte2000 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the distinguishing feature of social liberalism, as compared to other political philosophies, the presence of a welfare state? A welfare state entails the threat and use of force. Since social liberalism calls for a welfare state, it can hardly be said to "prioritize" mutual collaboration or "freedom". Salvor Hardin 16:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid: the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Your first sentence is largely correct. The second sentence is trivially true. The third sentence is false.

The problem is that it ignores the social liberal argument, which has been provided for you in the wiki: that welfare actually increases the liberty of the least well-off through an increase of opportunities available to them. You may dispute the details of how to enact this, or even deny that this premise is true, but at least you should recognize and understand the argument. Lucidish 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether or not "welfare increases liberty" is irrelevant. Welfare itself requires the use of force and THAT is what social liberals advocate. Hence, social liberals are distinct from other political philosophies in that they advocate the use of force in order to create a welfare state. Salvor Hardin 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not distinct in the use of threat of force, though, which is why your point is trivial. Moreover, "prioritizing" is not inconsistent with the use of force as, for instance, a last resort. Lucidish 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also this: "and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws"), intending to secure economic opportunities and thus extend liberties"

This is incoherent because minimum wage laws represent a reduction in economic opportunity and liberty. Salvor Hardin 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See comments made previously. Again, it depends on the details of how it is enacted. Lucidish 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I made changes to the text that I hope will solve your doubts. Even, because, at least in Europe I don't think social liberal parties put a big emphasis on "minimum wage laws", so, probably, that example should even be taken out of there. Mcduarte2000 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it's starting to shape up. However, I feel it still misrepresents the philosophy. Wouldnt it be much more accurate to say something like "social liberals advocate restricting economic freedom in order to achieve their ideal of material equality"?

Salvor Hardin 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the present formulation is the most appropriate formulation, given the robust sense of liberty which social liberals have. Rather, the use of the notion of liberty in the threadbare sense that you seem to presume that would be the "misrepresentation" of the social liberal philosophy. Lucidish 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the section on Social liberals vs social democrats, and now I see what you mean. The social liberal concept is one I've never come across before, I assumed it just meant "liberal" in the American sense of the term. Social liberals must be a dying breed, or must never have been very prevalent in the first place. All you hear about these days are the social democrats. Salvor Hardin 19:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Social Liberals (in European sense) are very different from the American version. In Europe there are many social liberal parties, generally not very big, but they still play an important role in some governments. In England, Lib Dems is the 3rd biggest party, for example. On the European parlment, for example, the liberal group, which includes social liberals and liberal conservatives is the 3rd biggest group. Mcduarte2000 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the title of "social liberal" is consistent with post-war welfare liberalism in America, so I don't really know what either of you mean. The social liberal position was, and still is, very popular as a centrist position; people just find the semantics confusing. In the same way, "classical liberalism" is often said to be a "dying breed", yet they're simply libertarians with a few modifications (abandonment of gold standard, for instance); and though libertarianism is a minority position, it is not a marginal one. Lucidish 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that "social liberalism" in Europe is very different from "social liberalism" in USA. At least it shouldn't be mixed up (and this is why this is a separate article from the american social liberalism). I would say european social liberalism, would fit on the right wing of the democratic party in USA (the exception would be the Lib Dems in UK, which because of being mixed up in the past with social democrats are a bit leftist). I've talked with many american "Democrats" living in Europe and most of them consider european social liberals to be extreme capitalists. European social liberals defend some welfare state, but a minimal one (much less than the current one that exists on most european states). Also you should note, that European social liberal parties belong mostly to the International Liberal, but Democrats in USA don't. Mcduarte2000 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't talk about these things on the basis of anecdote. At any rate the 'right-wing of the Democratic party' characterization may be apt for the term 'social liberal', depending on what exactly you mean by the 'right wing'. Lucidish 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is European "social liberals", are much more market oriented than a lot of the american democrats. This actually is not only an anecdote, but is present on some serious political tests on the internet, for example, as well as can observed in a book I could recomend "Liberal parties in Western Europe". Mcduarte2000 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Post-war welfare liberalism in america" is covered under the article "american liberalism". I've never heard anyone in the USA call themselves a "social liberal". The lefties here call themselves "social democrats" or "liberal democrats", and they fit the description that this article gives for "social democrats". It would be extremely inaccurate IMO to say that american liberals "place an emphasis on individual freedom" or something like that. It maybe very well be the case, though, that european social liberals do. Salvor Hardin 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't heard people say it in America because they generally don't need to. The term "liberal" in America was idiomatically annexed by the post-war liberals. The term "social liberal" is used here in order to situate it in the worldwide context, both as a means of contrasting to other forms, and as a means of moving away from Americocentrism (social liberalism, as has been noted, has some strength in the UK).

You're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it, and am fairly certain that you would be misrepresenting social liberals by editing away their main argument and source of justification. Lucidish 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This I believe we already all agreed. The main source of justification of "social liberal ideology" is freedom, not equality. Social liberals see equality in a different way of classic liberals because they also consider positive freedoms to be important, but that's it. Mcduarte2000 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we agree that "social liberalism" is distinct from modern, mainstream american "liberalism". Salvor Hardin 08:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That’s why there are two articles different about it. Actually, you need only to read the first paragraph to see wide differences. Social liberalism would never apply the "New Deal" measures, most social liberal parties in Europe doesn't agree with progressive taxation, minimum wage laws aren't exactly also the rule, don't accept quotas or positive discrimination to stop discrimination and don't also like to solve problems using "social programs".

Also, if you read a bit more the “American liberalism article”, Keynes can be referred as someone that inspired social liberals, but, at least on the present century, is not exactly someone that most social liberal parties would agree with.

From my European point of view, American Liberals, the way they are described, look a lot like socialists and social-democrats. Mcduarte2000 09:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are most certainly NOT agreed about any of the above characterizations. Even Adam Smith was arguably in favor of progressive taxation.

The idea that social liberalism does not apply to "new deal" measures is completely wrong. My comments having to do with postwar liberalism in America and social liberalism have everything to do with exactly this. To the extent that European countries reject these policies, they are less socially liberal. Only the issue of affirmative action seems to be a real stickler in the mainstream. Lucidish 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to present sources supporting the wild claim that american liberalism is in support of "individual liberty". Salvor Hardin 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The answers are too obvious to mention. You just need to examine the cases of GITMO, the ACLU, civil rights in the 60s, etc. to see the answer. The only case where I can think of American liberals being ideologically opposed to some individual right is with respect to some poorly crafted and generally shitty legislation which the Democrats tried to push during the Clinton years on gun control. There are other cases, i.e., having to do with marijuana, but my impression is of American liberal ambivalence, not hostility. In any case, the gun control exception may demand that the wiki's claim to be made less bold. Lucidish 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this? Haven't we already arrived to the conclusion, "social liberalism" is not equal to "american liberalism"? There is even an article specific about american liberalism! Mcduarte2000 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "equal to". They're certainly not synonymous. However, American liberals are almost exclusively associated with social liberal ideas. Lucidish 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to organize ourselfs. Two questions:

You consider that there should exist one article "American Liberalism" and one article "Social Liberalism" or not?

You consider Democrat Party to be a Social Liberal party (if so, why aren't they members of International Liberal, but of something called Alliance of American and European Democrats)?

Mcduarte2000 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

L to McD: Yes, I do believe there should be two articles. The Democrat Party sometimes is, and sometimes is not, socially liberal. However, a) American liberalism is not necessarily equal to whatever the Democrats advocate; b) that which is called "liberal" in the US is by and large an exemplar of what it means to be socially liberal; c) this article is about an ideology, not membership in some international club. Lucidish 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, after rereading what you wrote "On many issues, mainstream American liberalism may be considered to be a sort of social liberalism", I don't see any problem with it. From my part this article is not POV, at least not on this phrase. Mcduarte2000 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I agree. But let me be absolutely and positively clear about what I am reacting to which you wrote: Social liberalism would never apply the "New Deal" measures, most social liberal parties in Europe doesn't agree with progressive taxation, minimum wage laws aren't exactly also the rule... and don't also like to solve problems using "social programs". This is false. To the extent that these measures are frowned upon, they repesent an ideology that is repellent to social liberalism. To be utterly clear: American liberalism during its heyday (1950-79) was a leading figure in social liberalism. Lucidish 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe, today social liberal parties would never do that, at least to such extension. I tell you this, based on my social liberal coleagues in Europe (I belong to a social-liberal organization). From my knowledge, if we look to the "New Deal" as a whole, it was a very statist program, I hardly can consider it liberal. Of course, as many other things in politics, some of it's measures would perfectly be aceptable under a liberal social program. Regarding the american liberalism 50's to 70's I must admit I don't know enough about it to discuss it.

Regarding "international clubs", they are important, because the club you belong (in terms of political ideas) tells a lot about with whom you identify more. Democrats and liberals can clearly work together (that is why in EU parliament they work under the same political group - ALDE), but, they don't share the same ideology, that's why the "Democrat" parties belong to a different European party and don't belong to "International Liberal". Even on the arguments used for creating the club and groups you can see how far or close the parties are. For example, the biggest argument for the creation of ALDE was to join under the same umbrella the federalist parties. Of course, even International Liberal has very different parties, some more conservative liberal, and some more social liberal. Some more to the left in economical terms, some more to the right. ;)

Mcduarte2000 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who your colleagues are, but they do not sound like social liberals, in the sense that this article cares about. Lucidish 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This European Democratic Party is not a party with its own ideology. It is a co-operation of christian-democrats and centrists who favour European integration and formed a united group in the EP with the ELDR (European liberal democrats). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they have an ideology or not, I don't have any clue. But they have created a sort of "international" with the american democrats (Alliance of American and European Democrats). In Wikipedia you can read something like: "Its cofounder François Bayrou (UDF) described it as a party for people being neither conservative nor socialist, like the United States Democratic Party.", which actually doesn't tell a lot about them. Anyway, the only point I want to make is that hardly the American Democrat Party can be considered "liberal" in the international sense, and so, also, hardly can be a good example of "social liberalism". Mcduarte2000 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair trade is a term which is not in itself POV, because it has a more or less agreed meaning, having to do with approval of tariffs upon goods produced by exploitative industries. Lucidish 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone added it after I just wrote "free trade". I think the word could have many meanings, including the one you used, so it's better not use it. Mcduarte2000 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a complete rewrite. Social liberalism is liberalism focusing more on the social, rather than economic aspects of politics. Mwhorn 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the way the phrase is being used here. If you have a better suggestion for proper nomenclature, by all means provide it. Lucidish 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be describing welfare or American Liberalism. By definition social liberalism and progressive liberalism should be the same thing, and should contrast dirctly with social conservatism. Mwhorn 22:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

American liberalism from the Progressive Era on pretty much equals social liberalism. Intangible 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem then? Lucidish 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to focus heavily on economic issues, and seems to describe current American Democrats/Liberals or "welfare liberals". From what I know, and by the general definition of each word I would equate the primary definition of social liberalism focusing more on things like

• Environmental protection laws (although not to the extent advocated by Greens).
• A secular and progressive social policy, including support for gay marriage, abortion, liberal drug policy, euthanasia and prostitution legalization.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and, where possible, effective multilateralism.

I would tone down the economic issues which this article seems to focus on more. I think the only things that should be included are:

• Regulatory bodies over private enterprise in the interests of consumers and fair competition.
• A Free market economy.

Because the rest may be disputed between many social liberal parties, while some may not even include economic issues in their stated agenda. Mwhorn 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Social policy views are also libertarian views, which perhaps explains why they haven't received sufficient treatment here. Still, you're right, they have a strong place. I'm not sure about the environmental protection one, but I think a strong case can be made for it.

Foreign policy however is the trickiest item you have there. Some liberals may advocate nationbuilding, others may be pacifists. While I would agree with the impression that liberals tend to support multilateralism, I would not be comfortable being too bold on that.

Anyway, I don't disagree. If you have the time to do a writeup, that would be great. Lucidish 02:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do write-ups. Just find (scholarly) sources that describe social / progressive / American (1900+) liberalism, and find a common ground in that. Intangible 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Um. Aside from the caveats I listed, the suggestions for additions provided by Mwhorn are unobjectionable. What exactly are you suggesting here? That we lift material from scholarly sources instead of writing ourselves? Lucidish 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find the time to research more about this topic and check my facts using scholarly sources from my local library and from social liberal parties. If anyone has any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Hopefully I can do a write-up and I will keep you posted! Thanks, Mwhorn 04:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone still wanting to clean up more the article? The article has been tagged for clean up since June, and there were already a lot of changes. I believe things are quite good (but of course, can be always better). Shouldn't we return to normality and clean the cleanup tag? Mcduarte2000 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has some of the worst article screweduppedness that I have seen anywhere. Even for the current Wikipedia articles, which are declining at a rapid clip, this is one of the worst. Many of the other articles that it points to, though are competition for wackiness. I started with the intention of editing this thing, but don't know quite where to start. It is that bad. Shannon 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you do anything relevant, could you please specify exactly what is the "screweduppedness" in the article? People have been discussing it for a long time, there seems not to exist any agreement. My view is that this article deals with non-american social liberalism, or to be more direct, it is basically related with social liberalism in Europe. Mcduarte2000 13:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Until Lang gets specific, it's not possible to take this criticism seriously. I am removing the tag in anticipation of actual points. Lucidish 02:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why Social libertarianism should redirect here. They are two completely unrelated, if not opposing ideologies. —ExplorerCDT 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be Libertarian socialism? Mcduarte2000 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• And that's to where I redirected it. —ExplorerCDT 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've set the page to redirct to Libertarian Socialism. Seems it had been changed (again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostsocks (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of taking the German FDP off the list again. Just take a look on their platform und their actual policies. This party doesn't even consider itself a social liberal party nor is it considered one by any other political party in Germany. Instead it is usually considered the most right-wing/conservative/"libertarian" party on economic issues. This means to the right of the CDU/CSU. Actually, it would make much more sense to include the German Green Party in this list (which I would oppose too, but it would make more sense than including the FDP)

In addition, I have often heard card-carrying members of the FDP speaking in disdain of social liberal parties such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK, since they don't consider them "real" liberals because of their supposed "leftist" policies. The overwhelming majority of political scientists also agree that the FDP is a classic liberal party. In short: If the FDP is really supposed to be a social liberal party than there aren't any classic liberal parties in the world and all liberal parties could be included in this list. ;-)

As I understand, the inclusion of the FDP is based on the ground this it is mentioned in two sources as a social liberal party. One of them is a an 18 years (!) old publication from the United Kingdom. I don't know how the FDP is described in this book, but don't you think that might be a bit outdated? The second one is an essay in which the FDP is not further mentioned in the text but appears in a chart, where it is grouped together with the Dutch D66 and the British Liberals in a category called "Political Liberal Parties" (note: not social liberal parties). In the text, where the FDP itself isn't mentioned, it is stated:

"Three variants can be distinguished in the liberal party family. The first—liberalradicalism— describes liberal parties that are left-of-centre on economic issues and support a broad interpretation of democratic rights. Liberal-radical parties, such as the Danish Radicale Venstre and the Dutch D66, favour substantial state intervention in the economy on the grounds that this is necessary to achieve social justice and protect individuals from the vagaries of the market. The second variant of liberalism, liberal-conservativism, emphasises economic freedom and tends to be right of centre. Liberal-conservative parties, such as the Dutch VVD and the Belgian liberal parties, adopt an economically conservative agenda, advocating a minimal role for the state in the economy."

I assume the FDP is now supposed to be a social liberal party, because it appears in a diagram together with D66, which is mentioned earlier in the text as a party, which is "left-of-centre on economic issues" and "favours substantial state intervention in the economy". Well, first that's a pretty thin argument for the FDP being a social liberal party anyway. Second, in the case of D66 this might be true, but if you look at the platform and the policies of the FDP it becomes clear that this isn't the case here. Ask any FDP member (or any German for that case). If the FDP is "left-of-centre" what is the CDU then? A socialist party? - Der_Hans

I agree with Der Hans that the FDP shouldn't be labelled as a social liberal party. The party was a social liberal party in the 70ties and the 80ties, but later on the economic liberal wing dominated the party. There are still social liberals in the party, but it is not the mainstream of the party. I don't agree that it is the most right wing party, since it has a clear liberal profile on rule of law etc. I wouldn't label them, the VVD and the Belgian parties as liberal-conservative parties, since they didn't adopt conservative norms and values (see Abortion and Gay marriage or in the Dutch/Belgian case Euthanasia), its economic policy is econimic liberal, not conservative. Electionworld Talk? 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "most right-wing party in Germany" comment was only referring to the FDP's stance on economic issues. Of, course it's a liberal party... just not a social liberal one. But thanks for the support. ;-) - Der_Hans

The article stated that social liberals defend civil liberties, but this is not entirely true, (at least not in the US). Social liberals have classically called for gun control which is in conflict with the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is what defines our civil liberties here in the US. So I qualified it accordingly. Doctors without suspenders 03:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be your constitution, but no international bill of rights defines the right to be armed as a civil right. I think private people having guns violates my civil rights, my freedom and is a danger for society and its citizens. Electionworld Talk? 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is in my constitution and I don't know why I should be concerned by any international bill of rights. It's in my constitution for a reason and one of the most important reasons is for the self-defense of the people in the event of their government turning against them. Hitler and Stalin, incidentally, didn't believe in the people being armed, either. So I guess they would approve of the international bill of rights, but would not approve of the US bill of rights. I personally feel more threatened by state military and police than by any private citizen. Doctors without suspenders 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a pov tag on that section because it obviously a personal point of view whether citizens should be allowed to be armed and defend themselves or not. It is not a fact. Doctors without suspenders 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know countries (ex: Brazil), where people which claim to be social liberal defend the right to be armed (to defend against crime). In Europe they are against this, but, well, I don't know about any party which would be in favour of bearing arms in Europe, except the extrem-right parties (generally those that inspire themselfs in Hitler and the likes). I don't consider "denying the right to bear arms" to be a defining caracteristic of social liberalism and this is not an american centeric article (some american members of the Democrat party are "social liberal", the Democract party is not a social liberal party, even if this is what it claims to be). So your argument for pov doesn't make sense regarding this specific topic Mcduarte2000 10:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You said this isn't an American centric article. Is it a European centric article? If it is then it should clearly state this. Also, I don't understand why "those that inspire themselfs in Hitler" would be in favor of an armed populace. Hitler was in favor of disarming the populace. (That's why he was able to kill so many.) Anyway there are 200,000,000 people who disagree with you about whether the right to bear arms is a civil liberty. So I guess it is relevant...Or is this is just about the European outlook then it should be stated in the article. Otherwise it is false and POV and social liberals do not defend all civil liberties Doctors without suspenders 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit I just made is a fact and unless you can prove otherwise you really need to leave it alone. If you change it with no good reason you are inserting pov and trying to keep fact out of this article. Doctors without suspenders 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Any plans to include information on where now Social Liberalism is becoming more conservative? I live in Sweden, and among academic circuits this is something that is being increasingly discussed and brought up. This is evident in the rhetoric and campaign issues they selected in our latest election. It's now more about law and order than individual freedom and development. They also believe that instead of the government having a hands-off approach towards moral values - that the government SHOULD participate in telling the people to adhere to western values. The Swedish Folkpartiet wants to force immigrants to take a language test to become citizens and are very much against veiling (even for women who veil themselves voluntarily), the reasoning is that they don't think foreigners should come in to the country and turn back the clock of social progression that has been achieved. Anyways, all I'm doing here is bringing up one example and wouldn't mind seeing what others think of this. I however think that this should definitely be a topic that should be covered in one way or another. Mastgrr 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A section "social liberalism and immigration" can always be added to the article, although I'm not sure this is discussed much on ideological terms. Intangible 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with other schools of thought needs to be sourced. For example with this:

It [social liberalism] has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.

This is a controversial claim--not all classical liberals advocated a completely free market, even Adam Smith made exceptions. See Block, Walter. fr: "Adam Smith and the Left." Jeet Heer. National Post (December 3, 2001), in which Block, a professor and advocate of libertarianism, states: "Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place."

I see either two options here--reference the claim and include the Block reference in opposition, or point to libertarianism rather than classical liberalism.Shawn Fitzgibbons 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep pushing this misquoted quote. At the very best you are messing up Block's quote at the very worst, Block is pushing a very suspect version of anarcho capitalism by making a straw man out of Smith...which I don't think he's doing. Nevertheless, I suspect this quote is way out of context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Your claim that the source is out of context is noted, however, you might want to provide some evidence other than your gut feeling or own biases.

Murray Rothbard and Alan Krueger have made similar claims. In any case, I would like to hear others' opinions of the reference to classical liberalism before editing the article to reference libertarianism.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Every honest capitalist and economist of the free market knows Adam Smith's position, its not new. At one time leftists painted the laissez fare economy as an anarchic chaotic pipe dream. Now, apparently, they are attempting to wrangle Adam Smith and declare he's a left winger because he approved of government correction of market "failures" You are misquoting these people for this purpose. The authors you try to cite are attempting to demonstrate that Adam Smith was not a chaos capitalist as the straw man builds him to be. BTW, you are also entering your biases, except in this case, your bias is incorrect.

You keep making claims without evidence. I'll ignore them.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the following sentence somewhat confusing, since it comes across as a circular argument: "Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions." Could these institutions be defined by some other adjective or adjectival phrase than "liberal"? Haiduc 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. My objection to it is that the oppositions it represents are very far from universally-accepted; many such diagrams exist, showing different philosophies and oppositions, and dividing them along different concepts. Selecting one and presenting it in the article as a "map" to the differences between philosophies is therefore POV, even with a disclaimer noting that it is only one view. --Aquillion 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know some of those projections and don't feel they are so different from the one given. The importance of it is to show approximately where social liberalism is on the "map". Could you give me links to examples of maps, from sources with reputation, radically different from the one shown? --Mcduarte2000 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like some answers on this, if not I should insert it again... Mcduarte2000 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(this is an America-centric rant, but concerns the first paragraph)

The term 'social liberal' is also commonly used in North American contexts to describe those favorable to the preservation or furthering of human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties, in contrast to 'social conservative'. For the latter usage see social progressivism.

I challenge the above statement. It is pure rhetoric, not verifiable fact. It is purely an appeal to emotion to draw the reader to the conclusion that social liberalism is morally superior to social conservatism. Therefore this is an incredible injection of POV.

The concepts of human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties are fungible, changing as needed to meet the needs of the side that wants to push its own agenda. Both sides claim exclusive or near-exclusive ownership of concepts such as human rights, and use them to push their agendas forward on the public.

At least in America (I know, this is the ongoing discussion, right?) the "social liberal" (the "progressive" or "leftist" as the two are virtually indistinguishable now) approach has been to silence debate, declare opposing views to be racist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc (as needed to appeal to a specific segment of society), stifle freedom (the aforementioned gun control issue, "speech codes" on college campuses, etc) and numerous other incursions on what have traditionally been "liberal" (classical liberal) ideals of American society. Many conservatives likewise appeal to emotion by deriding often valid criticism of the war in Iraq is "unpatriotic", essentially the same ad-hominem attacks the left uses when declaring someone "racist" and "xenophobic" for raising valid concerns on the issue of illegal immigration.

Another emotional argument would be this: Who is morally superior, those who support a welfare state that absolves individuals of personal responsibility and encourages victimhood? Or those who prefer that individuals care for themselves and seek assistance from sound family and social structures (neighborhoods, religion, secular support networks, etc) and improve themselves for the betterment of themselves, their families, and society at large?

Yes, the immediately preceding paragraph is emotional opinion, but the point is that both statements are emotional opinion, not fact. There may be facts supporting the rhetorical arguments, and they may both be founded on solid principles of what the author believes to be the definition of human rights, etc. But they are still both emotional arguments.

Certainly both sides have positive views of America, and both sides have genuine concern for how this nation and society develops. Both sides care deeply and are committed to moving society "forward". The only issue is what each side means by "forward" and how each side believes we should move forward. These issues are certainly open for debate, and you can agree or disagree with either side as you see fit.

But to make a statement that social liberalism as defined and practiced in America today is "favorable to the preservation or furthering of human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties, in contrast to 'social conservative'" is pure POV rhetoric designed to elicit a favorable emotional response to prefer the former over the latter, and as such it has no place in this article. --Davecantrell 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest an alternative text please? Mcduarte2000 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Even accepting that there are "social liberals" in United States, and that most of this social liberals belong to the Democratic Party, this hardly makes liberal party a "social liberal party".

And this can be seen in many ways:

• There is no official international affiliation of the Democratic Party. The party has ties with the Alliance of Democrats, with the Socialist International and with the Liberal International. Social Liberal parties consider them liberal, as as such, have ties only with Liberal International.

• The Democratic Party has been historically in favor of affirmative action programs, heavy labor regulation or heavy government subsidies. This is very, very much against liberal thought. Liberals in Europe, even social liberal ones, defend small government, free trade and open markets. I don't mean by this that some members of the Democratic Party aren't social liberals, but, this doesn't make the party social liberal in terms of ideology. Even because you could find also on the Republican Party people that would be considered in Europe as "social liberals".

• Social liberals also have a tradition of anti-clericalism, which does not exist with the American Democrats, who even use on some of their most important internal documents the words "under God".

• The position of Democratic Party in terms of Trade agreements is completely anti-liberal (when we use the term "liberal" in the way it is used outside United States). Internationally, members of the International Liberal are the strongest supporters of trade agreements among the existing political groups.

• The Democratic Party is, like the Republican Party, a "catch all" party. It has inside it many different types of people, with many different ideologies.

• If as the article says, 46% of the members of the party can be considered "social liberal", then, this means 54% of the members of the party are not social liberal.

Mcduarte2000 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In response:

• Official affiliation isn't neccessarily a good indicator of ideology.
• Most modern Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, are centrist (center-right by EU standards) on economic issues. Keep in mind that much of the GOP is far right-wing by European standards - beyond most European conservative parties. Mitt Romney, for example, opposes single-payer health care, wants to abolish the inhertiance and capital gains tax. Many oppose aborition and gay marriage and want to teach creationism in public schools. Ron Paul, for example, wants to abolish the entire department of education and get the U.S. out of the UN (he's one of the Republican fron runners for the GOP '08 ticket). No one, not in Europe or the U.S., would call someone who is opposed to single-payer health care, abortion and gay marriage a social liberal. Make no mistake, only the most moderate of Republicans would -and only on fiscal issues- be considered social liberals. Considering both, social and fiscal issues, moderate members of the GOP would be considered classic liberals in Europe, not social liberals. You have severely underestimated how conservative the U.S. is. The Dems are a far cry from any European social democratic party. If anything the Democrats to far to the right to be considered social liberals, who are center-left by U.S. standards.
• Among liberal democrats, ca. 46% of party loyalist, there is "anti-clericalism"
• Liberal Democrats support the WTO, NAFTA and UN - and the party as a whole opposes unilateralism
• True. American liberals, who are mostly social liberals, only form 46% of the Dem base. Yet, American liberalism, which can be decribed as a form of social liberalism, is one of the party's main ideologies.

In sight of the above I think the Democratic Party ought to receive some sort of mention in this article, as it represents social liberals in the largest Western country. I think removing the party from the "list of parties" but keeping a mention of it in the U.S. section is a fair compromise. Lastly, keep in mind that this article is about social liberalism world-wide, not just in Europe. Social liberalism exsists in Asian, American and Africa as well. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Response:

• Affiliation is an indicator, doesn't necessarily, of course show the complete truth. In Europe, for example, when we talk about European parties, some national parties prefer to belong to a somewhat different party, because of it's importance on the European Parliament. However, when we look at the membership of worldwide internationals, generally parties try to belong to the one that represents it more closely. The Democratic party, by having relationships with 3 of them, shows, that it's not comfortable in belonging to only one of them. Which of course it's quite normal, as this is a sort of "catch-all" party, because of the US bipartisan system.

• I'm not saying a lot of the policies of the Democrats would not fit a Social Liberal party somewhere else. They would. I don't deny there is a lot in common. It's just, there are also some important differences, which make me not accept the Democratic Party to be considered a pure "social liberal" party on what is internationally seen as so. I agree with you that maybe "american liberalism, which can be decribed as a form of social liberalism, is one of the party's main ideologies". But being one of the partys main ideologies doesn't make it a social liberal party. You will find people that are socialist and social-democrat in the democrat party also. Some quite leftist actually, when speaking in economic terms.

• "but keeping a mention of it in the U.S. section is a fair compromise" - That's why I kept the section (actually I created it in the past). I believe it deserves a mention. But just trying to be most fair possible. Not denying there is a lot of social liberalism on it, but also, explaining the party is not 100% representative of a typical social liberal party.

• "social liberalism world-wide, not just in Europe. Social liberalism exsists in Asian, American and Africa as well" - Of course. And that is why we shouldn't mess up what Americans call social liberalism, with the rest of the world, where things are quite different on some topics. Mcduarte2000 10:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Left-liberalism currently redirects here, so I made left liberalism and left liberal redirect here too. But the article states that left-liberalism and social liberalism should not be conflated. Should left-liberalism have its own article? Or should these pages simply redirect to liberalism, as left liberal used to? (See parallel discussion on talk page of left-libertarianism, re whether left-libertarianism is all forms of libertarianism on the left, or something more specific.) BobFromBrockley 10:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all of these term are so ambigous. Social liberalism is not to be confused with classic liberalism or neoliberalism as it is a center-left ideology. I am going to delete the OR "not be confused with 'left liberalism'" statement (which can include all forms of liberalism except for classic liberalism). Redirecting the left liberalism link to liberalism is, however, a good idea. As ordoliberalism and modern American liberalism are also center-left ideologies in addition to social liberalism. Let me say liberalism once more. Regards, 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Hernando deSoto from the list because he is not a social liberal. The citation that is supposed to backup the assertion that he is, actually proves otherwise. *Hernando de Soto (economist)^[1] (* 1947)98.216.175.228 (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Jevan43 Are those of this ilk really to be described as 'free trade'?

Now, I don't believe that many that espouse free trade actually follow it, in a pure sense. Where on Earth does free trade exist uncluttered?

Those described as 'free trade' are more of the bent to help business over workers, and are more to be called capitalists. Or simply pro-business.

It seems to me that Democrats would be better described as regulated economists, or mixed-market economists. On the side of consumers and workers as opposed to business owners and capitalists.

More prone to fair trade than free trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantucketNoon (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NantucketNoon (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Social liberals tend to be divided over the issue of trade (in the greater sense mixed-economy advocates is correct). Dems supported NAFTA, but rejected CAFTA - according to the Pew Research Center American liberals are split on the issue. Signature^brendel 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an American centered article. In Europe, liberals are probably the strongest defenders of the common market and of the abolition of trade barriers. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not neccesarily social liberals, however. Also remember that WP articles ought to be global - not Euro or U.S. centric. Otherwise you're correct, classic liberals - usually refered to as conservatives in the U.S. (sometimes against their will ;-)) are supporters of free trade, as they support laissez faire capitalist policies. Signature^brendel 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not only social liberals, that is true. In Europe Social Liberal parties belong generally to the ELDR party, which is the European Liberal Party (it included basically Social Liberals and Liberal Conservatives), and also to Liberal International. All the parties that belong to ELDR party and to Liberal International are for Free Markets and in Europe for the European Integration, which also includes, the abolition of all barriers to free competition companies from the integrating states of European Union.

And, yes, it's important to speak globally. But when we speak globally, the best way to see what liberalism stands for at the present time, would be to look to the positions of the international liberal organizations (Liberal International, ELDR Party, Africa Liberal Network, Council of Asian liberals and democrats, etc.). The Democrat Party in the United States doesn't belong to any, which from my point of view, means, that itself doesn't recognize really liberal in the international sense (social liberal, or liberal conservative).

From my european point of view (and I belong to a social liberal organization), it's true that I feel that the present Democrats in USA are more near my point of view, than the present Republicans, but, if I look at the Democrats as a whole, this party is not really social liberal. The Party is a big mix of many different types of left ideologies, many, which are much more to the left than social liberalism (ex: social democrats). Just because a party calls it self liberal it doesn't mean the party is liberal, or that it's members are all liberal. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, social democracy isn't prominent in the U.S. or Dem party, it's actually quite socially liberal, but as the U.S. only has two major parties, both include a variety of ideologies. Others claim that the party is too far to the right ;-) The Dems are, however, dominated by liberals, about 46% of its base. We do discuss the U.S. seperately due to its exceptionalism, but even in the U.S. a slighty majority of liberals advocate free trade agreements. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"In general, contemporary social liberals support: ... Biological evolution being taught in schools,"

I think I should ask: Is that a special feature? Did I miss something? Is it staggering to teach science instead of superstitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.169.83 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In some areas of the U.S. "intelligent design" is being consider as an equal theoretical alternative and thus being taught in schools, this may seem strange for Canadians, Britons or Swedes, even for many Americans, but not in Kansas - Personally, I agree with your view on the topic, then again, I'm a social liberal. Signature^brendel 09:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the person here was using syntax or an idiom I just don;t get (I'm not that well acquainted with technical liberal terms), but to me this seems kind of clumbsy:

'For social liberals the lack of education, health, or employment is seen as a major threat to the freedom of state compulsion and coercion '

This seems to me like the sentence states that a lack of education etc is a good thing because it is a threat to state coercion, I'm not the most knowlegable on social liberalism but surely the sentece is intended to convey that HAVING and education healthcare etc is a threat to state coericon and therefore a good thing.86.156.52.67 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to give two definitions of social liberalism. Social liberalism is just classical liberalism but with increased economic intervention. Both social liberalism and classical liberalism support maximum individual liberty and oppose traditional values, so classical liberalism is a form of social liberalism.

Social liberalism shouldn't be confused with progressivism and social democracy because the latter two does not advocate individual liberty as much as the former. CounterEconomics (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to equate social liberalism with modern liberalism. Social liberalism is an ideology that emphasizes individual rights and personal liberty. Modern liberalism does not necessary support those. CounterEconomics (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of your claims. The article was better before your edits. Please don't confuse "social liberalism" with "liberal socialism". --Checco (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was originally seperate from modern liberalism and I don't see any reason to move this to social liberalism. Many sources are irrelevant and does not use the term social liberalism. It's original synthesis to use sources that use the term modern liberalism and equate it with social liberalism. For example, the second citation in this article mentioned "social liberal" only two times. It equated "social liberal" with "social policy liberal," and does not claim "social liberalism" as an ideology as its own, but a ideology opposite to social conservatism. See this talk page, and many editors see "social liberalism" in this context. The source mentions the kind of liberalism in this article as "new liberalism" and does not treat "social policy liberalism" as a synonym. The source mainly talks about classical and neo-liberalism and compare many forms of liberal policies. I don't see how some synthesize this source and claim that the source uses social liberalism as an ideology.

There are many authors that consider "social liberalism" to be the "modern liberalism", as this type of liberalism was a version of liberalism that appeared after what we today consider to be "classical liberalism". Regarding the rest of your argument, please explain as you are not really being very clear, a "liberal social policy" is part of the "modern" social liberalism, at least in many european social liberal political parties (ex: D66 in Netherlands). Mcduarte2000 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That source defined liberalism as the repect of individual rights and personal freedoms overy group freedoms (see page 2). My last edit emphasized these rights and freedoms as the central concept in the beginning of the article. The Wikipedia article also equates American liberalism with social liberalism in the section "Social liberalism versus classical liberalism." I need to see a source of that. CounterEconomics (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would take that out "American liberalism = social liberalism" as from my european eyes that is not true. However many Americans seems to feel that American liberism is equal to social liberalism and continue changing the article in that way. The only think I can agree with the afirmation is that there are liberal factions on the Democratic Party. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article can be improved, but is important for us to acknowledge the two meanings of "social liberalism". It is not simply the opposite of social conservatism, as in the US, but also the left-wing of the liberal movement, while conservative liberalism is the right-wing. --Checco (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that are NOT social liberal in the ideology but socially liberal the opposite of social conservatism, but they are still treated in this article as an ideology. These sources ideologies that are socially liberal not the other meaning. This article contains many contradictions. CounterEconomics (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which contradictions you find on the article and which sources you consider to be wrong. Again I feel you are really not being clear. Social liberalism as an ideology is "more liberal" than conservative liberalism in questions like gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but we should improve it explaining what the two meanings are. --Checco (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One would be focusing on the right wing "liberals" (who are also called libertarians actually).

And the other would be focusing on the "true" or "left" liberals (which is this arricle)

THATS ALL WE NEED FOR 'liberalism' !!! NOTHING ELSE. Please wikipedians, delete duplicate articles that are redundant.

its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you form the US? Actually right-wing liberals are called "conservative liberals" in Europe, while "social liberals" are the left-wing of the liberal movement. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Liberalism is actually pretty organized right now at the Wikipedia. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User OpenFuture deleted history paragraph repeatedly, explaining that "Why is there suddenly a sort of brief history in the intro? The intro is what it is ABOUT, now how it happened. I". What's wrong with explaining the history of social liberalism? How can you explain social liberalism without mentioning the Great Depression and Keynes?Valois bourbon (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with explaining it, but it shouldn't be in the intro, and the into was better they way it was before, when it was short, complete and to the point. If you feel the neex to expand on topics, do that in the article, not the intro. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Every ideology article seems to have a few words about the history. This deserves too.Valois bourbon (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So put it in. But not in the intro. OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that "short, complete and to the point" implies your support to removing specific positions mentioned in the intro. The intro is obese of them.Valois bourbon (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific policies such as "minimum wage laws" is simply not true outside the United States. Most social liberals seem to support corporatist wage negotiation.Valois bourbon (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Seem too"? Can you substantiate that claim? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see now. You have an unstated goal with your edits, which is why you are so agressive and uncompromising, and I'm beginning to see what that goal is. And it seems centered around a very simplistic view of liberals split into "social liberals" and "classical liberals" and you try to force everything into this simplistic view. However, things are not that simple. The label "classical liberal" is usually used mostly by people who are quite libertarian/neoliberal, and that is not what most people calling themselves liberal in Europe mean. Neither is the differentiation between social liberal and classicla liberal the same as between US liberal and European liberal. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attempt at Obama bashing, but is Obama really a noted social liberal thinker? I know he is the current president of the US, but that hardly makes him a noted social liberal thinker. I think he should be removed from the list of noted social liberal thinkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobito85 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken out. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This page seems riddled with contradictions,

It states that "social liberalism"'s economic foundations were laid by John Maynard Keynes But that social liberals are opposed to free trade an globalisation. How can those two statements be reconciled?

Keynesian economics are strongly in favour of free trade

Keynesian and classical economics are essentially the same when it comes to macro-economics but differ on micro-economics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Social Liberals support Free Trade and globalisation (they are liberals). And actually, I haven't seen any point in the article (I was trying to correct it), where it says the opposite. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Classical liberals such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek"

Surely these people are considered libertarians, more than classical liberals?

There are key differences between classical liberals and libertarians a classical liberal would support government ownership of roads paid for by taxes a libertarian would support private roads paid for by tolls

His "Principles of Political Economy" is the definitive text on classical economics. This is a man who considered progressive taxation slightly immoral. Even Adam Smith the exalted high guru of capitalism supported progressive taxation.

There is absolutely no mention here of how this movement fits in with the Liberal International or the Oxford Manifesto. Certainly the opposition of social liberals to free trade would be add odds with both the liberal manifesto of 1948 and the liberal international.

The article states that social liberals are against the neoliberal policies of Margaret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher's policies involved the privatisation of utilities, transport and communications.

This is entirely in keeping with article II section 1 of the liberal manifesto

"The suppression of economic freedom must lead to the disappearance of political freedom. We oppose such suppression, whether brought about by State ownership or control or by private monopolies, cartels and trusts. We admit State ownership only for those undertakings which are beyond the scope of private enterprise or in which competition no longer plays its part"

Surely the deciding factor here must be state control of industry? Anyone who believes in state control of industry is not a liberal

Not necessarily. You could accept some state control, for specific reasons, as actually the current financial climate shows. Unless you also consider George Bush (who is a conservative), a Socialist or Social Democrat. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The following parties are members of the socialist international and therefore should be considered either social-democrats or socialists.

Italy: Action Party, Radicals of the Left, New Italian Socialist Party Colombia: Colombian Liberal Party Chile: Social Democrat Radical Party Argentina: Radical Civic Union

If no one obejects I will remove them from the list in a weeks time

You missed the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Curiously, the Free Democratic Party of Germany is mentioned in the article but not in the list. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that what I was thinking too! The German SPD is usually associated with social democracy. They are even more leftist than the Austrian Social Democratic Party which is an average socialdemocratic party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.166.152 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tunisia: Social Liberal Party Sweden: Liberal People's Party Slovenia: Liberal Democracy of Slovenia Serbia: Liberal Democratic Party Russia: Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko" Philippines: Liberal Party Norway: Liberal Party of Norway Netherlands: Democrats Moldova: Social Liberal Party Luxembourg: Democratic Party Lithuania: New Union (Social Liberals) Finland: Swedish People's Party Estonia: Estonian Centre Party Denmark: Danish Social Liberal Party Croatia: Croatian People's Party Canada: Liberal Party of Canada Austria: Liberal Forum

These paties are members of the Liberal international. Furthermore at least half of these parties describe themselves as centre right.

The article states that social liberals support state enterprises and are opposed to free trade. These two positions are against the manisfesto of the liberal international.

Either these parties should be removed from the list or these positions should be changed.

If you read the literature, the term "social liberal" usually refers to policies rather than political parties. These policies were followed by all Western governments until the 1970s when they were replaced with monetarism by the Democratic, Labour and Liberal governments in the US, UK and Canada. So it makes no sense in referring to "social liberal" parties. I would remove all the parties. By the way, support of state enterprises and opposition to free trade were not objectives. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem maybe is what is writen regarding that ideas of Social Liberal Parties. I've been in meeting of Liberal International and, Social Liberal parties belong to this organization. And also support free trade. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are active in the Liberal International then you should have no problem providing a link to their list of "social liberal parties". All we have now is a list of parties. Do any of these parties have "social liberalism" in their platforms? As some of these parties are older than social liberalism, did they amend their constitutions? I am not saying your list is wrong, just that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed all the parties that weren't members of Liberal International (you should note other organizations exist, for example, in Europe, you have ELDR which is a regional organization and contains more liberal parties and LI). I think we should define some criteria for this, following the same guidelines you just gave me. For example, if the party is part of LI, ELDR, CALD, Africa Liberal Network or RELIAL this means it is (probably) a liberal party (not necessarily of course social liberal), but then, if in the name or the statues the party refers to "radicalism" "liberal democrat" "social liberal", then it can be considered a left liberal party, so, social liberal. We could also use of course citations, as some of the parties on the list have. It is possible to find some criteria to solve this argument and I agree on trying to find it. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no social liberal parties. It no one can find any source for this list I plan to delete it. Also, the list of social liberal thinkers needs to be changed. I will try to find a source for a new list. Many of the people included on the list were politicians who did not contribute to social liberal thinking, and it is doubtful whether many of them were social liberals at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, and me thinking I'm member of the board of one, and have been going to international meetings with others. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jep. for example: "Germany: Alliance '90/The Greens" - Our Greens here in germany are nearly socialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.71.243 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The following parties are on the list that are members of the Socialist International: Radical Civic Union (Argentina), Social Democrat Radical Party (Chile), Columbian Liberal Party, Party of the Democratic Union (Mexico). Other parties listed are obviously either socialist or Green. The Liberal Party of Canada and the Democratic Party of the US are not social liberal parties. Most of the parties listed are not even members of the Liberal International. The list is inaccurate and unsourced and therefore should be removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is not completely unsourced. You can't simply delete completely a list because some of the elements on the list are not sourced. Also it should be discussed if being member of Liberal International is a requisite for a party to be considered social liberal. Sometimes belonging to one international and not another, is because of matters of internal politics of the country, or historical reasons, and as nothing to do with ideology.

I would however accept we can consider this one of the criteria, and take out of the list the political parties that known to be members of a non liberal international organization. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me just unequivocally state my support for citations. It's generally very difficult to pinpoint specific ideologies to what can often be very large and jumbled political parties. That aside, the statements of Deuces are somewhat confusing. Deuces boldly claims that there are no social liberal parties, and then leaves open the possibility of finding sources that talk about social liberal parties. Those two sentences don't make sense. We should all understand that original research runs in all directions: both including parties that do not have social liberal individuals and excluding parties that do have them in large numbers is beyond absurd. Deuces states that the Democrats (US) and the Liberals (Canada) are not social liberals, but that claim is patently false. Of course they are. I've seen these games in Wikipedia before, and they can be very annoying.UberCryxic (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the Liberals in Canada. I'll try to find one for the Dems now.UberCryxic (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some more now, and I'll probably throw in a few other ones later.UberCryxic (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was that parties generally consider themselves "liberal" pure and simple, and did not think there were any "social liberal" parties. Many were established before the concept of "social liberalism" existed. When I was contradicted I asked for sources, which is not unreasonable. Could you provide the page numbers for your sources on the Liberal party of Canada and the Democratic Party of the United States and tell me what they say? I could not find any reference in these books to these parties being socially liberal at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did provide page numbers in my edits for some of the citations, including the Democratic Party. If you're doing Google searches, you can search for the following on the Canadian Liberals: "The Liberal Party of Canada adopted modern liberalism at its convention of 1919." I am, of course, equating modern liberalism with social liberalism because they are the same thing. By the way, some of your requests here are unreasonable (see below).UberCryxic (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The only two "modern liberal" policies enacted on the election of the Liberals in 1921 were a reduction in import tariffs, and an increase of the Crow Rate subsidy, which led to lower shipping costs for Western farmers. This was done in order to ensure the support of the Progressive Party of Canada because they did not have a majority. The Liberals abolished the Crow Rate in 1995. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Their actions in the early twentieth century represented a start. See below for more details. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how you characterize their actions. What matters is that we have a reputable source explicitly saying that the Liberals adopted modern liberal ideology.UberCryxic (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This section should be re-named "Notable Social Liberal Theorists"

I reviewed the footnotes and the following describes these sources and their contents:

Ideology and Politics in Britain Today By Ian Adams [4] TH Green LT Hobhouse JH Hobson William Beverage John Maynard Keynes —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power [12] Book by James L. Richardson; Lynne Rienner, 2001 TH Green LT Hobhouse Léon Bourgeois John Dewey John Maynard Keynes

Liberels website [16] Does not identify "social liberals"; not reliable source

Contested Knowledge By Steven Seidman [25] Emile Durkheim (but social liberalism is not used as defined in article)

Liberal International [26] TH Green LT Hobhouse JH Hobson

DiarioEconomico.com [27] Should not use a business daily as a source

Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior [28] Use of the term "social liberalism" is wider than defined in article.

The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY [29] Not a reliable source

I suggest that the list be cut down to the theorists mentioned by Ian Adams.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are both ignoring sources that actually are reliable and even distorting what is "social liberalism" (for example by saying "social liberalism" from the book "Liberalism in Modern Times" doesn't refer to the wikipedia article "Social Liberalism).

Also, for example, the Diario Economico article was written by a Political Science University Professor.

If you believe certain authors didn't contribute to "Social Liberalism" ideology, then, we should discuss it author by author. Trying to find sources that for example also support an opposite view.

Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a list drawn from multiple sources is that a POV becomes inserted into the article. Ian Adams is a good source of the major social liberal theorists. But if you add the social liberals named by the Diario Economico, then the list now includes the major social liberal theorists plus a few others. Notice that the article lists some theorists, then says "etc." It does not pretend to be an exhaustive list. Instead of showing the top six theorists, it is now the top six plus a few others. If you think there should be more than six then find a source that includes all six plus the next six, ten or whatever other theorists. If you want a longer list, then why don't you get a list in a textbook and use it as a source. Unless this is done the list is POV, original research and of doubtful validity.

Incidentally, by restoring the list you are now including unsourced names. Furthermore, I checked all the sources (see above) and many of the names are not in fact supported by the footnotes.

Liberalism in Modern Times is a collection of essays. One essay lists Woodrow Wilson, George Orwell and Hans Kelsen as social liberals. Furthermore, the WP article is selective in listing social liberals mentioned in the book which is POV/OR. Also, it does not supply page references.

BTW JS Mill who is listed in the Diario is not considered a social liberal, but an inspiration for the New Liberalism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, different authors consider different writers to be relevant contributors to social liberalism. I would say that staying with only one author list is what would be considered POV, as it would only consider the work of one author (for example, anglo-saxonic authors generally refer more anglo-saxonic authors, and French authors never forget their own theorists). A proper list will have to consider the works of many authors. And if you read Liberalism in Modern Times and want to include more authors found there, do it. Also, obviously, merging the work of many sources in one list is not original research, as, if it was, this would mean all wikipedia articles were original research (I doubt you will find any good article on wikipedia where there is only one source).

I agree with you many authors on the list come from not reputable sources, but that is because of the open nature of Wikipedia. If you want to delete the ones without source, so be it. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously judgment is often required. But there is no doubt that Ian Adams has listed the main British social liberals. Unfortunately that leaves out French and American and other theorists. But look at the list now. Jeremy Bentham, who died sixty years before social liberalism was developed, is at the top. John Stuart Mill and George Orwell are listed. Woodrow Wilson is listed, but notably FDR and JFK are not. Over time names will be added and deleted and the list will change. Using a list from an academic source is not more POV than using a list compiled by many WP different users, especially if we disclose the source. Then we are not saying these are the major social liberals, rather that x says these are the major ones. Perhaps you have another idea? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think is quite obvious you can't list all the social liberal thinkers. I know the history of the list, and it in practice has been slowly growing. By requiring references, and having criteria, we are slowing this growth. Maybe in the future we can start requiring that someone finds at least 2 or 3 different sources before listing a new name (I have no idea if this is acceptable requisite in Wikipedia). Ensuring that more than 1 reliable author considers someone to be a "great thinker" is probably the best way to guarantee the list is not POV. Looking at the list right now I don't feel it is yet too big. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The line in the introduction reading "Social liberal parties tend to be centre-left.[4][5]" is not supported by the footnotes. The passages in these sources actually read:
[4] Adams, Ian (2001), Political Ideology Today (Politics Today), Manchester: Manchester University Press, ISBN 0719060206 (p.32): "Liberal parties in Europe now find their niche at the centre of the political spectrum".
[5] Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger. ISBN 0275968146. (p.35): "Conservative liberals occupy a place at the right end, social liberals in the middle."
The Four Deuces (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to consider "social liberals" only centrist (on economic terms)? From what I remember in the past there was a graphic with that and it was deleted because it was considered POV. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have now changed edited this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear that many of these quests for sources are getting just a tad silly. We are not required to source obvious and prominent information. That social liberals are leftists on economic issues is fairly well known. Now, what "left" and "right" mean regarding economic issues is a worthy debate to have, but it is a waste of time to try and determine that social liberals actually fall on the center-left side of line on economics (and social issues). They clearly do, and we don't need to source that. This article is crossing into paranoia a little bit. If anything, it's way too heavily cited and that ruins its stylistic appeal.UberCryxic (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article through its history have been "under dispute", and from my experience, references are the only way of protecting it from abuse and not being accused of being POV. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate what are the remaining weasel words if any. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this request. If someone has specific problems with the language used by this article, or with its contents, bring them up here. From my perspective, it's all fairly clean and appropriate. I don't want to rest on my laurels, but I've written five featured articles in Wikipedia and I've never seen the kind of obsession with citations and footnotes that surrounds this article. I find it very amusing that we have to cite and verify the fact that the Liberals in Canada, who created a full-fledged welfare state and legalized same-sex marriage, are actually social liberals.UberCryxic (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And if these problems are not highlighted shortly, this warning needs to go.UberCryxic (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the warning out. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Liberal Party of adopted a platform of "modern liberalism" in 1919 does not mean that they are social liberals in 2009. The Republican Party of the US adopted "prohibitionism" at the same time but that does not make them prohibitionists today. The Liberals did not implement their platform upon election in 1921, and in fact did not establish a "welfare state". The Party adopted monetarist principals in 1975 and returned to government as neoliberals in 1993. The party is a broad tent and accepts social liberals, social conservatives and libertarians and many other people as members. One could say that their membership policy is very liberal. The American Democratic Party is also not "social liberal". They have members who are "Blue Dog Democrats" who consider themselves to be conservatives. US parties do not in fact enforce ideological conformity.The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the criteria for inclusion. I'm not sure who came up with these standards, but they're mostly ok. It says:

Only liberal social organizations that have an affiliation to a international liberal organization (Liberal International, ELDR, CALD, Africa Liberal Network, RELIAL or European Liberal Forum), are on this list. To be considered social-liberal the organization should consider or present itself a follower of that ideology on some official document (through express declaration or through clear social liberal policies), be considered social liberal by an international liberal organization or be considered so by a political science book or publication. Having "social liberal" on its name or a minority social liberal faction inside the organization is not enough to be considered on the list.

I gave you an appropriate book that links the Democratic Party to modern liberalism, so that satisfies the last condition. If our disagreements cannot be resolved by what I have presented already, I can go and find more sources. Before I move on from the Democrats, let me just ask: so what if the party has "Blue Dog" conservative members? This faction is actually a minority. Leftist liberals and progressives comprise the strong majority of the party, just like conservatives comprise the majority of the Republican Party. To some extent, you are correct that the two great American parties are less ideological than their counterparts in continents like Europe or South America. The US essentially has a two-party system, so those parties have to moderate their positions to appeal to independents. That aside, however, the parties are still ideological, which becomes readily apparent when we look at primaries. Moderate politicians from both sides are usually targets for primary challenges if they don't tow the ideological line. Generally, we should keep in mind that social liberal parties will not contain social liberals only.....conservative parties will not contain conservatives only.....socialist parties won't have socialists only....and....you get the point. There are always diverse opinions inside large parties, but we primarily judge their ideological orientation based on what most members believe, as well as, one would assume, on historical considerations.

To characterize the Liberals as 'neoliberals' in 1993 is humorous at best. At the very least, we can confidently say it's not a label they chose in that campaign cycle. The same thing I said above applies here as well. The vast majority of all Liberal MPs are modern liberals. Most of the Liberal base consists of modern liberals. The Liberals plan to establish a national child care program, which would be the first in the world, if they win the next election. How did the Liberals not establish a welfare state? What was Trudeau's support for the Just Society? The Liberals have a strong tradition of defending welfare liberalism throughout the twentieth century. Again, however, if more sources are desired, I would not hesitate to provide them.

I actually think that this whole debate is silly, pointless, and distracting us from taking meaningful steps to improve this article: expanding the introduction, expanding the analysis on the intellectual history of social liberalism, eliminating the lists entirely and integrating those parties and individuals within the prose of the article, and focusing on social liberalism outside of North America and Europe. The categorization also needs to be improved, by which I mean it needs to be overhauled completely.UberCryxic (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the way to improve the article is to present the development of social liberal theory and its implementation, although I note this was made under governments of various allegiances, very few of whom were actually liberal. At present the article is dubious lists of who is a social liberal, and how social liberalism differs from other ideologies. By the way the Liberal Party of Canada did not legalize same sex marriage, they lost their fight against it in the Canadian courts. The Progressive Conservatives were first to promise a child care program in their successful campaigns in 1984 and again in 1988. The Liberals did not promise one until their successful campaign in 1993 and then waited until 2005 before promising the program again in another successful campaign. (http://staging-caw-ca.inf.ca/assets/pdf/ChildCareEarlyLearning.pdf) The welfare state in Canada was established by the actions of successive federal and provincial governments belonging to various parties. I agree that Pearson and Trudeau believed in social liberal principals, and steps toward it were made from 1963 to 1975, when the party adopted monetarism. When they came to power in 1993, after an absense of 9 years, they balanced the budget by massively cutting transfer payments to the provinces who were responsible for health, education and welfare, as well as cutting federal programs, including unemployment insurance and assistance to aboriginal communities. At the same time they kept interest rates high in order to fight inflation and actually set 10% as a "natural unemployment rate" although the target was later reduced to 8%. At the end of their rule they used the budget surplus in order to reduce taxes for corporations and high income earners. You can read some of their record in this article: (http://www.rabble.ca/news/paul-martin-devil-women-know). Their current leader was an early supporter of the War in Iraq and defender of torture in the War on Terror. So I would see them as more of a pragmatic party.

UberCryxic - if you or anyone else would like to contribute to this article in making the changes you suggested, then I for one would welcome that contribution. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss significant deletions here before doing it and insure new sections have plenty of references. Again, the history of this article through the years has been, a lot of times "reduction" in the amount of content, because of accusations of POV (this is an article about politics after all). So, what stays in the end is mostly what has references. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate decision to go through with same-sex marriage legislation may have been encouraged by judicial decisions, but it also required Liberal leadership to introduce and actually pass the law. You are completely wrong when you say the Liberals did not legalize same-sex marriage. It was Martin who introduced the bill, which passed in a rather close vote of 158-133. The majority of the Liberal Party voted in favor of the law while the majority of the Conservative Party opposed the law. If it had not been for the grit of the Grits, so to speak, it would not have happened at the time. On liberalism and the construction of the Canadian welfare state:

• Continentalizing Canada (2005) by Gregory Inwood, p. 27

Canadian nationalism after the Second World War followed the dominant liberal ideology (linked to the construction of the Keynesian welfare state), which rejected political independence as being the defining characteristic of nationalism, largely on the basis of the European experience with Fascism.

• Postwar politics in the G-7 (1996) by Byron Shafer, p. 57

The welfare state the Liberals actually implemented was precipitated by World War II and by apprehension of a CCF surge. The first major scheme, unemployment insurance, predated the rise of the CCF, but that party's spectacular growth between 1943 and 1945 impelled all other social policy innovations in the period. By 1943, the CCF formed the opposition in three provinces, including the largest one, Ontario....In 1944, the Liberal government established the Family Allowance program, passed the National Housing Act, and created the framework for labor relations that has lasted to this day. In 1945, the government committed itself in a White Paper on Employment and Income to countercyclical macroeconomic management and fleshed out this commitment, together with proposals for further extension of the welfare state, at a Dominion-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction.

The Liberals dominated Canadian politics from the middle of the 1930s until the late 1950s. The Canadian welfare system took root in these times. Now, we can argue about circumstances, but the ultimate players were, as with same-sex marriage, the Liberals. It was the Liberals that actually got the job done, even though they felt political pressure from other parties. Your characterization that other parties were involved in a significant legislative manner is incorrect. Although not entirely, the vast majority of the welfare state as Canadians understand it today was established by the Liberal Party.

Ignatieff a supporter of torture? What are you talking about??? Here are his views on the subject and he clearly opposes torture. He's talking about the moral complexities surrounding the issue, but it would be a bit farfetched to claim that he supports torture.

The economic decisions of the Martin government must be understood in context. The economic situation in the 1990s was very positive. Now that the market is falling short, what are the Liberals doing? Reverting to their Keynesian roots, of course. They were the ones who convinced the Conservatives to engage in deficit spending in the last budget. There was a huge brouhaha about the whole affair, so I'll spare you any citations, which you can easily find on Google News if you want. Overall, the evidence indicates that the Liberals are liberal on social issues and modern liberal on economic issues.UberCryxic (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here we might have a case of labels completely gone awry. I don't know whether it actually calls itself so, but the Democratic Party in Poland does not seem social liberal at all. Their wikipage says the party supports a flat tax and opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. Kind of weird....UberCryxic (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All of this shows the problems with categorization. Both the Polish Democratic Party and Canadian Liberal Party are liberal whatever policies they pursue.

It was helpful of UberCryxic to provide Ignatieff's 2006 essay. I had formed my opinions from his earlier writing The Lesser Evils (2002) where he defended "coercive interrogations that fall just short of torture" used by the Bush administration. (http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/6531F4FF-EED2-44EC-9831-2783EBD53D57/0/IgnatieffPaper.pdf) We can debate whether waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture, but I don't see them as social liberalism either.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh we don't need to debate waterboarding: it's torture. That's not the point. You claimed that Ignatieff defends torture, but he himself does not explicitly say so. Now that he's the Liberal leader, and now that the hysteria over the "War on Terror" has died down, he probably has more sober views on the subject. Either way, the ideological position of the Liberal Party does not hinge upon what one member, even the leader, thinks on one issue. For the Liberals, there's absolutely no problem with categorization. I continue to believe that our argument is silly, and let me also convey my amazement at your insistence that the Liberals are not modernists. The Democrats in Poland present a different challenge entirely, largely because Poland, especially compared to Canada, is a rightist and conservative country.UberCryxic (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with Liberal Party of Canada, which I've no doubts of being Social Liberal (I've met many members at international meetings) and which belong to Liberal International. So is considered by peers as being a Liberal Party. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've a problem in listing Democratic Party (from United States) and Indian National Congress as Social Liberal parties.

Neither of them, from my knowledge, has any international affiliation, required by the criteria, (beside the National Democratic Institute which is a cooperating organization of Liberal International). And from Wikipedia (and it's my knowledge), this parties are both huge and have many political factions which aren't social liberal inside them.

Of course we can change the criteria, but, asking all the included parties on the list to belong to an international liberal organization seems to be to be a sensible criteria to avoid POV accusations. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The NDI also co-operates with the Socialist and Christian Democratic Internationals and it promotes democracy not a specific ideology. And here's a link to the INC's constitution. (http://www.aicc.org.in/Constitution%20FINAL%2012.6.08.pdf) Article I and Article V show that they do not self-identify as social liberals. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll immediately take down the INC, as in Article I (from 2008), they say clearly: "and the establishment in India, by peaceful and constitutional means, of a Socialist State based on Parliamentary Democracy". Regarding the American Democrat Party, I'll wait for more comments. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The INC's 2009 Manifesto does not mention anything about socialism (see citation), and under the standards with we're working, their policies qualify the party as social liberal. They also embrace the 'liberal' label. Also see the citation for the Democratic Party. I am working under the presumption here that our personal opinions have no relevance whatsoever to the content of the article. Only legitimate and reputable sources do. If this argument is going to devolve into a battle of "my knowledge versus your knowledge," some severe disagreements are bound to arise.UberCryxic (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The term they use is "secular and liberal nationalism". Does this mean we should add the Bloc Quebecois as well? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems they have conflicting documents, which added to the fact that INC doesn't belong to Liberal International or a liberal regional organization, seems to me is a good reason not to include them. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were writing in jest, but the Bloc is a leftist party, despite its separatist tendencies. The INC has actually ditched its socialism over the past decade as India liberalized its economic policies. Right now they're analogous to the Democrats here in the US. The INC deserves to be on this list.UberCryxic (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My main question here is, neither of them is recognized by an international liberal organization as "liberal". I find this criteria to be very important in terms of as you say, avoiding "my knowledge", versus "your knowledge".

Basically, for a party to be in the list, I believe it should both be recognized as "generically liberal" by some independent organization (Liberal International, ELDR, etc.) and as social liberal by some document (book, manifesto, etc.). These two parties could somewhat be said to be social liberal by the documents you gave, but don't qualify in terms of being recognized as "generically liberal" by an independent organization. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is something along the lines of "only social liberal parties that are in the LI, or organizations affiliated with the LI, are on this list," then we are actually still ignoring several LI parties, Democrats aside. I'm trying to understand the standards here. Is this an "either/or" proposition or "either/and"? So do you have to be in the LI and be cited as social liberal by some reputable publication or can it be one or the other? If the latter, I don't see why we're still arguing about the Democrats. We can easily find a bazillion reputable sources that describe them as modern liberals. The INC is a bit more problematic, no doubt about that. They started out as a liberal party in the late 19th century before transitioning into socialism throughout most of the 20th century. They've now returned to their original liberal roots over the past two decades or so, but I can see why including them on this list so early might be troublesome.UberCryxic (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of standards....who is deciding what the standards are anyway? What if I think a good standard, at the very least, is being mentioned as social liberal in a reputable source....or....in at least three reputable sources, to make it rigorous?UberCryxic (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are deciding on standards (and discussing it here)... You included. My personal view is that it should be an "either/and" proposition. To be on the list the party should be member of an international organization and at the same time have at least one positive citation as being social liberal. If we don't require it to belong to an international liberal organization this means we will probably end up in the list with parties belonging to Socialist International, on the other hand, I know and I believe you know, that LI and ELDR have also conservative liberal parties inside them, and as such, belonging to a liberal international organization doesn't mean that the party is "social liberal", only that is "liberal". I know by experience that in this article we have to find the best possible way to avoid any POV accusation. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me just express my desire to eliminate the lists entirely. The general rule is that the information contained in lists should be incorporated into the prose of the article itself. Under this standard, we could mention a few social liberal parties that we all agree are, in fact, proponents of social liberalism. If you don't want to travel down that road, then my standard is that we should find at least two different citations from reputable sources describing the party as social liberal or the like. Since you mentioned it, there is at least one social liberal party in the SI: the Colombian Liberal Party. It should definitely be included in this article.UberCryxic (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show me that "general rule", the only general rule I saw was that lists should always be referenced. And it seems to me that lists are quite useful. Regarding the number of citations, to me having to find 2 citations is a perfectly acceptable rule (I just don't know if we can "impose" such a decision in Wikipedia). Regarding Colombian Liberal Party, if is a liberal party at all, why is it then in Socialist International (both, why did the party join this organization and why did this organization accept it)? It may well be a liberal party, the problem is, anybody can easily say putting it here is POV. Or we have standards/criteria, or we don't, simply as that, having criteria will always exclude some. It can be the ones written there right now, or others we agree on, but some criteria should exist. I know the non-inclusion of American Democrats is polemic, but there inclusion is also polemic. So, if we include them, they should be included covered/protected by some sort for criteria (2 citations needed, would be ok for me). Mcduarte2000 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was rereading the guidelines for Wikipedia:Lists, and regarding this subject (American Democrat Party), at it is an item likely to be challenged, I simply propose you respect the guideline "list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.". That means, please, find a reliable source that explicitly considers the party to be ideologically social liberal. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good articles should not contain lists, with the exception of a "See also" section. Featured articles, for example, use them sparingly, if at all. Normally people are advised to integrate the information contained in lists into the article itself. Obviously we're not dealing with a FA here, but if we had hopes for taking this article down that road, we'd be asked to do exactly what I'm saying now. Wikipedia has articles focused exclusively on lists for a reason. Sure, in those kinds of articles, lists are very useful. But in articles that rely mainly on prose, they're awkward and cumbersome. I did find a reliable source linking the Democrats to modern liberalism. It's the one cited right now. You talk about "imposing" standards outside of Wikipedia guidelines, but isn't that what's happened in this article already? The standards that you constructed were fairly arbitrary, which is not necessarily a criticism. In some sense, these standards have to be arbitrary and, hopefully, reasonable. I'm not sure if your question regarding the Liberals in Colombia was supposed to be rhetorical or not, but they belong to the SI because they identify more with the social side of liberalism. Ideologically, there's no big difference between, say, the Liberals in Colombia (SI member) and the Liberals in Honduras (LI member). I don't know the specific circumstances behind why the Colombian Liberals joined the SI, but it's indisputable that they are liberals, especially considering their lengthy history.UberCryxic (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I have always agreed with eliminating the lists because there is no objective way of determining one. I have been unable to find any academic source that lists these parties or any agreed criteria for listing them. If anyone has any source that I have missed I would appreciate knowing what it is. Many parties adopted social liberal policies at various times like the British Labour Party so the article should mention them as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is its usefulness for who reads the article. The question is that it is useful for people which access content to have some idea of widely accepted social liberal parties and social liberal thinkers. I know you think there are no parties that are "social liberal" ideologically, but the question is that they exist. British Labour Party my well have adopted "social liberal" policies, it has, but ideologically it is a "social democrat" party. Also, of course, the question is if can create a quality list with items that be said to be POV. I believe we can, but if have to adopt criteria that is very, very exigent, better to leave someone off, than to include someone or some party that shouldn't be on the list. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Klaus von Beyme attempted to categorize parties into "liberal-conservative" and "liberal-radical" in Political Parties in Western Democracies (1985) but I don't know if anyone has attempted this since. In any case I don't have a copy. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please, someone indicate which paragraphs are under dispute so that we can take a look at them. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the tags were added by an anonymous editor who has placed tags on several different articles without discussion and with no reasons given. So I will remove it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_liberalism&diff=next&oldid=272806347 The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead needs improving. It now says: "supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare" and "consider[s] the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty". I suggest it be re-written in terms similar to the following:

Social liberalism is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare. This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and the protection of human rights. These policies were adopted and implemented in Europe and western democracies particularly following the Second World War.

A reaction to social liberalism in the late 20th century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services. However this did not mean a return to classical liberalism as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.

Does anyone have any thoughts? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I would just note a potential problem with the first sentence. Which saw unrestrained capitalism as hindrance to true freedom? Classical liberalism or social liberalism? It's not clear from the way the sentence is currently written, and it almost suggests that the classicists are the ones who saw capitalism as a hindrance, which obviously isn't true. It could be rewritten as: "Social liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to the promotion of liberty, constituted a reformulation of classical liberalism."UberCryxic (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So if we change the first sentence it would be fine? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The affirmation "consider[s] the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty" I believe is from Hobhouse. Which makes it good affirmation. Your first sentence could also be problematic and considered POV by some. I can also have problems with "provide full employment" as I'm not even sure Keynes wanted to provide "full employment".

Besides that, what references will you use to defend this changes? As I said before, if you don't use them, very soon you will see this new introductions being taken out by someone for being POV (independently if it is or not POV, someone will always consider it POV). Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You just want to substitute "Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism and which recognizes that every citizen has the equal right to enjoy basic economic, political and cultural resources[1]. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.[2][3]"? Mcduarte2000 (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not committed to any wording, I just think that the current wording does not describe the subject well. Social liberalism is not based on the desire to regulate the economy, provide more welfare and stop the accumulation of wealth. Rather these were issues to be dealt with in order to meet social liberal goals. Do you agree with this and if you do can you think of any better way to phrase the lead?

My source for the first sentence of the lead was Contending Liberalisms in World Politics, James L. Richardson; Lynne Rienner (2001), (pp. 36-37). The book is on Questia and unfortunately the complete chapter is not available on Google books. I tried to summarize the concepts given:

...this did not mean an abandonment of liberalism but its reformulation....the insistence on the minimal state...no longer promoted liberal values but became obstacles to their realization...dehumanizing tendencies of unrestrained capitalism...the ideal of true freedom.

Because the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article, it does not have to be overly sourced provided all the information is sourced in the article. Today's featured article Chiffchaff for example contains no references in its lead.

My understanding of Keynes was that full employment was a goal (see:The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money#Overview), although perhaps his views were more nuanced and could be better described. But the lead should mention social liberal economic policy because it is central to the subject, even if it developed much later than social liberalism itself.

You may wish to include other information in the lead. I thought the remaining information fit better in the body of the article. We now have nine synonyms and I'm sure I can think of more, including many pejorative ones, which is unusual for any subject.

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sourcing is important in this article because, as I said before on this discussions, the article is very easily attacked by being POV and if you don't source, most probable whatever you write will be deleted very fast. Anaway, the wikipedia guidelines you linked say "should be carefully sourced as appropriate".

"Rather these were issues to be dealt with in order to meet social liberal goals." - Well, social liberalism accepts as you said positive freedoms, and it considers that for you to be free you need to have education, healthcare and even protection from private hands (not only the State).

"the lead should mention social liberal economic policy because it is central to the subject" - I searched for sources and I now agree with you, even regarding "full employment".

"We now have nine synonyms and I'm sure I can think of more, including many pejorative ones, which is unusual for any subject." - We can cut some, "new liberalism" and "modern liberalism" are on my opinion the most common. Maybe also "left-liberalism". Mcduarte2000 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes which you can review. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that "social liberalism" refered to free speech, freedom of/from religion, sexual freedom, etc - i.e. what Wikipedia refers to as Cultural liberalism (a term I hadn't heard before). Was I mistaken in my understanding, or is this an alternative (e.g. UK vs US) meaning? 62.172.108.23 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a specific school of thought as described in the article. I think the term you are thinking of is "socially liberal". The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Deuces, social liberalism refers to a comprehensive socioeconomic ideology. However, social liberals are also, unsurprisingly, "socially liberal" and progressive in the ways you describe, so your views are not completely incorrect.UberCryxic (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While this section is well written I think it should also mention the extension of the franchise, the growth of social democratic and labour parties and the introduction of reformist legislation by conservative governments, all of which preceded and influenced social liberalism. Also there should be a mention of the development of social liberalism in Europe, especially France and Germany. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we see a specific proposal here first? In general, I'm fine with adding some of the information you mentioned, but I'd like to see the actual version.UberCryxic (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, although I would not mind if someone else wanted to add the information. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being always saying the same thing, but please indicate reference on that. Particularly in this case, because I believe I read in the past social liberalism preceded a lot of reformist legislation from conservatives and social democrats. For example, Keynes policies where copied, as far as I know, by other ideologies, not the opposite. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes these new parts will obviously need to be extensively referenced. I was also skeptical when I read "the growth of social democratic and labour parties and the introduction of reformist legislation by conservative governments, all of which preceded and influenced social liberalism." That's false on a million levels, but I'd still like an actual version of the proposed changes.UberCryxic (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

UberCryxic, could you please remember to be civil when posting comments. See: Wikipedia:Civility.

There were socialist parties in existence before the 1880s when social liberalism was developed and there was socialist writing before that time. Read for example about the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Communist Manifesto.

The Reform Act 1867 which gave the vote to working men was passed by a Conservative government. "Disraeli's government introduced various reforms, including the Artisan's and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act 1875, the Public Health Act 1875, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875), and the Education Act (1876). His government also introduced a new Factory Act meant to protect workers, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 to allow peaceful picketing, and the Employers and Workmen Act (1875) to enable workers to sue employers in the civil courts if they broke legal contracts." (Disraeli#Second government). Bismarck introduced health, accident, old age and disability insurance during the 1880s before the Liberals adopted social liberalism (see: State Socialism). Here's a reference that mentions that liberals were not the first to react against laissez-faire.

Obviously this level of detail does not belong in the article, but there should be mention of antecendents to social liberalism. There is no reason to hide the fact that before social liberalism, liberals were the greatest proponents of classical liberalism, which btw is why it is called classical liberalism.

Mcduarte2000 - following the adoption of social liberalism by the Liberal Party it became the main influence on reform, I am not questioning that.

I have not yet drafted a sentence to add to the article, but I do not add unsourced material, in fact I take it out.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The dominant strain of socialism in the nineteenth century was not social democracy. Social democracy didn't become prevalent and relevant politically until the twentieth century. Before then, socialism and communism were virtually intertwined and inseparable. Nineteenth century socialists generally despised free markets, supported the complete public administration of goods and services, and many were actually anti-democratic, often associating liberal democracy with capitalism. They had very little in common with modern social democrats.

Your comments give anachronistic praise to conservatives. Social liberal blocs among the Whigs and the Liberals, or groups verging on social liberalism, had already developed by the middle of the nineteenth century. John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest liberal thinkers ever, is a prominent example. You mention suffrage rights in Britain as an example of reform, quite rightly, but you ignore the Great Reform Act decades earlier, which was passed by the left. Even granting you the supposition that conservatism in Britain at the time was somehow reformist, which is kind of ludicrous on its face, I don't see how these flaming conservative reform movements preceded liberal efforts.

The overarching theme of the Victorian Era was hidebound conservatism in all areas of life, largely as a reaction to the French Revolution. Where major reforms and social revolutions went through, they were almost exclusively pushed by the left. As you clearly identify in your last statement, however, there were exceptions, most spectacularly with Bismarck.UberCryxic (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard these opinions expressed and wonder if you have any sources for them. Who claims that Manchester liberals were left social reformers, Fabians were Marxists and Tories spent over a century worrying about the French Revolution? I noticed that you consider the revisionist history The Conservative Tradition in America to be authoritative and wonder if you have some sort of equivalent for this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

??? For the record, I do not consider that work to be authoritative. If you're alluding to the citation in the talk page of the Liberalism article, it was just meant to be a prominent source talking about conservatism in Southern society. It seems like you're attempting an underhanded intellectual coup here, tying my sources refuting your arguments about conservatism in the South to "revisionist history"....when, actually, the book that you presented would have been the revisionist one. I gave other sources anyway, including one of the greatest Civil War historians (probably) ever, whose class I had the pleasure of taking.

Despite the risk of seeming too pompous, let me mention something from my book, The Liberal Ethos, which is coming out in the summer. I cite A History of the Modern World by R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton, two other historic historians, in talking about the evolution of socialist movements (and the possible convergence of social democracy with modern liberalism, but that's a side issue here). They write:

As for "communism," it was at this time [middle of the nineteenth century] an uncertain synonym for socialism.

In fact, Soviet leaders would use the words "socialist" and "communist" as synonyms throughout the twentieth century. In the 19th century, "socialism" sort of meant the worst fears of modern-day American conservatives, who use the label against those they believe are using the government to take control over public and economic life. Socialism isn't like that anymore, mainly because today it's encapsulated into social democracy, but it was very much like that over a century ago....the dominant strains anyway.

With regards to Tories, conservatism, Britain in the 19th century, and the French Revolution....

Lord Salisbury's world by Michael Bentley, p. 144

When Tories chose to think of higher purposes, however, they shared a common and natural concern with the health and future of their order and discussed, or rather declaimed from an intuitive platform, the perils of what must come if Britons were to relax their vigilance. Conservatives always know that their country is going to the dogs. What is interesting about them across time is the particular route by which they judge the national catastrophe will be reached. Salisbury's generation plotted a path to disaster marked by the milestones of democratic advance. Their thought frequently began with a vision of this partially trodden path and a determination at all costs to find a diversion that would take them around the ultimate nihilism of revolution and terror.

The path to ruin had originated in France and America. 1789 lay in no one's memory for the Salisbury generation: he had been born in the year of renewed revolution, 1830. But the horrors of the revolution they learned from witnesses such as Edmund Burke and Mme de Stael; they had Thomas Carlyle's narrative of the events, written in a prose that trembled and despaired as though the text itself was waiting for the guillotine; and they found themselves surrounded by memoirs and histories of the revolution and the terror as the century advanced and Napoleonic France became the end of history. And what a century the French had suffered since the joy of revolution: eruptions again in 1830, 1848 and 1870; constant instability of regime to the point of comedy; a seeming inability to become a dictatorship, a republic or an empire. French experience offered itself to the dread of democracy as a ready resource and illustration: democracy would make the British like the French.

I'll stop it there. I'd be willing to provide more sources on request, however. I do want to emphasize that I am still open to reading and seriously considering a version of what you want to include, so do not hesitate to provide a sample. It might be that there's nothing objectionable in what you want to write about, in which case this entire debate is useless and wasteful.UberCryxic (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommend the insertion of the following after second sentence in the Origins section:

The initial reaction against extreme conditions of industrialization and the extreme conditions of laissez-faire came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although socialism later became a more important force for reform. Some Victorian writers, including Dickens, Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, were also early influential critics of social injustice.

Please read the linked text and provide any recommendations. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that insertion. I would make the following observations or suggestions. One, we could make some reference to contradicting sources, which is common in Wikipedia articles. Two, these sources mostly discuss Britain, which is not exclusively representative of social liberalism, hence we might have problems with a global perspective. Ultimately, however, most sources contradict the one that you presented.UberCryxic (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want some time to examine this source. The excerpts that you've given talk about a reaction, not necessarily some reformist progressivism. If we just leave it at "reaction," that describes conservatism quite well. As I said, I need to examine it more closely, but it seems like the source corroborates my (basic) argument: conservatism, as an ideology, is a reaction to the modern world, a reaction that has its roots in so-called traditional social features that preceded modernity.UberCryxic (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources for the article I referenced is De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism which is available on Questia. It appears to be the mainstream view, and I would appreciate any sources that present an alternative view. Of course it refers to the UK, but so does the paragraph I want it inserted into. As I said above the article needs to be expanded to include European social liberalism. But the interpretation seems to be even more applicable to Germany. The reason Tories introduced reforms is disputed and is I think beyond the scope of this article, and the context in which I have used the term reaction does not imply it is reactionary or rule out that it was progressive. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with De Ruggiero's work. However, I looked it up and discovered that it was written decades ago. I remember you accusing me of using outdated views in the discussion about conservatism and Southern culture. If this work is your idea of a modern and mainstream view, then I'd like to remind you that you are violating your own standards. You asked for sources presenting an "alternative view," but the premise of your request is fundamentally flawed considering that the way I described conservatism is the way that conservatism is generally described among historians and academia. Nevertheless, I'll happily comply.

Contemporary political ideologies (1999) by Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright, p. 52 (although you can browse the entire section on conservatism):

The term 'conservative' was first used in its distinctively modern sense in this context -- i.e. to indicate a political position opposed to ideological politics -- when Chateaubriand (1768-1848) gave the name Conservateur to a journal he issued in order to resist the spread of the new politics, and especially the democratic ideas which were its main manifestation. The name was soon taken up by many other groups that opposed the progress of democracy, in its more radical forms at least. In the USA, for example, the American national republicans were calling themselves 'conservatives' by 1830, and the term was used to describe the British Tory party in 1832.

The conservative critique of the new ideological style of politics inspired by the French Revolution centred on the optimistic belief underlying it, according to which human reason and and will are sufficiently powerful for us to be able to shape history in accordance with whatever ideals we may feel inspired to adopt.

During the nineteenth century, the most influential vehicle for revolutionary optimism was liberalism, and conservative doctrine was consequently shaped primarily by the need to meet the challenge posed by liberal defenders of the democratic ideal. During the twentieth century, however, socialism replaced liberalism as the principal vehicle of radicalism, and it is in opposition to this new enemy that conservative doctrine has therefore mainly been defined in our own age.

What you have just read is the mainstream view among historians, and it also represents the basic historical model that I adopt for my book when I review the history of liberalism, as an ideology and as a movement.UberCryxic (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The passage from Contemporary political ideologies is not about reaction against industrialization and laissez-faire and is therefore not relevant. We should be clear that in the conflict between liberals and conservatives in France, the liberals, among other things, wanted to liberalize trade and the conservatives wanted to preserve feudalism. The conservatives were not advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and the liberals were not fighting to reform capitalism.

I mentioned Guido De Ruggiero because he was cited in the 2001 textbook I used as a source, and provides greater detail. The textbook also cites Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1984) as a source but it is not available on Google Books or Questia. Both these writers are used as sources for Contemporary political ideologies that you cited. De Ruggiero was a major Italian social liberal theorist, historian and politician, and probably the first signicant writer on social liberal history. Arblaster wrote in his 1984 book: "To begin with...most doubts about the economic and social effects of industrialization were expressed by radicals and conservatives who stood well outside the liberal mainstream."

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The passage is about the conservative reaction to the burgeoning liberal democratic world, which would include the Industrial Revolution. The second paragraph, in particular, indicates that conservative opposition to the liberal world ran the whole gamut. Your statements once again reveal contradictions. You blatantly claim that conservatives wished to preserve feudalism, which is way further than even I would go. Generally, however, you're right: conservatives wanted to maintain the veneer of the old world, and that included protectionism, mercantilism, and all those other decrepit economic ideas. All of this reinforces what I'm saying. I don't see how you have an argument for conservative reform here.

There may be a problem in how we think about the very word reform. When I think of reform, I think of implementing new ideas and policies meant to fix old or persisting problems. You might have a different idea, in which case we've been talking past one another all along. From what I've presented, and from what you've presented, everything comes back to the central point that conservatism is reactionary, not reformist.UberCryxic (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the term reform as implying an overall progressive position, just an attempt to change something for the better. All the literature uses the word "reform" in this way. If you think that improving social conditions should be called something other than social "reform", please suggest an alternative. I can find no source that contradicts De Ruggiero's conclusions, and see no reason to assume he is fundamentally mistaken in the history of social reform considering he was a prominent social liberal theorist, one of Italy's leading intellectuals and the Minister of Education. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that reform has to be necessarily progressive, but generally it is. And again, please stop the posturing with "all the literature says this" and "all the literature says that." I've talked to you long enough by now to know that you have very little clue about what most of the literature says on any of these subjects, let alone "all" of it. I've given you plenty of reputable sources that contradict your assertions, and you have little left besides attacking the sources themselves. I have no problem calling the improvement of social conditions "reformist." As I've made clear throughout this argument, my main worry is that conservatism is getting precedence in an area where it deserves absolutely none, and I wish I could emphasize "absolutely" even more. I have no problem acknowledging that conservative governments undertook social reforms. But since it completely betrays the history, I do have a problem when you say that these reforms somehow preceded liberal efforts.UberCryxic (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I question your interpretation of your own sources, including De Ruggiero. De Ruggiero seems to be saying what my sources are saying: conservatives were afraid of how this new democratic and industrial world was changing society, so they reacted to stem the flow of progress.UberCryxic (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has become too wide-ranging, and I do not think that we are discussing the suggested insertion. I will start a new section and re-present the suggested insertion. I also want to add information about the development of social liberalism in Germany and France and improve the section on the US. If we spend countless paragraphs discussing tangential issues this will not happen. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a disagreement about sources for liberal theory. UberCryxic says "the book that you presented would have been the revisionist one". That book described the theory of Louis Hartz and concludes that despite modifications by future writers it remains essentially sound. I have no wish to argue but want to know why if this is revisionism, then what represents orthodox theory? Hartz and writers influenced by him are important sources for the introduction of social liberalism into the US and Western Europe. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I thought your ideas about Southern culture and conservatism were revisionist, and when you presented that work to support your thesis, I took it in stride.UberCryxic (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommend the insertion of the following after second sentence in the Origins section:

The initial reaction against extreme conditions of industrialization and the extreme conditions of laissez-faire came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although socialism later became a more important force for reform. Some Victorian writers, including Dickens, Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, were also early influential critics of social injustice.

The source cites Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1984): "To begin with...most doubts about the economic and social effects of industrialization were expressed by radicals and conservatives who stood well outside the liberal mainstream." It also cites Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism. De Ruggiero was a major Italian social liberal theorist, historian, politician and post-Fascist Minister of Education, and probably the first signicant writer on social liberal history. "Nevertheless, the Conservative attempt to capture the working class...was significant and was soon to be imitated by the Liberals....its positive results -- progressive extension of the franchise, increase of State interference, improvement of the economic, social, and political condition of the proletariate..." The History of European Liberalism (1959 ed., orig. 1927) (p. 141). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think wholesale copying from another book is the best route to take here. I mostly agree with the passage up until "social balance," which leaves me wondering exactly what that means. Also, I would take our the word "initial" and replace it with "major." If you could offer another proposal concretely explaining what you mean by "social balance," then we could get somewhere.UberCryxic (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I have other problems with the passage. What kind of reaction are we talking about here? Political? Intellectual? Socialist thinkers, for example, protested the extreme conditions of industrialization long before conservatives, but they had little political power to do anything about it. And explaining "social balance" is key because it tells us why conservatives were reacting against capitalism (ie. capitalism was shifting basic power structures in the world, an anathema to conservative thought under all circumstances).UberCryxic (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now added the passage which you are welcome to tweak. I don't see anything unclear about the passage, but I have provided links to the source and the sources for the source so that you can revise the passage so that it most accurately reflects what the sources say. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes. Take a look and tell me what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms positive freedom and negative freedom are meaningless. It is important that a clear distinction be made between freedom and welfare. If you support any form of welfare you may think that is good but it involves a reduction of freedom since people are forced to pay for this welfare through taxation. RHB100 (talk) 7 May 2009

I agree that "Positive" and "Negative" are fairly meaningless; however, "true freedom" is equally as meaningless because there is no way to define what is "true freedom". You have also sacrificed neutral point of view with your edits with claims such as "It mistakenly saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance", "sacrificed freedom for welfare", and "the further sacrifice of freedom for the protection of certain so-calloed [sic] human rights". None these statement are from a neutral point of view; unless they can be cited from a trustworthy and neutral source, they are inappropriate as encyclopedic content. If you want to make such grandiose claims, please us Conservapedia instead. (Also, please sign your comments.) DKqwerty (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

RHB100, please discuss major changes before making them and also note that material in this article should reflect the citations given. Also, these changes would make the article point of view. Certainly the article should contain criticisms of social liberalism but these should be presented in a neutral manner, and not receive undue emphasis. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would echo Deuces and also remind RHB that the difference between positive liberty and negative is actually very meaningful. It goes at the heart of the battle over how liberals understand liberty. For most of the time that the concept was prevalent, liberty meant the absence of coercion, but recently the modernists have seen it as the assertion of identity. The two ideas behind liberty are closely related, but they nonetheless contain important philosophical differences that produce different policies.UberCryxic (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add a section about social liberalism in Germany. The following is a possible version and I welcome any comments:

In late nineteenth century Germany, left-liberals established trade unions in order to help workers improve working conditions and improve economically. Leading left-liberals, including Lujo Brentano and Max Weber, established the Social Policy Association in 1873 to promote social reform. The left-liberals main objectives were free speech, freedom of assembly, free trade, representative government, equal and secret suffrage, and protection of private property and they were strongly opposed to the welfare state, which they called State Socialism.

Friedrich Naumann, who was an Association member, later established the National Social Union (1896) that attempted to combine bourgeois nationalism with proletarian socialism. They advocated, among other things, increased social welfare legislation, the right to strike and profit-sharing and "co-determination" in industry. Although the party was unable to win any seats and soon dissolved, the theories it developed would remain influential in German liberalism.

While some writers describe Germany's left-liberalism as social liberalism, others only apply the term to the policies of the National Social Union. The main left-liberal parties in Germany were the German Progress Party (Imperial Germany), the German Democratic Party (Weimar Germany), and the Free Democratic Party (modern Germany). The term left-liberal contrasts them with the more conservative liberals, in particular the right-wing of the National Liberal Party (Germany), which allied itself with the Conservatives.

Sources

Contending Liberalisms, p. 37

Liberal Democrats in the Weimar Republic: The History of the German Democratic Party and the German State Party (1985) Bruce B. Frye, p 10

The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914 (1976) John L. Snell, p. 304-334

I have no problem with the above passages, but the categorization is becoming cumbersome. Instead of making sections for individual countries, we should probably branch them by continents. So these paragraphs would go under the European section. Likewise there needs to be a section on North America, especially considering how powerful social liberalism was there, instead of just the United States. For now you can make any new categories you like, but this article will need some major revamping in the future.UberCryxic (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added this section now as Germany but will change it to Europe after adding France and Italy. I think that those three countries are sufficient for Europe. Although the article may appear cumbersome, I think some of this can be improved. The information in the social liberalism versus... e.g., sections could be contained in other sections as they are developed. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Good work!UberCryxic (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Positive liberty is a relatively modern way of thinking about a very ancient concept. It's totally inaccurate to completely distill it down to "government welfare." It's true that social spending and welfare programs are widely supported by modern liberals, but positive liberty has been used to argue in support of a whole range of issues not related to welfare -- everything from the establishment of reproductive rights to the legalization of same-sex marriage. The key to understanding positive liberty is that it views liberty as an assertion of identity, a method of affirming your individual capacities by acting proactively to change the world. This definition of liberty stands in contrast to negative liberty, or the absence of coercion (the way liberty had been understood for much of human history). The different messages they have for the individual human being provide the fundamental distinction between the two concepts, and those messages, in turn, yield different policies on a national level (like welfare).UberCryxic (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add, however, that even the classical liberals of the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century sometimes violated their own standards by supporting some forms of welfare. Liberals during the French Revolution, in particular, were generally supportive of state efforts to take care of the poor. Indeed, it was those liberals that gave the world the first signs of the future, modern welfare state.UberCryxic (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My changes have left links to more detailed discussions of positive liberty. I have put in a concise indication of what modern liberty is so that readers who do not link to the detailed discussion of positive liberty are not confused by the somewhat misleading phrase, "positive liberty". Negative liberty can be used to argue as well or better for reproductive rights and same sex marriage since the absence of coercion is all that is necessary.RHB100 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with any part of my posts, then open up a discussion of the issue with which you disagree. Don't take the arrogant approach of tearing down all the contributions I have made.RHB100 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you consider "positive liberty" a misleading phrase is irrelevant. What matters, in this context, is that the phrase commands respect in academia. Ever since Isaiah Berlin formalized the distinction, the dichotomy between positive liberty and negative liberty has represented an important split in liberal philosophy. Yes, negative liberty can also be used to argue for some of the same policies, on different grounds, but your recognition of this point doesn't address the fundamental problem with your changes: the "indication," as you put it, that you give for positive liberty is completely bogus. It is inaccurate to compress all of positive liberty down to the idea of government welfare. Welfare is just one manifestation of this complicated principle in action.

I am reverting your changes because I do not see them as "contributions," but rather as misguided efforts to define two complex ideas that could be better defined in other ways (see above).UberCryxic (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now given accurate definitions for positive liberty and negative liberty, even though including those statements in the opening sentence ruins the prose somewhat.UberCryxic (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I am a little better qualified than you to say how the article should be written. Your statement that it doesn't matter if misleading terminology is used is complete nonsense. The Wikipedia is read by more people than left wing academicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how qualifications matter here, and either way you don't want to go down that road. Let's just stick to the content of the arguments. My statement was about how you fundamentally misunderstand the significance behind the dichotomy, as well as how you misunderstand positive liberty in general. You continue to distill it down to just government welfare, which is an incorrect assessment of the principle.UberCryxic (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Mcduarte2000 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Milton Friedman was a classical liberal as pointed out in Milton Friedman—Economist as Public Intellectual. He was an economist who believed in free markets and was one of the greatest men who ever lived. UberCryxic has removed Milton Friedman from the list of classical liberals perhaps accidentally.RHB100 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making damaging insinuations against my character. My main problem was with your definitions of positive liberty and negative liberty. I accidentally reverted some of your other changes. I included Friedman in the list now. Apologies for the confusion.UberCryxic (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Social liberalism moves beyond classical liberalism in two ways – a commitment to redistribution and a belief in democracy" is a line of left wing anticapitalistic clap trap. First of all social liberalism is not moving beyond classical liberalism, it is moving in a different direction to put it in neutral terms. Clear thinking people would say that it is moving backwards from classical liberalism. But UberCyrix insists that we cannot use neutral terminology and insists that we use the biased term "beyond classical liberalism". But should UberCryxic be allowed to use the Wikipedia as a platform for his left wing, anti-capitalistic, Un-American point of view? RHB100 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the idea, that one of the ways that Social liberalism moves beyond classical liberalism is a belief in democracy, is untrue. Classical liberalism does not imply a rejection of democracy. It does imply a government with limited powers but this is a totally different thing from a rejection of democracy. RHB100 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop using a Wikipedia talk page as your personal soapbox. Politicizing our dispute will do us no good. We can resolve our disagreements through mutual respect and cooperation. I am willing to work with you, and I hope you would be kind enough to extend me the same courtesy.UberCryxic (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence in question, dropping the reference to democracy while still preserving the accurate conclusion that social liberals were more progressive than their classical counterparts when it came to the diffusion of power through society.UberCryxic (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some needs to learn how to spell "bologna". I mean, Christ, there's even a song that spells it out for you. DKqwerty (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps we can agree that social liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that social liberalism supports a commitment to lowering income inequality. However, I don't see why you think the support of the equitable distribution of power and authority by social liberalism is any different from classical liberalism. Is it some different form of democracy that social liberals support or what?RHB100 (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote that part to give a fair shake to both social liberalism and classical liberalism. Tell me what you think now.UberCryxic (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This section reads: Classical liberals, such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, reject social liberalism as a true liberalism. I have asked for a reference for this. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the wonderful article, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" by Milton Friedman as a reference. For Nozick, von Mises, and Hayek, the references already provided seem adequate to show that these classical liberals reject social liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the origins of French social liberalism, which I think is non-controversial. Please review and suggest/make any changes that are required. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good.UberCryxic (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following to the Origins section. While the there is not much detail it provides s summary with links, and certainly Dewey and the New Deal should be discussed in greater detail in later sections. (The source is Contending liberalisms in world politics.) Still trying to find a good source for Canada, briefly mentioning the 1919 Liberal Convention and the Canadian version of the New Deal. Also, I cannot seem to find much about Italian social liberalism.

In the 1870s and 1880s, American the economists Richard Ely, John Bates Clark, and Henry Carter Adams, influenced both by evangelical Protestantism and socialism, were critical of conditions caused by industrial relations and sympathetic to labor unions, but none developed a systematic political philosophy, and later abandoned sympathy to socialism. Writing from the 1880s to 1930s, John Dewey, an educator influenced by Hobhouse and Green, advocated socialist means to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal.^[2]

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving on I think we should have sections on implementation e.g. the Liberal reforms, changes after 1973 and more detail on the development of theory. It should be possible to incorporate criticisms of/comparisons with social liberalism into these sections. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the US section and also started an implementation section with the Liberal reforms. Please read and note any problems. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I tagged weasel words, and added templates. I am not an expert on the subject but the usage of "Tyranny" does not conform to any standard definition of the word, therefore to me it indicates an attempt to skew the meaning of the section.

I think "Tyranny" could be removed while maintaining the text of the section but I have no background knowledge on the subject. For this reason I question the entire article. I don't feel personally qualified to filter through the rest of the article for more potential flaws.Drn8 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Weasel to find how the expression is used. They are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. That is certainly not the case here where the sentence is sourced. Furthermore the sentence is directly referring to a statement by José Guilherme Merquior, not asserting that his opinion is fact. It is impossible to write a political article without referring to persons' opinions. I am therefore removing the tags. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Following numerous edits the lead has changed as follows:

Social liberalism is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.

Social liberalism is a form of liberalism that champions positive liberty, the assertion of individual identity, in contrast to negative liberty, the absence of coercion, which is supported by classical liberalism. Social liberals saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to positive freedom. Instead of the negative freedom advocated by classical liberals, social liberals favored programs that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education, and welfare.

The latest version seems stilted and vaguer. Although social liberalism is obviously a form of liberalism, the second version ignores that it is a re-formulation of classical liberalism. It is also important that social liberals started with the objective of freedom, not positive liberty. The first version states this and mentions that they saw postive freedom as essential to achieve true freedom. Freedom remains the primary objective. Furthermore, the new version does is not supported by the sources.

I will therefore revert to the earlier version. I accept that social liberalism was controversial. Classical liberals thought that social liberalism was an infringement on their rights and would lead to loss of liberty. Socialists thought that social liberalism infringed on their rights because it concentrated power in the state which was in turn controlled by capitalists. Contemporary neoliberal thought sees social liberalism as inefficient. All of that is very important and should be better explained in the article. However, the article should begin with a clear concise description of the subject before moving to complex descriptions of theory and criticim.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you've basically reverted to the old version, which was fine as I saw it.UberCryxic (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Social liberalism. 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.

The Four Deuces keeps deleting the parties I’ve added. The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal. The article on the People’s Justice Party does not state that the party is socially liberal, but I felt that the party’s centre-left policies, together with its status as an observer member of the Liberal International, make it a social liberal party. In addition, the Australian Democrats is described as a social liberal party. I don’t understand why that keeps getting deleted.

I feel that liberal parties that champion state intervention to tackle social evils such as poverty (like the Orange Democratic movement of Kenya) are socially liberal, since tackling inequality is a key aim of social liberalism.

Also, I’m not sure whether D66 of the Netherlands can be described as a social liberal party. I say this because in its 2006 manifesto, which I read on the English language version of their site, it spoke out against state intervention, saying that government is not a “happiness factory” while also championing reductions in the welfare state. To me, that seems more like classical liberalism than social liberalism, since the latter champions expanded state welfare.

Finally, the Centre Party describes itself as a liberal party, as noted in that link I added.

User:zictor23 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NORN#Social liberal parties because your edits violate WP:NOR. Also parties may be "socially liberal" but not "social liberal" parties, while social liberal parties historically were not necessarily socially liberal. TFD (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, which explains how sources are used for backing up statements in articles. Ideally you should find an article about social liberal parties. For example, before you mostly deleted it, the section said, "Examples of successful European social liberal parties, which have participated in government coalitions at national or regional levels, are the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, D66 in the Netherlands, and the Danish Social Liberal Party in Denmark."[Kirchner, Emil (2000). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–7]

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles, because anyone can put anything into an article. Also, party websites are primary sources and are not acceptable for classifying them.

Arguments could also be made that the Australian Democrats are a green party or left libertarian populist party. One could argue that the Radical Civic Union is a social democratic party, because it is a member of the Socialist International, as is the Colombian Liberal Party. For us to weigh the evidence and make a call is synthesis.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean The Four Deuces. I never meant to go against any Wikipedia policies, btw. One thing I would like to know is exactly which liberal parties in mainland Europe support interventionist policies such as an expanded welfare state to combat poverty like the Liberal Democrats here in the United Kingdom. The European parties I added were the only ones I saw which I think could possibly be described as social liberal e.g. supportive of expanded welafre progarmmes, amongst other interventionist policies. My sceptism of the D66 party stemmed from the fact that its manifesto of 2006 spoke out against state intervention and called for reductions in the Dutch welfare state. Perhaps since then, though, its shifted to the left. If you like, I can post you the link to their manifesto on this page here.

Also, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of PRI, is not a completely socialist party. In fact, for most of its years in power, the presidents came from the conservative wing of the party. Presumably, it still has a socialist wing, which is probably why its a member. I could be wrong, but I think that the Colombian Liberal Party and the Radical Civic Union contain both liberals and socialists in their ranks, which is probably why they are members of PRI. I suppose there are parties that can be described as both liberal and social-democratic. Perhaps the radical civic union is one of those.User:zictor23 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Klaus von Beyme claimed that most parties in Europe could be divided into broad ideological families, but that the classification became more difficult in other parts of the world. Social liberal parties are a subclassification of liberal parties, but few writers have attempted to list them. Generally what unites liberals is stronger than what divides them, so their parties will contain elements of various strands of liberalism. Also, almost all other parties have been influenced by liberalism to some degree. Both Conservatives and Labour for example adopted first social then neo-liberal policies after the war, yet are not described as liberal parties. Both social and conservative liberal parties have also alternated in the type of liberalism they support. Policies however are not the main criteria for classifying parties. Notice that although D66 has become less interventionist, that is true of all parties and it is still distinguishable from the conservative liberal VVD.

But the best approach is to use sources that clearly classify these parties rather than doing so ourselves.

TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello TFD, on 1 May 12 you removed a section I added to the lead of this article with your explanation given as “Remove extensvie off-topic discussion from lead”. Before I start I would just like to acknowledge the considerable work you have done to making this article as comprehensive as it is, I’m sure this would be a far less worthy article without your intervention. However I would disagree with your removal of my input (perhaps not surprisingly!) and would be grateful for further discussion. I do not see the subject as being off topic. Searching for the term “socially liberal” in wikipedia redirects you to “social liberalism” - until this re-direct is changed I therefore see input on the use of the term “socially liberal” as correctly sitting within this article. I believe that the contemporary, popular understanding of the term “socially liberal” is as an adjective used as my edit outlined (to precis for those that didn’t see my edit someone who is described as socially liberal believes government should minimise legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals - see history for full edit). Nowhere else in this article is there a description / explanation on what I believe is the contemporary, popular use of the term “socially liberal”; it therefore appears worthy of conclusion.

With this in mind I would appreciate an explanation of why you believe my edit was off-topic. DistractionActivity (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "social liberalism" is fairly common, "socially liberal" much less so. If I encountered that phrase, I would guess it described someone who partied a lot. In any case, you need to find a good academic source for your proposed addition. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rick. Thanks for your input. The term "socially liberal" is common enough that The Economist uses it to describe British politicians (please see my original now deleted edit) - I think an international publication (average weekly circulation 1.5 million according to Wikipedia) probably satisfies any criteria as to how common the term is. I agree that a good source needs to be found to support the proposed addition (although I would question that it needs to be an academic source - I'm arguing that the term is in popular use and means something specific in popular use, so any reference would need to be of popular (not necessarily academic) use). Actually a source I'm leaning to at the moment is http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal ; which I think is a fairly good example of the popular use of "socially liberal" by a pretty well established institution (whether of course you agree with what they say being besides the point). Your reply does take me a little off the question I posed to TFD however; which was that the edit was deleted because it was "off-topic" not because it was wrong - I'm more interested in whether it is off-topic or not at the moment; my position remaining that as "socially liberal" redirects to this article it is not. DistractionActivity (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that social liberalism may refer to being socially liberal and added a link at the top of the page: "Not to be confused with cultural liberalism". However I thought that the addition on to the lead was too lengthy and not supported by the source, which uses the term "socially liberal" and provides no definition. A Google Books search shows one of the first ten hits (Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is corrupting our Future) using social liberalism to mean cultural liberalism. Unfortunately if does not describe the term. Can you find any source that explains this meaning? I don't think the example of use of the term "socially liberal" is helpful unless one can find a source that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals. One may be socially active but not a social activist. TFD (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually asked why you thought my edit was "off-topic" as this is why you stated my edit was removed. Instead of answering whether it was "off-topic" or not you instead say that it was removed because it was "too lengthy" and not "supported by the source." Sorry to labour the point, but when someone goes to the trouble of penning something and someone else removes it, it is a little bit frustrating for a reason to be given which when challenged appears not to be the reason and is not explained further. My frustration clearly is not your concern however, and I won't mention it again! So to start afresh with your points. "Can you find any source that explains this meaning?" - I take it you don't think the Adam Smith institute constitues an example of popular usage of "socially liberal" from which the meaning is apparent? Onto the more interesting question I think you raise: you think it is not "helpful" to include an explanation of the term "socially liberal" unless one can find a source "that people who are socially liberal are called social liberals." I differ in my conclusion as to whether this is helpful, and I will attempt to explain why using your example regards activism. I agree entirely that one may be socially active but not a social activist. At the moment though if I search "socially active" in wikipedia I am quite rightly not taken to the (social) activist page, proving your well-made point. If I search on "socially liberal" (an article which does exist, unlike socially active) I am however taken to the "social liberalism" page. I suspect that plenty of people might consider themselves "socially liberal," but are not signed up to the ideology of "social liberalism" (Boris Johnson I suspect being one) - continuing with your excellent example lots of pople would consider themselves "socially active" without considering themselves (social) activists! I'd like to propose a compromise - the "socially liberal" redirect is pointed at "cultural liberalism"? I do actually mean that as a constructive comment, let me know what you think. DistractionActivity (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) It was off-topic because it provides an extensive description of a topic different from the subject of the article. I think it violates no original research to find examples of the use of the expression "socially liberal" and develop a definition. If it is a notable concept then there should be a definitiion somewhere. It is in the nature of language that writers often modify nouns and adjectives with adjectives and adverbs and that does not necessarily imply a new concept.

There is a "socially liberal" page which redirects here, and links out to half a dozen articles. My view is that this is an example of over-linking and the page should not re-direct to this article, and probably be deleted. On the other hand, if you can establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic then you can turn the re-direct into an article.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is also social libertarian, which used to re-direct here but now for some reason re-directs to libertarian socialism. Social libertarianism is defined on p. 243 of Libertarianism Defended.

TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with your statement that the socially liberal page should not re-direct to this article. I am shortly to drop off the net however so have no time to "establish that socially liberal is a genuine topic" - although my edit was actually to establish that "socially liberal" was not synonymous with "social liberalism," so as long as I succeed in doing that I feel no onus to prove the genuineness of socially liberal or otherwise - so in short I will not turn the re-direct into an article. If you do not believe there is a better place that "socially liberal" should re-direct to then I would have no issue with it being deleted. Are you happy to do this as the more experienced Wikipedian, or would you rather me (I will first need to find out how to do this, not having done it before)?

I don't intend to answer your no original research point as, well hopefully a solution has been arrived at, and life is too short to argue every matter you disagree with. DistractionActivity (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I set up a deletion discussion here. TFD (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. DistractionActivity (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We need sources to include parties showing that they are generally considered to be social liberal parties. An editor added back a number of unsourced additions, saying, "Added various parties Note: The Liberal Party of Canada is a predominantly centre-left liberal party, whic it supports, and has supported in the past, interventionist social policies. That makes it a social liberal party". Curiously the last leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, who wrote a biography defending the views of Isaiah Berlin and books and articles defending the Bush administration's war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, targeted assassinations and indefinite detention of suspects, recently wrote, "The NDP are not liberals in a hurry, and we are not a party of the left. We are a free enterprise party, and they are big-government social democrats.... We’re not and never have been the party of big government." TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a reference has been added for Democrats 66. However, source makes no mention of social liberalism and does not attempt to categorize parties at all. TFD (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada are more of a catch-all centrist party, certainly more so during the height of its powers, not a social-liberal party in itself objectively speaking. D66 would count as centrist social-liberal party by most indicactors.--Autospark (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that most of the parties that I added which were later deleted, such as the United Democrats of Cyprus and the Sammarinese for Freedom of San Marino, were social liberal parties. They are liberal parties which support interventionist policies to promote social equality, which is social liberalism. It surprises me how RJFF and others keep deleting these additions. I read RJFF's message to me and I understand his argument, but I still feel that most of the parties I added were social liberal.[[User:zictor23|zictor23] (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If one source says the United Democrats of Cyprus is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality" and another says a social liberal party is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality", one cannot say that the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party. One needs a source that says "the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party". The fact that no one who has written about the party or about social liberal parties has made the same conclusion you have makes your conclusion questionable. TFD (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

More on social liberal parties

Generally we need to be very careful here, with this article: there haven't ever been that many social-liberal parties, whether currently active or historically speaking. The list of active liberal parties in this article is overflowing already with organisations that weren't wholly or explicitly social-liberal in character.--Autospark (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need a source that says which parties are social liberal, and explain the source. TFD (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, centre-right liberal parties (such as the Swedish liberal parties, or Flemish Open VLD) which happen to have social-liberal factions or elements don't belong on the list.--Autospark (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it to be over-categorization. While there is consensus about which parties are liberal, sub -categorization into conservative and social liberal parties does not have consensus, and parties may waver between the two. It would be better to say "'x' says that a,, b, c, etc. are social liberal parties". TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Social Liberalism" the book

Just discovered that there is a print-on-demand book titled "Social Liberalism" that reprints this article and, apparently, consists entirely of reprinted Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is social liberalism?

I've been doing some reading about social liberalism, and it seems to be a popular term (the leading book with that title equates social liberalism with love of porn) rather than an academic term. There is no article with that title in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics nor in Safire's Political Dictionary. Everyone seems to agree that it means support of civil rights and the provision of government services, such as public schools and public health. Beyond that, it is used by its supporters to mean a government that protects the weak and by its opponents to mean a government that hates the rich. I think, especially in the lead, we should only include what is common to most sources, instead of the laundry list of things social liberals support. "Solidarity"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It IS an academic term. Just one that is misused in popular speech as a synynom for social progressivism.--Autospark (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this article has several names and each of these names can mean different things, although social liberalism is the most common one. This book review provides a good brief definition. The book reviewed, The Ethical State?: Social Liberalism in Australia, while primarily about Australia, provides a detailed explanation of the subject and could be used as a source.] Unfortunately only the first 25 pages are available at Google Books. I don't think that civil rights and solidarity are major components. TFD (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems like theirs no satisfactory defined set of beliefs regarding social liberalism. Earlier revisions claimed that it was liberalism with social justice but many assigned as social liberals never talked about or hint social justice. What about proclaimed social liberals who are skeptical of social justice? Many thinks assigned to social liberalism like an expansive welfare state, "civil rights" (whatever that means), government regulation, and intervention should be more assigned to progressiveism. Many early social liberals seemed more like classical liberals who thought things like workers rights, economic democracy and a basic social insurance would be a good combination to political and economic freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.61 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems a strange post. You start by saying earlier versions equated social liberalism with an "expansive" welfare state, but go on to say in your opinion social liberalism believes in "basic social insurance". But surely these are two extremes of the same belief, that the government should have a safety net for the disadvantaged. And asking what "civil rights" means just shows you were not alive in the 1960s, or you wouldn't have to ask. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your post is incoherent. TFD (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO says, "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Since the items listed under Social liberalism#See also appear mostly to duplicate links already in the article, I will remove the section unless any reason is found to keep it. TFD (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A user recently deleted (which I then brought back) a link to a liberal organisation which stated that social liberalism is also known as left liberalism. I'm not sure why that link was removed.

User:zictor23 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Left-liberalism is not a common term, and there are more common terms used as a synonym for social liberalism. Also, left-liberalism is contextual. Before the Second World War, left-liberals in Europe opposed the welfare state, which was a major policy for social liberals, while the right-wing National Liberals supported it. Mises and Hayek were prominent "left-liberals". TFD (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In the article it is claimed that Alexander Rüstow first proposed the German version of economic social liberalism. In the citation doesn't verify this claim. The phrase "Social liberalism" exists in the source only once: “...but in the end the Colloque Walter Lippmann was united in their call for a new liberal project — a project that still needed a name. ‘Liberalism from the left’ was one idea; others were ‘positive liberalism’ or ‘social liberalism.’ But the term on which the participants actually agreed was ‘neoliberalism’ — Rüstow’s original recommendation.” page 19 According to this citation Rüstow is a proponent of neoliberalism and this is something completely different than "social liberalism". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, here I see history repeating. We had all that in the German version of Wikipedia two years before. With one side claiming that early German "neoliberalism" (today rather called Ordoliberalism) were basically a liberal project and the other side claiming it for Chicago style libertarians. The truth seems to be somewhere in between, as early Chicago economist such as Simons and Viner tended to draw on German Ordoliberals and 'sociological neoliberalism' (soziologischer Neoliberalismus), but Chicago School under the influence of Hayek, Friedman and Director later took a sharp turn at some point in the postwar-era as described by Rob Van Horn and Philip Mirowski. The same later happend to German neoliberalism / ordoliberalism. It is rather futile to argue what neoliberalism is (and has "always" been): social liberal or neoconservative / libertarian, as long as those historical developments are not acknowledged. Of course politicized users of Wikipedia on both sides of the State-Market divide do not want to acknowledge these changes and the respective literature, as they fear that their clear-cut ideology will be challenged...--Olag (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Mont Pelerin Society brought together liberals of different opinions, including ordoliberals, Austrian economists and the Chicago School. Ordoliberalism shared similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state, but we would need a source linking the two to include it in the article. Our current usage of the term "neoliberal" arose in the 1990s. TFD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here some sources for "similarities with social liberalism in the UK, such as support for a welfare state": --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sources do not mention the United Kingdom at all. Also, the quotes are out of context. Notice that Wilhelm Röpke's Political Economy says on page 131, "he was prepared to accept old-age pensions, unemployment relief and sickness insurance 'as parts of a sound system of provision in a free society'. The question for Roepke was the degree, organization and spirit in which they operated." That was the same approach taken by the Liberal Party (UK) in the 1906 reforms. Note too that the terms used by both to describe themselves were "new liberal" and "neoliberal", both used to distinguish themselves from 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, TFD, but Mr. Mustard is also right in pointing out that the vision of the early "neoliberals" was different in that they mostly believed not in an extensive welfare state, but in the market as a promotor of social equality. However, their early, pre-1960s conceptions of the Market were fundamentally different from later Chicaco School positions (Hayek went back to Freiburg in 1962). Rather than in laissez-faire or deregulation, they strongly believed in the dismantling of corporate power and in clear rules set and enforced by a strong, but "lean" and impartial state. But as said, we, Mr. Mustard, some others and me, discussed these problems and developments so extensively and with so little result in the German Wikipedia, that I am not willing to continue about the same questions here. It comes to no good... Actually at the moment M. M. is blocked in the German Wikipedia, because he said that I were a "friend and protector of trolls and users committing citation fraud". And, I have a hard time to take such things seriously ;-)

Best regards,---Olag (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal Party (UK) did not believe in an extensive welfare state either, and in fact resisted its extension as supported by fellow Liberals Keynes and Beveridge and implemented by the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The text says that German social liberalism first culminated in Progress Party. Sorry, but that's nonsense! The Progressive Party opposed any social reform such as Bismarck's social legislation, which they denounced as state socialism ("Staatssozialismus"). This is probably a misinterpretation of the German term research left-liberalism ("Linksliberalismus") by British authors. In the German research literature, this term is generally used to separate some parties from national liberalism. The National-Social Association of Friedrich Naumann was the first liberal party in Germany, which established requirements for social reform. Then began other left-liberal parties to deal with the social question, especially the Free-minded Union. Both parties merged in 1903. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The text explains how social liberalism in Germany differed from that in England, it "included strong opposition to the welfare state, which they deemed state socialism.... The term "social liberal" contrasted these parties with the more conservative and classically liberal, such as the right-wing of the National Liberal Party...." TFD (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But "social liberalism" isn't a common term in German historiography. To describe this ideological trend the term "left-liberalism" is almost used. That are two different research concepts! 141.30.217.137 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the statement that the National Liberal Party would represent a classical liberalism does not apply. It was precisely the Progress Party, which advocated classical liberal values like the realization of the "legal state​​". In fact, the National Liberal Party prohibited the implementation of these values by their cooperation with the Conservatives. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you are reading the section properly because it does not make the claims you say. The existence of social liberalism in Germany is well documented in Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927), pp. 265-270, and Mises wrote about it in "A Critique of Interventionism" (1929). Neither of those writers were English. While the National Liberals co-operated with the Conservatives, they broke with them over protectionism. In any case articles must be based on sources, not personal interpretatin. TFD (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the section very thoroughly! I also do not deny that there was a social liberalism in Germany. But it did not exist as shown here. As already indicated above, German historiography almost uses the term "left-liberalism" or "liberal left" to describe the politics of Progressive Party. After the turn of the century Friedrich Naumann (National-Social Association) and Theodor Barth (Free-minded Union) were the first left-liberals who established requirements for social reform in their party programmes. Only then some historians use the term "social liberalism". My descriptions are not a personal interpretation! They rely on the two relevant general works on the history of liberalism in Germany: Dieter Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland (1988) and James J. Sheehan's Der deutsche Liberalismus (1983, translation of: German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century).
By the way, not the National Liberals broke with the conservatives, rather Bismarck broke with the National Liberals to establish an alliance with the catholic Centre Party ("Second Reichsgründung"). After that, the National Liberal Party moves to the right and a small group split off to found the Liberal Union. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot access the relevant parts of the book. However I have Snell and Schmitt's The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914. It says, "...according to left-liberalism, the empire must be democratized excluding socialism and inroads must be made on the SPD's labor constituency.... Throughout the imperial era they encouraged the growth of patriotic, procapitalist, Progressive unions to counter the socialist labor movement. This effort began in 1868 when the liberal economist Max Hirsch, and Franz Duncker... established the German Worker Associations (Deutsche Gewerkvereine)..... The Gewerkvereine pledged themselves to work for "the raising of the working class [through self-help] on the foundation of the existing social order," and they accepted the aims of "social justice" and "political freedom and [local and provincial] self government."" (p. 311)

This source appears to show that this approach was mainstream in left-liberalism. While Naumann's approach is closer to English social liberalism, De Ruggiero and subsequent writers identified the party's attempt to help the workers help themselves and not rely on the welfare state as social liberalism. Do you agree they took this approach and if yes, then what do you call it?

TFD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What the author describes were not the aims of the liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine"). "Self-help" was the ideology of the ​​cooperatives, which were founded by Franz Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch in the 1840's. The social policy of Progressive Party (and its successor organisations: Free-minded Party and Free-minded People's Party) was also based on this concept: the workers should unite in cooperatives and help each other to improve their living conditions. Is this the answer of modern social liberalism on social question: "self-help" without any welfare state element? Naumann's National-Social Association took a different approach: legal protection of the freedom of association for workers, including their freedom to strike; introduction of unemployment insurance; expansion of the state poor relief etc. This corresponds more to the notion of the modern social liberalism. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is how the sources, for example, Richardson's Contending Liberalisms, pp. 36-37, describe it, using De Ruggiero as a source. TFD (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Richardson is a political scientist and not a historian. I think this the reason why he misinterprets German "left-liberalism" as "social liberalism". Trade unions and cooperatives are not the same. First are (political) organizations of workers, which try to achieve their interests (safety requirements, reducing working hours, collective agreements etc.), while second are (economic) associations of people, in which they help each other to improve their social-economic situation. The liberal parties saw themselves as protector of common good and not as representative of special interests of certain social classes. Therefore, the liberal parties did not support the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, because these organizations fought for the special interests of working people. They merely promoted the formation of cooperatives, because these associations based on the idea of self-help ... I'm going to correct the text in the next few days, today I don't have any time. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The chapter by Richardson was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997), has appeared in two academic books by him and is used as part of university political science courses. The section on Germany is supported by Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism (1927) which even today is considered the foremost history of liberalism ever written. De Ruggiero was a professor of the history of philosophy in the 1920s, a prominent Italian social liberal and later minister of education. You cannot just dismiss this because you happen to disagree. You need a source that supports you. BTW according to the sources, the liberal unions did not fight "for the special interests of working people", which would be contary to liberal ideology. TFD (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Richardson is political scientist and not a historian, he describes the evolution of political thoughts and not historical processes. I studied both disciplines and know the differences between them - but that is of secondary importance. The De Ruggiero's work is nearly 100 years old and a overview on European history; apropos it is not quoted by any leading German historian, neither Lothar Gall, Thomas Nipperdey nor Hans-Ulrich Wehler. (Note that Theodor Mommsen's Römische Geschichte (A History of Rome) was even honoured with the Nobel Prize in Literature, but nowadays no one quotes it anymore.) Without doubting the reputation of both you cite I think that the works of Langewiesche and Sheehan are more reputable sources in this special case, because they are much more up to date and focused on German history. In Sheehan's German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century please read chapter 10 (pp. 153-155, illustrates the resistance of leading liberals against the liberal trade unions of Hirsch and Duncker, and the ideas of "Socialists of the Chair" like Lujo Brentano), the other relevant sections are unfortunately not available. By the way Langewiesche's work was also translated into English: Liberalism in Germany.
To your criticism: But you know that trade unions are organizations which are fighting for the interests of working people, no matter on which ideology (liberal, socialist or christian) they based? Therefore my descriptions are not contary to liberal ideology: The liberal trade unions ("Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine") fougt for the special interests of working people on the foundation of the existing state order, and not in the in the spirit of socialist trade unions ("Freie Gewerkschaften") which wanted to eliminate the monarchy and establish a new regime.
But the dicussion moving further away from the goals: I only want a clear distinction between "left-liberalism" and "social liberalism". I am preparing a revision of the section for discussion. Many greetings from Germany 141.30.217.137 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am having difficulty following your arguments. You say that Naumann's party (founded 1896) was the first social liberal party but then say the liberal trade unions, which existed from 1868-1933, were social liberal. Only they weren't because "self help" is not social liberalism. I wish you would read the sources presented in the article and that I mentioned here. Classical liberalism had not addressed the social issue, which English social liberals addressed through the welfare state. But in Germany it was addressed through encouraging self help. You do not have to accept this narrative but that is what multiple sources say and you need to provide a source that says they are wrong. TFD (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are ignorant! It is really amazing that you mean the 10 lines about Germany in Richardson's overview article which based on a five-page illustration in De Ruggiero's nearly 100 year old overview about history of European liberalism are more relevant than the two pertinent studies of Langewiesche and Sheehan on history of German liberalism! If both authors are such experts in German liberalism history, I am surprised that neither the German historians nor the American Sheehan quote them. I posted a source you can check: Please read German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, chapter 10 (espec. pp. 153-155). In German version there are also relevant chapter 11 ("Die liberale Wählerschaft und der Triumph der Interessenpolitik", espec. pp. 205-206, shows defiance attitude of liberals towards representation of special economic interests and reasons for resistance againt liberal trade unions in Progress Party) and chapter 14 ("Die liberale Linke und das harte Brot der Oppostion", espec. 241-243, shows the absence of socio-political demands in program of Progress Party). In Langewiesche's Liberalismus in Deutschland chapter IV/5 "Antisozialismus - Sozialpolitik - Liberale Gesellschaftsbilder" (pp. 187-200) summarizes the defiance attitude of imperial German liberals towards social policy.
Please finally realise that liberal trade unions were not based on "self-help", but on organisation of employees into unions to fight for their rights. Trade unions of all persuasions, from liberal to socialist, are political oranizations and no private self-help groups! Meanwhile "self-help" was the idelogy of the ​​cooperatives. Neither liberal trade unions nor cooperatives were mainstream like Richardson implies, but they found relatively few supporters among the liberal politicians. Although these approaches had been, but they were no more than a marginal note in history of German liberalism without any mass foundation or fixation in programs of liberal parties. This is also evident in the fact that the liberal "Hirsch-Dunckersche Gewerkvereine" had about 100,000 members in 1910, while the socialist "Freie Gewerkschaften" organized more than 2.5 million people. And yes I really mean that was Naumann's National-Social Association was the first social liberal party in Germany, because they were the first who fixed social policy issues, such as expansion of the social state, legalization of freedom to strike or profit-sharing to employees, in their party program. 141.30.217.137 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
________
Here are some relevant parts of the two German books which I mentioned above, Thomas Nipperdey's standard reference work on history of Imperial Germany, and a dissertation on Free-minded Union which also refers to the previous positions of German left-liberals. My English skills are not good enough to translate it adequately. Please use Google Translate or PROMT Translator and you will get a rough overview of the situation in 19th century Germany.

Edit: 141.30.217.137 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have pretty much the same question that has been asked several times on this page. I thought that "social liberalism" favored Same sex marriage, relaxed laws on activities between "consenting adults", drug usage; that sort of thing. I thought that "fiscally liberal" included (US) National Health Care, not caring whether the budget was balanced or not to achieve "more important" goals, etc. Howard Dean was often described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." As governor, he always balanced the budget, while favoring medical care bills that did not unbalance the budget as well as SSM. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article, nor the above discussion, seems to indicate this. Student7 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding, there are two different meanings of 'social liberalism': 'Social liberalism' in the American sense refers to (American) liberal (Europeans would say: progressive) stances on social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage etc.), as opposed to social conservatism. 'Social liberalism' in the European sense means (European) liberalism with a social component (this can mean to advocate more welfare than classical liberals (who could be considered fiscal conservatives in the US)) European social liberals may (but must not necessarily) support fiscal policies that would be considered fiscally conservative in the US. I believe that you referred to 'social liberalism' in the American sense, while this article seems to be about 'social liberalism' in the Euopean sense. Should we add a note to avoid future misunderstandings? --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there are two different adjectives used, depending on the meaning of 'social liberalism': 'socially liberal' vs. 'social-liberal'.

See also: Modern liberalism in the United States#American versus European use of the term "liberalism" --RJFF (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good summary, Mr RJFF:in essence, social liberalism in the American sense is a synonym for social progressivism, and social liberalism in the European sense are liberals who support the social state and social market economy.--Autospark (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate a note or (less desirable) as see also or something to distinguish between the two. For the record, we are talking England, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc. The fact that we interpret certain phrases in other languages to these terms gives us flexibility on how we treat them IMO. In other words, we are not forced to translate a term in German or French or Italian literally, if it is confusing/ambiguous in England, Australia, South Africa, etc. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This section contains a large amount of inaccurate party choices (parties that are centre-right liberal), and should be pared down significantly. Ideally a section called "Active parties and organizations with social liberal factions", or similar, containing broader liberal parties that are proven to have social-liberals in them. I've said this before, but there aren't, or weren't ever, many political parties that were wholly social-liberal parties. I'd struggle to cite a dozen legitimately, in all honesty.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation.

Which is trivially true because liberalism, or any of its negations, is meaningless in the absence of society. Could this sentence be made to look less vacuous? —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How about, "Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should support the general welfare of society."? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

정의당은 사회민주주의 지향과 진보자유주의 지향을 함께 담고 있다. 진보자유주의는 유럽식으로 표현하면 사회자유주의이다. — Source: Polinews, Date: 25/08/2013

(in Translation: The Justice Party is social democracy and progressive liberalism-oriented political party. The progressive liberalism is expressed in terms of social liberalism in Europe.)

@117.53.77.84: See the part of original source. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't write on the Justice Party here unless they regard themselves as a socially liberal political party. For now, they regard themselves as a social democratic political party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your private opinion. See the Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations section. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a sock puppet of the above IP user who were involved in an edit warring. But I found his position is more reasonable, thus support his view.

1. I don't think the cited Polinews article is a reliable source. Haven't heard about the newspaper, and when I visited their site it feels like a one man's news/blog media. And it's not clear which part of the cited article support User:Idh0854's argument. S/he need to provide at least one reliable source with proper translation (if the source is in Korean).
2. Also, I've checked the linked Korean Wiki article for this topic. Here, they clearly listed NPAD(Ko: 새정치민주연합) as a Social liberal party of South Korea, not the Justice Party. (I understand that Ko Wiki isn't a reliable source, but wanted to proved that even in another wiki project no one support Idh0854's opinion. There had been no edit warring on Ko wiki project regarding this particular problem.)
3. Moreover, User:Idh0854's edits even contradict with his/her own edit from 23/05/2013 on the Ko Wiki article. In this edit,User:Idh0854 didn't list Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011) as a social liberal party of SK, per se. Rather, s/he reverted another IP user's edit. But it is clear that Idh0854 had no problem with listing the Democratic party as the only social liberal party of SK at that time.
4. New Politics Alliance for Democracy is the only successor Democratic Party (South Korea, 2011), and Justice Party (South Korea) was founded 21 October 2012.

As far as I'm concerned, it is User:Idh0854 who's been repeating unconstuctive edits. If we say that the Justice party positions itself on center-left, then the newly founded NPAD should be called a center or center-right party. Then how we gonna call the current ruling Saenuri Party? If we say the Justice party's ideology is social liberalism, then it would be difficult to portray SK's political landscape. --Seonsaengnim (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Saenuri Party is center-right party, sir. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

When social liberalism is mentioned by critics it is used to mean being liberal towards social matters (drugs, prostitution, promiscuity, abortion, assisted suicide, etc). Why is this use strenuously avoided in the article? To do so looks like a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, given how much the term is used in this manner. LeapUK (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Liberalism is belief in freedom and equality. Economic liberalism, or classical liberalism, is a belief that economic freedom is more important than social equality. Thus, some (nor all) economic liberals argue that the federal government had no right to abolish slavery, because the property rights of the slave owners trumped the right of the slave to be treated equally with the white man. The big battles won by social liberals in the last 150 years include freedom for slaves, votes for former slaves, votes for women, the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, and the gay rights movement -- all examples of greater social equality. The victories of economic liberals include lower tax rates for the rich, a cap on social security tax payments, the ruling that corporations are people, and a lifting of restrictions on the size of political contributions. The issues you mention above combine personal freedom and economic freedom, and don't have much to do with equality, except for the right to abortion, which puts women in control of their bodies. Some of this is already in the article. If you think more should be included, just find a reliable source and include it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That isn't social liberalism. Please read and actually try to understand the article. Social liberalism is not the same thing as social progressivism or modern American liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right, though it leaves me without a word to describe the plain, garden-variety liberalism that I discuss above. But neither is social liberalism about drugs, prostitution, and promiscuity as LeapUK seems to think. Those issues involve freedom, not social justice. We have all these subsets of liberalism. Liberalism meaning economic freedom, which we call conservatism. Liberalism meaning equal rights. Liberalism meaning social justice, which I now agree is the primary meaning of social liberalism. And liberalism meaning the freedom do to as you please. Then, to add to the confusion, we have conservatism meaning a government that leaves you alone, and conservatism meaning a government that stops people from using drugs and having sex out of wedlock. Is puzzlement! In any case, thank you, Autospark, for setting me right about the difference between social liberalism and the kind of liberalism I was talking about. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the content of this article describes European political movements that could be better described, and which described themselves, as "radical" or "radical liberal". Even England had an early "radical" tradition among its Liberals which included Charles James Fox, and the "New Liberals" of this article could be distinguished from the other Liberals in the same fashion. North America may only use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in both their ideological and their non-ideological senses, while the other French revolutionary term- "radical" is used only in its non-ideological sense. But in Europe there is well-documented ideological usage of the term "radical" as a very general term for the centre-left, some of which is recorded in this article. Another well-known example would be the French Radicals, who later became the Radical-Socialists (moderate socialists). It seems to me that the terms "social liberal" - and "conservative liberal" - are value judgements by Wikipedia writers, rather than reports of historical fact. The cited list of political parties includes only two uses of "social liberal". One is the Social Liberal Party of Brazil, which is listed as a centre-right liberal party - the opposite of what is described in this article. The other is the Danish Social Liberal Party - a seemingly unique English translation. The original Danish name for the party is "Radikale Venstre", or 'Radical Left'... I rest my case, M'Lud. TrendBronco (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The ideology is called social liberalism. It does not matter what individual political parties title themselves.--Autospark (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that most social liberal parties are not actually named "Social Liberal" (btw, the Radikale Venstre presents itself as "Danish Social-Liberal Party" in its website) and I also happen to think that social liberalism is kind of a heir to (historical) radicalism, but I agree with Autospark. As a side note, I would add that the article should explain that "social liberalism" is both the opposite of "conservative liberalism" (mainly in Europe) and the opposite of "social conservatism" (mainly in the United States). Social liberalism is both the left-wing of the current liberal movement and a "left-wing" and "permissive" attitude on social/ethical issues as divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, etc. (see also cultural liberalism). The article should reflect all that. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Checco for the explanation, and I agree with you on this issue. Apologies to TrendBronco for the brusque and unhelpful response: My point I was trying to make (and made badly) was that names of political often do not correspond to their ideological categorisation.--Autospark (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If the names of parties don't matter, that seems to leave Wikipedia authors even more open to my criticism that they are making their own value judgements rather than making a record of established practices. I understand there is a need to distinguish right-liberalism from left-liberalism, but it seems to me that the decision on whether to say 'social liberal' or 'left liberal' was a completely arbitrary one when it was made by Wikipedia authors. Whereas, with Radicalism and National Liberalism, you have two real traditions to report on, that would also allow you to comment on the general but non-uniform tendency of liberalism to divide into left- and right-wing streams (as all philosophies tend to). TrendBronco (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There aren't or haven't been many "National Liberal" parties around, for that matter. Your arguments look particularly weak to me this time. In fact, what are you arguing for? That the Social Democratic Party of Portugal is social-democratic only for its name or that the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is liberal for the same reason? That would be nonsense. Moreover, it is true that in the 19th century in many European countries there were National Liberals on the right of the political spectrum and Radicals on the left, but then Christian democrats, socialists, social democrats and others came, and the liberal movement, which is no longer dominant in most countries, is now basically divided in conservative liberals and social liberals (of course there are also some centrist liberals). Why should we use 19th century terms instead of 21st century ones? --Checco (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest that Party Names were proof, only that they were evidence, which is better than no evidence at all. I agree that liberalism divided into left and right streams, I repeat that the decision to use the terms "conservative-liberalism" and "social-liberalism", rather than any other, is entirely arbitrary. I repeat that it would be as well to merely mention this divide in the pages on National Liberalism and Radicalism, in the latter case in sub-section called "radical-liberalism" perhaps. Apparently, I am not the only one to think along these lines TrendBronco (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@TrendBronco: You may call it arbitrary, yet it is not at all done by Wikipedia users, but by political scientists (compare e.g. H. Slomp, European Politics Into the Twenty-first Century, 2000: "After the rise of social democracy, the liberals split into two trends: conservative liberals and social liberals."). As I have shown below, this distinction is very common in political science literature. Wikipedia has to follow reliable sources. Social liberalism and (historical) radicalism are not congruent even if a number of social-liberal parties come from a radical tradition. The link between national liberalism and conservative liberalism is even feebler. It is totally unusual in expert literature to label modern conservative-liberal parties as national-liberal ones. Neither the Dutch VVD nor the Danish Venstre (two major examples of active conservative-liberal parties) come from a national-liberal line of tradition (most Danish National Liberals joined Højre, not Venstre; while in the Netherlands, national liberalism did not play an important role). --RJFF (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On looking at more of the citations, I have to admit that "social liberalism" is more widely used than I expected. I still insist that it is essentially a retronym, and an arbitrary retronym. But I am willing to concede that it is the consensus arbitrary retronym. I did not realise that John Rawls had been so widely described as a "social liberal" and not just an "American liberal", for example. The fact that hardly any of the citations are more than 20 years old shows that it is a retronym. Nothing in the article text, or the supporting citations, tells the reader that the leading figures of British New Liberalism, German Ordoliberalism, French Radicalism, or American Liberalism would have used the term themselves, or even been aware that they had been grouped with each other. To describe "social liberalism" as an "ideology" seems a bit much. As for your comment on conservative liberalism, I can only assume you haven't seen the page- which hangs on a comparison with national liberalism. To me this made the need for two pages seem redundant. TrendBronco (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Liberalism, the belief in freedom and equality, is the American mainstream, and the same is true throughout most of the West. The liberals in the sixties were as anti-communist as the conservatives. The Left, then, were the communists, and the Right were the people who opposed labor unions and integration. Then, the Right found political advantage in calling people who supported labor unions and the mixing of the races Leftists, a word they also applied to hippies (and, earlier Beatniks -- the "nik" suffix came from Sputnik).Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some political scientists do use the terms "radical", "radical liberal" or "liberal-radical" when speaking about the ideological variant described in this article, especially those who focus on continental Europe and Romance countries, e.g. Klaus von Beyme who is one of the most influential European scholars of comparative political science and main theorist of the concept of "party families" (cf. Political Parties in Western Democracies, 1985). He defined the "liberal and radical" party family within which he distinguishes more conservative "liberal" and more left-leaning "radical" parties (von Beyme (1985), pp. 31 et seqq.). In the 1988 volume "Liberal Parties in Western Europe" edited by Emil J. Kirchner, liberal parties were distinguished into a "liberal-conservative" and a "liberal-radical" current as proposed by Gordon Smith (Between left and right: the ambivalence of European liberalism, in: Kirchner ed. (1988), pp. 21 et seqq.). Younger scholars use "social(-)liberal" and "radical" or "liberal-radical" as synonyms (Almeida, The Impact of European Integration on Political Parties, 2012, pp. 97–98 (citing von Beyme); Hloušek and Kopecek, Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties, 2013, p. 108 (citing G. Smith)), but seem to prefer the term "social(-)liberal" (either with or without hyphen). I propose therefore to include Liberal radicalism as a synonym in the opening sentence and to create a redirect from Liberal radicalism to this article. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, a hatnote should inform about the two meanings of "social liberalism": (1) a more social (-democratic) oriented variant of liberalism, as opposed to classical or conservative liberalism (the subject of this article) and (2) liberal stances on "social issues" like abortion, same-sex marriage etc., as opposed to Social conservatism in the United States. Especially in the US discourse "social(ly) liberal" is more often used in the second sense – this article may therefore be surprising or confusing to some readers. --RJFF (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that this article is more about conservative liberalism, since conservative liberalism in the US rejects government solutions to social problems, while conservative liberalism in the EU supports government solutions to social problems, but stresses that these solutions should be limited to benefiting the members of the dominant culture, not foreigners. This article is more about solving social problems such as education, hunger, and health care. I don't think that in the EU this would be considered liberal at all, but would be called socialist, a word people in the US avoid because of a long-standing fear of "godless communism". I do agree that this article needs to be absolutely clear, in the introduction, about the different ways "social liberalism" is used in different countries. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood: I think you got me wrong. I meant that this article is about "a more social (-democratic) oriented variant of liberalism" – as opposed to classical or conservative liberalism. It is not about conservative liberalism, quite the contrary. And yes, I think this is also considered liberal in Europe (at least some countries including Germany, Britain, Scandinavia and the Low Countries), just a more left-leaning variant of liberalism that exists alongside the more right-leaning ones of classical and conservative liberalism (this is what I tried to get across in my above post). However, many parties of the socialist/social-democratic party family have incorporated elements of social liberalism. The modern, moderate outfit of democratic socialism/social democracy ("Third Way") and (social-)liberalism may blend into each other and socialism and liberalism are no longer antagonisms. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I frankly do not understand most of Rick Norwood's remarks (they seem to me a little bit out of context here), while I totaly agree with RJFF, espcially on adding "liberal radicalism" to the intro (I would add "radical liberalism" to) and explaining the two meanings of "social liberalism" (on this I am very happy that RJFF has agreed on my earlier proposal). --Checco (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@TrendBronco, Autospark, and Checco: Do you agree with adding "Liberal radicalism" as a synonym in the opening sentence based on the prevalence of the terms "liberal-radical", "radical" or "radical liberal" to describe this variant of liberalism in earlier (1980s, 1990s) political science literature, the affinity of many modern social liberal parties to the tradition of (historical) radicalism, and Hloušek and Kopecek's assertion that "social-liberal" and "liberal-radical" are synonyms ("The terminology labeling these two groups [i.e. classical liberals and social-liberals] varies, of course. For example Gordon Smith speaks of liberal-conservative and liberal-radical parties, which reflects the historical affinity of most parties in the second group [i.e. social-liberals] to the radical branch of the family."); while keeping the article title as it is, given that "social liberalism" is much more common in current English-language literature? --RJFF (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I would add both "liberal radicalism" and "radical liberalism"—and the two meanings of "social liberalism". --Checco (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, so I also agree on this one. I prefer the term "radical liberalism" to "liberal radicalism" (and I've encountered the former more often), but both should be included in the explanation.--Autospark (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer "radical liberalism" over "liberal radicalism". --Checco (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unsure about "radical liberalism" because in Germany it is usually used in the sense of radical neo-liberalism or libertarianism (the term "libertarian" is rather unknown in Germany, only experts and adherents use it, while texts for a general public might use "radically liberal"). But if you assure that it's used synonymously with social liberalism in English, I agree. --RJFF (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding awkward, I actually prefer "liberal radicalism" or "radicalism" now that I think about it. I was a bit hasty in suggesting "radical liberalism" in my comment above. I think it's necessary to show the link to the term "radicalism" as it was conceived at the time of the French revolution, in common with "liberalism" and "conservatism", and it allows for some citations referring to the French Radical Party and others. I also think it would be better to describe it as a "family of ideologies" or a "branch of political philosophy" or something similar, rather than "a political ideology", which seems a stretch. I would agree with a change of that sort. TrendBronco (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Checco: My comment was in response to this parenthetical remark by RJFF: "conservative liberalism (the subject of this article)" I now see that the antecedent of the parenthetical is ambiguous.

The discussion of politics becomes impossible when writers use the same words with different meanings and different words with the same meaning. If it is generally accepted that "social liberalism" and "radical liberalism" are synonyms, a major authoritative source needs to be supplied. If, on the other hand, "social liberalism" is sometimes called "radical liberalism" but is not a synonym, then it does not belong in the first sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On the usage "radicalism" for a belief in social justice, I have heard enemies of social justice call such programs "radical" as when the pope was recently called a "radical environmentalist" for believing in global warming, but I've never heard "ism" added to that. For "radicalism" to be added to the article, it would need serious references to show it is a common usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "social liberalism" is sometimes referred to as "radical liberalism", but, of course, we need at least an authoritative source (on this I quite agree with Rick Norwood). Anyway, I have to say that I feel very satisfied with the current version of the article. I really appreciated RJFF's additions on the usage of "social liberalism" in the United States and the social-liberal character of some European social-democratic parties. And, yes, "liberal radicalism" is very awkward if compared with "radical liberalism" (on this I quite disagree with TrendBronco). --Checco (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We should be using the term "Egalitarianism"... not Social Liberalism.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Social liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115064405/http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt:80/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html to http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A number of parties have been added to the list of social liberal policies with either no sources provided, or sourced only to the parties' websites. None of these websites claim that the parties are social liberal and would not be good sources in any case. Several of the parties listed appear to be social democratic, for example the Social Democrat Radical Party of Chile, which is a member of the Socialist International. Others may be nationalist or agrarian. See WP:V: "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." Please do not re-add without reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree in countries like Spain, two minor parties are listed with a Spanish nationalistic ideology whilst the only part that is a member of the Alliance of European Liberal Democrats is Democratic Convergence of Catalonia. Hope this gets updates soon. I would delete the two parties listed as irrelevant besides the fact that I doubt that socio-liberal is the right definition of their ideology.

Seconded, we have a proper and large Social Democratic Party of Finland and other more leftist parties in Finland, and this article only gives the tiny party of Swedish People's Party of Finland as an example (it is sourced from a book which counts it as an example of an ethnic/regional party). It is a one-topic party which only basically promotes the compulsory teaching of Swedish language in Finnish schools. They always ally with any block which accepts this. They are centre-rightist in their policy when it rarely comes up. This is probably the worst example of a Social Liberal party there can be. Keskival (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The SDP is not a social-liberal party, but in fact also the SFP might not be a social-liberal party—for opposite reasons. --Checco (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to remove the SFP from the list of social-liberal parties?--Autospark (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know. In the SFP article's infobox there is a source for "social liberalism"... --Checco (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. There's definitely sources that indicate a social-liberal/liberal basis for the SFP, but also (primarily) it is an ethno-regionalist party too. It is often difficult categorising social-liberal parties, as unlike social-democratic parties (for example), there are a lot fewer of them, and they often have other ideologies or purposes as their basis.--Autospark (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally share your concerns and I leave the issue to users who happen to be more informed than me. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Category talk:Radical liberal parties in Italy: is that category appropriate? I don't think so, but other user might have something to say about it. Moreover, the discussion is part of a general problem: the categorization of "radical liberalism" or "liberal radicalism". Currently, Liberal radicalism is a disambiguation mentioning Radicalism (historical), Social liberalism and Libertarianism, but, unfortunately in my view, neither this article nor Libertarianism mentions either "liberal radicalism" or "radical liberalism" in its lead, while mentioning "reform liberalism". I think this is a shortcoming. Finally, it would be important and interesting to decide which term is more appropriate as a synonym for "social liberalism": "liberal radicalism" or "radical liberalism"? --Checco (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved the aforementioned category to Category:Radical parties in Italy and changed its content (see Category talk:Radical parties in Italy).

I take this opportunity to express once again the need to mention either "radical liberalism" or "liberal radicalism" in this article's lead. In my view, it is also important to connect "social liberalism" with historical "radicalism" (see Radicalism (historical). --Checco (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This entire article does not describe social liberalism.... it describes Egalitarianism or Radicalism. The entire thing is wrong if you want to relate to the idea of "social liberalism". SOCIAL liberalism specifically relates to SOCIAL issue; it under no circumstances has anything to do with equal outcomes or anything with economics. Social liberalism is more correctly affiliated with Libertarianism.

You need a source. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here from the German Wikipedia and this article needs to get some fixes. Because it is misleading hard! Especially for the German part in comparison to the current introduction, but also for the strongly related US and British part.

• Social-liberalism allowed the Volk (which was not the people aka plebs, not the military and not the nobility) but the weaponized people of the local or state-wide community (you can call it higher middle class, people who built the state) the plain possibility to increase social standards.
• Then you have to differ:

1. Left-liberals used the market capitalism, which was "laissez faire" at that time, to get to this goal and strictly went against any government intervention. They heavily favored Free Trade (with also no government intervention in it) to higher the standards of living of the people in general.
2. Social-liberals however wanted to create, they never accomplished anything politically, a system which includes Protestant Christian values, markets, anti-socialism in a "populist" manner building associations and unions for the common people. You can say it was a brainstorm.
3. Conservatives stood for the unified German state out of a liberal, free confederacy of Volk states (some of them free) and the military integrity, especially against egalitarian and centrist France at that time.
4. Germany after 1945 has nothing to do with social liberalism in an egalitarianist way or social(ist) democratic setting until the 1970's. It was instead neoliberal liberalism, post-fascism and Christian conservatism, nearly the same what Germany did in the 19th's century. Liberal Socialism is something different.
5. I never read that Roosevelt was a left-liberal, but a particular socialist reformer using state power.
6. Libertarianism, a term used in the United States, is strongly connected to left-liberalism when used in the sense of historic left-liberalism and republicanism. Mostly it is right-libertarianism. E.g. when interventionism harms individual freedom of associations, when activists push changing property rights already given. Because the social base or deal compared to an ethnic state isn't there. When it comes to truely aimed social balance, the US don't have institutions who can manage change and also keepeverything non interventionist and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.155.121 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of what you say may be true but a lot of it looks like your own political opinion. I have no doubt that the rule on de.wiki is the same as here: statements must be supported by evidence. So I suggest that you create a subsection here for each of your six points in turn and produce the evidence. Although your English is excellent, you might find it easier to use the de.wiki talk page to explain what you think needs to be changed to the material about Germany that is here and return with an wp:NPOV text that represents the consensus of German wikipedians.

(There is an additional problem in that different cultures have different associations with words that appear to mean the same thing. Even among english speakers, the British concept of social liberalism - meaning liberalism with a social responsibility - is different to the American concept, that it is only that what people do in their private lives is of no legitimate interest to anyone else. And Americans have broadened that to mean essentially anything at odds with what they call Conservativism (which is not the same as UK Conservative Party or DE Christian Democrat!). But that is one of the reasons that Americans invented the word Libertarianism (and Europeans invented Neo-liberalism) because they didn't like the "soft-left" meaning that had become attached to Liberalism. I believe! [No evidence!]). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)