Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Rjensen's edit

Rjensen wants the text to describe Whigs as "conservative" and Jacksonian Democrats as "liberal" based on a citation of a book by Arthur Schlesinger that used the modern terms to describe the parties that way. There are two problems with that. First, a special definition for the purposes of a single book does not imply that a general application is appropriate. Second, a list of the policies of modern conservatives accords with Jackson in some cases and with the Whigs in others. It is true that after the Civil War the Whigs were called conservative in their support of segregation and their alliance with Southern Democrats, but they were not called conservative in Lincoln's day, and their brand of conservatism is one most modern conservatives repudiate. Modern conservatives favor State's Rights. Lincoln did not. Modern conservatives often praise Jackson as an example of laizzes faire capitalism. In short, the application of easily misunderstood labels that are historically anachronistic only confuses the issue, and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

it is not a "special definition" -- Schlesinger's work was very widely accepted by scholars in this regard. Modern conservatives favor State's Rights. Lincoln did not. says Rick, but that's not true. Lincoln always supported states rights and he argued ("Cooper Union" address) that protection of slavery outside the state was not one of those rights. Modern conservatives often praise Jackson as an example of laizzes faire capitalism. is true only for Murray Rothbard & extreme libertarians. All encylopedias use 21st century language to explain 19th century history. Here are some useful cites: " Lincoln was a prosperous corporate lawyer, and a member of the conservative Whig party for many years." (David Hacket Fischer, 2005); "The first of these efforts of conservatives is illustrated by the responses of both the pre-Civil War American (conservative) Whig party and later the post-Civil War Republicans to the anti-elitist Democratic party." (S.M. Lipset 1988); " to the conservative and respectable Whig party." (Michael Perman, 1984); "the proposed establishment of a national organ that would "defend the doctrines held by the United Whig Party of the Union." Long distressed by the absence of a conservative journal of opinion comparable to the avidly pro-Jacksonian..." (Lora, 1999); "The Whigs were essentially Burkeian conservatives" (Farmer 2005); "the Anti-Mason Party quickly dissolved, and most of its members made their way into the conservative Whig Party." (O'Connor, 2006); "formation of the conservative Whig party" (Al Young, 2000). Rjensen (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for an interesting list of citations. I still can't see someone who favored State's Rights going to war against states that asserted those rights, but I acknowledge your point that more writers described the pre-Civil War US Whigs as conservative than I was aware of. Citations that describe Jackson as liberal would be welcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln (March 1861) said the states did have a right to slavery INSIDE the state and he respected that and would not change it. He said states had no claim to control slavery OUTSIDE their state, which is what the secessionists insisted upon. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln said that he would allow slavery if that would preserve the union, and that he would abolish slavery if that would preserve the union. His emphasis on preserving the union makes it hard to believe he favored states rights over a strong central government. The secessionists insisted on their right to leave the union. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln covered the legal argument in Cooper Union & 1st Inaugural. He saw no conflict between genuine states rights and the Union. The Union was a contract, he said, and one party can't just walk away from a contract without the approval of all the rest. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
On Jackson, here's Remini, the leading biographer: "Jacksonian Democracy, then, stretches the concept of democracy about as far as it can go and still remain workable. ...As such it has inspired much of the dynamic and dramatic events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in American history—Populism, Progressivism, the New and Fair Deals, and the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society to mention the most obvious." Robert V. Remini (2011). The Life of Andrew Jackson. p. 307. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Every source I have read places Jacksonian democracy on the left of the early 19th century U.S. spectrum. The fact that ideas that were radical c. 1830 may now seem conservative does not mean they were conservative then. TFD (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
TFD is right. Remini emphasizes Jacsonianism = democracy. One theme that conservatives pick up on is anti-elitism. Otherwise conservatives today are not especially fond of democracy--in state after state they are imposing tight voter registration laws designed to reduce the electorate. They are opposing a path to citizenship for 11 million Americans. Rjensen (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I need to read Remini. I'll order the book from amazon. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

there is a difference between Jackson the man and Jacksonian democracy the ideology. especially re slavery. Jackson was pro-slavery all right, but the #2 in Jacks. Democracy was Martin Van Buren, who ran for president on a free-soil, anti-slavery platform. Many of the free soil Democrats, while not renouncing Jacks. Democracy, joined the GOP and voted for Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What we Conservatives are opposed to is the opening of borders like happened the last time. 'Path to citizenship' should not be confused. Notice how Senator Marco Rubio is backing off the 'Dream Act.' — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Conservatives are deeply split on immigration; business and the religious communities (Catholics and Protestants as well as Jews & smaller groups) want more, the traditionalists want less. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, R.Jensen. Here is a quote today about Conservative views: "Republicans and conservatives recognize that the principal reason for our unique abundance is our constitutional restraints on the power of government, separation of powers, balanced budgets, and a minimum of government supervision and interference in our daily lives. America offers a remarkable opportunity for foreigners; no matter what socioeconomic rank they were assigned in their native country. Most of the millions of immigrants we have welcomed came from countries where the only government they knew was one that made all decisions about economic and social policy. The current level of legal immigration to America adds thousands of people every day whose views and experience are contrary to the conservative value of limited government." (The article is by Conservative Phyllis Schlafly: http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2013/10/29/amnesty-is-republican-party-suicide-n1732723 ) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

These views are liberal, not conservative, and certainly not Republican. Both parties pay lip service to all of the things on your list; neither party is very good about following up on their professed beliefs after they get into power. But the conservatives, as conservatives, want to preserve traditional American values, and want a government that interferes in the daily lives of women, homosexuals, Blacks, and Hispanics in order to preserve the traditional domance of the White protestant male. The idea that "conservative" means "small government" is relatively modern, and ignores the history of the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If one defines conservatism to mean the Tea Party and their predecessors (like Phyllis Schlafly), I would agree. But if one defines it broadly then that is not true. Reagan and George W. Bush were pro-immigration, and generally ignored social conservatism issues, which is why groups like the Tea Party exist. TFD (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. By "relatively recently" I meant since about 1950. Prior to 1950, I don't think anybody used "conservative" to mean "sma. Call government". Jefferson, who favored small government, is usually considered a progressive. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is deeply confused. Progressivism was a socialist-influenced movement of the early 20th century associated with Woodrow Wilson. Jefferson was a "classical liberal" who lived long before the progressives or the socialists. Classical liberalism is a very different ideological outlook than modern class warfare liberalism, although many are confused by the similarity of name. Grover Cleveland, 19th century conservative icon, was no friend of big government. La crème de la crème (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
Liberals and conservatives switched positions on the role of government in the economy and free trade after the economy changed early in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the terms themselves were not applied to U.S. politics until the 1930s, and conservatives did not start to call themselves that until the 1950s. TFD (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Conservative" was the name a major British political party from 1832 on. The British Liberal Party was established in 1859. Americans certainly followed British politics closely enough to know both of these words and what they meant. Calhoun was already calling himself a conservative back in the 1830s. Greeley was using "liberal" in 1860s. What they called themselves is really beside the point. Britannica's article on conservatism starts with Burke. So it is conventional to apply the word to political figures who lived before it was coined. La crème de la crème (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The terms were occasionally used but not in the modern sense. "Conservative" until the 1950s was basically a synonym for reactionary and people we would think of today as "conservatives" from the Herbert Hoover to the KKK to Robert Taft to John Wayne called themselves liberals.
Certainly there were no major figures who supported Burke's conservative views, and could you please provide a source for your statement about Calhoun.
TFD (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Essential Calhoun uses the word "conservative" nineteen times, including, "I am a conservative in the broadest and fullest sense" (p. 94). Here is Ambrose Bierce in 1906: "CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." As for the Klan, Woodrow Wilson, Mr. Progressive, was a big fan. If you acknowledge that the word conservative is from British politics, it would be quite extraordinary if it really took 120 years to cross the Atlantic. La crème de la crème (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner

"England and America are two nations separated by a common language." The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean very different things in America than they do anywhere else. Further, they mean very different things to conservatives than they do to liberals, witness your crack about "class warfare". The different ways the words are used are supported by many citations in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So when you use a word, it means just what you choose it mean -- neither more nor less? This is Humpy Dumptyism. La crème de la crème (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Calhoun defined "conservative" on the previous page as supporting conservation of the Union. On another page he says conservatives oppose aristocracy. Elsewhere he uses the term liberal, but is clearly not referring to political liberalism. Words can have different meanings. TFD (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, if you want changes made to the article, you need to provide a reliable source explaining the history of conservatism in the U.S. which can guide us. TFD (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the Bierce quote pretty unambiguous? 1906 is before 1950. Am I to understand that you don't consider Calhoun to be a conservative? In that case, check out p. 48. He describes Burke as a "profound statesman." I already mentioned that "liberal" wasn't used as a political word until the 1860s.
The article should follow the lead of Russell Kirk. His book is the best-known history of American conservatism. Kirk portrays Burke as the founder of conservatism. Adams and Hamiltion appear as Burke's American disciples. Lincoln and Cleveland also get tbe "conservative hero" treatment. La crème de la crème (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
I did not say Calhoun was not a U.S. conservative, and the article includes him. Kirk only refers to Lincoln and Cleveland in passing - Lincoln was a "conservative democrat" while Cleveland was a "better conservative" than Teddy Roosevelt. He even mentions that Robert Taft called Wilson a "liberal conservative." But his central thesis was that there was no conservatism after 1800 in the north and after 1865 in the South. While he saw Adams as a conservative (not Hamilton) I do not think he saw either as a disciple of Burke. It would be odd if Burke's writings on conservatism which were published in 1790 influenced the leaders of the U.S. 1776 revolution.
While Kirk's book is the best known book about U.S. conservatism it is not the most accepted.
TFD (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hamilton and Adams "read Burke" and were his "pupils" (Kirk, pp. 6-7). Kirk quotes Lincoln's definition of conservatism with approval ("adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried," p. 8). This article is full of unstinting praise of Lincoln: "It is time...to praise him"; "very like Burke"; "Lincoln’s original allegiance was to the Whigs, then the conservative party of the United States"; and much more. I think can safely say that Kirk saw all three men as follow travelers. La crème de la crème (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner

La crème de la crème: Your misunderstanding borders on the willful. You know perfectly well the difference between on the one hand a word having different meanings in different countries as supported by references and on the other hand using a word to mean whatever you want it to mean.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this anything like the time you thought Jefferson was "progressive"? Hey, don't let bygones discourage you. Step right up and spill out your references, whatever they may be. La crème de la crème (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 September 2014
That term that has many different connotations. But it is irrelevant to this article. Are you going to comment on this article or are do you just want to argue in general? Because the purpose of this page is to discuss the article. TFD (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It says they "read" Burke after he published his book in 1790. So presumably did everyone else. In any case, we are not here to talk about what Kirk said but what the article says. Is there anything currently in the article that you think should be changed and if so please provide sources. TFD (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dixicrats? scholars use it only for 1948 breakaway group

Dixiecrats were Southern Democrats who opposed Truman in 1948 primary on the issue of segregation. The term is sometimes used by liberal Democrats to attack Southern conservatives. A google scholar search of the first 30 book titles shows that scholars do not use the term broadly. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I could find widespread use of Dixiecrat, but agree that it appears more in the popular press than in the scholarly press, so I will not press the issue. On the other hand, for the article to state that conservative beliefs are universal truths is clearly not NPOV. Every group tends to believe that its own beliefs are universal truths, and the beliefs of its opponents are false. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Postmodernism

I've been thinking and doing a little reading based on the new section on postmodernism. It is interesting. The problem I have is the suggestion that conservatives are distinguished by their rejection of postmodernism, rather than being one of many groups who reject postmodernism. For example, you mention Bloom, but (from the article on Bloom) "Characterized as a conservative in the popular media, Bloom explicitly stated that this was a misunderstanding and made it clear that he was not to be affiliated with any conservative movements." It seems to me that the difference is not who accepts timeless truths and who rejects timeless truths, but what timeless truths each side accepts. Some liberals tend to take evolution as a timeless truth, while some conservatives tend to take creationism as a timeless truth. Further, it seems to me that the timeless truths of one group of conservatives often differ from the timeless truths of other groups of conservatives, and, in fact, that such beliefs tend to become fragmented. One group of conservatives hold to the timeless truth that the virgin Mary was immaculately conceived, while another group of conservatives holds to the timeless truth that The Book of Mormon was written by an angel on tablets of gold. Can you offer any evidence that conservatives are more apt to reject postmodernism than non-conservatives? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is what is meant by timeless truth. It is the view that there is a set of values that are equally valid in ancient Egypt and modern New York. TFD (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
1) the postmodern position is that there are NO timeless truths (everything is socially constructed.... This pomo notion bothers all the conservatives I have looked at. The libertarians for example really believe there are timeless truths in economics. Are some liberals also bothered by pomo (yes but they spend much less energy complaining about it.) 2) The text does NOT say conservatives are distinguished by their rejection of postmodernism, rather than being one of many groups who reject postmodernism. I suggest that a major characteristic of a group does NOT have to be unique to the group. (To say that conservatives rejects XYZ does not imply that everyone else accepts XYZ.) Note that the "truth" theme is explicit in Buckley's manifesto quoted in the lede where he says: [we are] the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This still begs the question, "What are these timeless truths." For libertarians, one timeless truth would be the belief that a free market solves all problems. I'm not sure what conservatives believe today. Some believe the Bible is inerrant. Others don't.

In any case, please remove Bloom, since he has stated publicly that he is not a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of writers in the American Right - Hayek and Rothbard for example - who rejected the term conservative to describe themselves. It does not place them outside the topic. Russell Kirk attempted to enumerate the timeless truths, see Conservatism in the United States#Kirk's principles of conservatism. Young Americans for Freedom also have a list of "eternal truths". (See Young Americans for Freedom#Statement of principles. TFD (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Bloom was a quiet scholar not a political activist. However many conservative activists used his book a great deal and it influenced the movement. So we need to cover the BOOK not Bloom himself. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the paragraph says "Adam Bloom argues..." "He was a leader...". To be relevant to conservatism in the United States, this should be rephrased in terms of what conservatives say about Bloom, not what Bloom himself argues and does. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that some of Kirk's Timeless Truths are contradictory: 4.A belief that property and freedom are closely linked; 5.A faith in custom, convention, and prescription,

Custom, convention, and prescription limit freedom, but do not limit property.

Others are held by the vast majority of Americans, liberals as well as conservatives: 1.A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law; 2.An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;

The only ones that seem to particular distinguish conservatives are: 3.A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions; 6.A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

But modern conservatives seldom say that they want to emphasize class distinctions, and far from respecting prudence they are willing to shut down the government to get what they want. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the point about Bloom's book. It appears that Rick Norwood also believes in timeless truths, many of which he shares with Russell Kirk. That puts Rick in the anti-Postmodern camp along with Bloom and Buckley etc. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the change makes the paragraph much more to the point. And I do believe in timeless truths. I believe that two points determine a line, that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and that when two parallel lines are cut by a transversal alternate interior angles are equal.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, Rick, That makes you an opponent of postmodern relativism. The Pomos fell for the Sokal hoax in 1996 which exposed their profound ignorance of modern science and their willingness to accept nonsense in its place. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember to keep your discussions on this page solely to a discussion on how to improve the article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. We may have to go back and delete much of this discussion. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's been a very useful exercise dealing with creating & improving one section of the article. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. It is an example of how editors can work together. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Rick, some liberal writers have made the similar observations to yours. They see the list as combining contradictory liberal and conservative principles through a selective reading of Burke. There should be more in the article about Kirk and Meyer and the explanation of why a country based on liberal principles has conservatives. TFD (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Repetition

The old lead mentioned, three times each: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-tax cuts, and pro-deregulation. It mentioned twice: pro-strong military, pro-school prayer, pro-gun rights. Without removing any of these issues, I've removed some of the repetition. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources use the term traditional marriage, I have reverted the change in wording per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that conservatives, like liberals, support traditional marriage. Many conservatives also oppose gay marriage, and that is the issue that distinguishes between the two groups. To say that conservatives, like everybody else, support traditional marriage is not noteworthy.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

gay marriage

Most conservatives oppose gay marriage. It is a major issue with many conservatives and as such should be mentioned. The references to the fact that conservatives support traditional marriage are propaganda, in that they imply liberals do not support traditional marriage, which is untrue. Conservatives also say that they, unlike liberals, tell the truth; that they, unlike liberals, love the flag; that they, unlike liberals, support our armed forces. These kinds of statements are not issues that distinguish conservatives, but rather attempts to attack liberals.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and notice that another editor also reverted the "traditional marriage" edit. I notice also that the editor who inserted the edit has added excessive text about marriage to the lead. It is really a social conservatism issue of the day, and the broader conservative movement used it as a wedge issue, for example in Ohio in 2004, but seems to have abandoned it, and probably were not committed to the issue in the first place. In another 5, 10 or 20 years it will be forgotten. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both comments. We are going through a fascinating transition in American values in 2014, that was dramatically in favor of same-sex marriage. The federal courts are taking the lead. Five or 10 years ago, the conservatives were passing laws and state constitutional amendments. They are now in full retreat, and I believe have largely given up on this this issue and are turning their attention elsewhere. So I agree that in five or 10 years it will be a done deal. However this is a history article, and we need to nail the history down even if it is happening in front of us. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The references support the term traditional marriage, as shown by the references in the article, and the quotes and references removed. They are not excessive as in a WP:BOMBARD, as they have been bundled per WP:CITEBUNDLE.
The above statements while done with the best of intentions of the editors, appear to be WP:OR, and not backed by the references that are in the article, and the reference that had been removed. Why is the well referenced content reverted? Why exclude the quotes from the reliable sources? Why prefer (create a bias for) the term "same-sex marriage" over traditional marriage? Why exclude the term traditional marriage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, but I'll go over it again. Support for traditional marriage, like truth, justice, and the American Way, are virtues that all parties avow. To suggest that they are a special part of the conservative worldview is not noteworthy. Conservatives make a big deal about supporting traditional marriage because they want voters to believe that liberals do not support traditional marriage, just as they want voters to believe that liberals love to lie, hate justice, and are anti-American. But this is political propaganda, and in any case the article is not about liberals. In your opinion, RightCowLeftCoast, why do Conservatives in the United States bring up "support for traditional marriage" at this time? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources are using the jargon of social conservatives when they write about them. Certainly nowhere do they say that liberals oppose traditional marriage, although social conservatives may believe that the legalization of same sex-marriage is part of a plot to undermine traditional marriage. It's a matter of style, otherwise there would a lot of use of qualifying terms such as "so-called", "allegedly", "according to them", etc. One could argue too about just how traditional the social conservative ideal of the nuclear family really is. TFD (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us keep in mind that we are supposed to be summarizing what the reliable sources say on the matter. The job is editor is NOT To look at the documents produced by the politicians and figuring out for ourselves what they really mean. The Conservatives forced the issue in about 2005-2010 by passing numerous state laws and constitutional amendments that made same-sex marriage illegal. The changes in the last year or so entirely are due to the federal courts, which did not rule on cases of traditional marriage. As far as traditional marriage is concerned, the key issue is divorce, which was made much easier back in the 1960s and 1970s through no-fault divorce. Conservatives have made no effort to repeal those Divorce-law changes. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The reliable sources provided support that Conservatives in the United States support traditional marriage. The sources provided do not state that non-conservatives don't also support traditional marriage, nor do they verify it. It maybe jargon, but it can be argued that same-sex marriage is also jargon if we also call traditional marriage jargon.
I have not seen any reliable sources that discuss Conservatives in the United States and divorce law, if there are multiple reliable sources that verify a common stance of the subject of this article regarding divorce law, that would be interesting. In this case, there are multiple reliable sources that verify that at least a significant portion of the subject of this article support traditional marriage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As I explained, I do not think you are reading the sources properly. If you are right then your source should explain how they support traditional marriage and what relevance their actions have to the institution. In comparison, social conservatives support school prayer and have taken actions which, if successful, would have restored school prayer. What specifically have they done in support of traditional marriage? The most that can be said is that they have taken steps which they believe will protect it. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Conservatives do support traditional marriage. Nobody is saying they don't, only that because it is such a common belief it is not noteworthy. Many conservatives also oppose gay marriage, so much so that it has become a major issue. Does anybody doubt that conservatives generally oppose gay marriage? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias

There is no comparison saying that the modern tea party is emulating the original founders who radical progressive policies toward self government. The conservatives of the time were the Torys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.212.114 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical English would help. ---Dagme (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove the "Prominent figures" section of the "Thinkers and leaders" subsections

The "Prominent figures" section of the "Thinkers and leaders" subsections is just a list. I think that either it should somehow be developed, or else separated from this page in the current list format. Does anyone else have an opinion on what should be done? JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure it will survive the rigors of being a standalone list, an embedded list, works fine presently. However, if the article meets WP:AS, than I can see it being a sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep it. It is certainly not "just a list" -- it is been worked over by many editors to become a guide to the most useful articles in Wikipedia on American conservatism. Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I know "corporations are people" but I'm not sure that "Prominent figures" should include corporations, think tanks, and magazines. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Entities that figure in the story and are prominent are In my opinion "Prominent figures" :) Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Democrat Party"

Republicans apparently began calling the other party the "Democrat Party" after the war. I do not see what that has to do with the article. When the term was coined, there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats and may still be to a lesser degree. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

there's a full article on this issue at Democrat Party. Republicans still do it as a way to annoy Democrats. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Republicans see the Democrat Party as saying, "Do it my way, or take the highway", and there is nothing 'democratic' about that. -- Just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: And then Republican party leaders say, "OK, your way."

There is a bit more going on. A democracy is a state where people vote. A republic is a representative democracy. The Republican party likes to pretend that only they have the better class of people representing the masses, while the Democrat party allows riff raff and trailer trash to govern. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to start our views of the subject, see WP:NOTFORUM. This is a place to discuss improvement of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Point taken.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias in the initial statement

The initial statement of what conservatism in the United States is:

Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[1]

smacks of bias and POV pushing. It has no place in an article in a neutral encyclopedia. The statement was clearly written by someone who has the biased opinion that conservative equals libertarian and that left wing politics equals totalitarian. No mainstream, respected political scientist, analyst, or polysci professor asserts this. There are indeed totalitarian oriented right wingers (white nationalists, religious theocrats, extreme neoconservatives) and libertarian oriented left wingers (democratic socialists, anarcho-communists). The statement sounds as if it has been conservtives throughout the last few decades in the US who have resisted threats to freedom and democracy and this is not historically the case. It's a historical fact that neoconservatism has little regard for the personal lives of the people, especially sex lives. I don't think the statement or reference is appropriate in this context and I think it should be removed from the page. Opinions? EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 03:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to be filled with bias also. You state, "The statement sounds as if it has been conservatives [sic] throughout the last few decades in the US who have resisted threats to freedom and democracy and this is not historically the case. It's a historical fact that neoconservatism has little regard for the personal lives of the people, especially sex lives." You keep claiming historical facts, please show us your sources for these historical facts and then this can be further debated.Abierma3 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The definition-- by a leading scholar of conservatism-- seems to work pretty well. To say that group X believes in A+B+C+D does not imply "If you believe in C then you are an X". That is, there indeed can be overlap with other groups. I might add that EnglishEfternamn seems to have some very strange views: ("It's a historical fact that neoconservatism has little regard for the personal lives of the people, especially sex lives." is an especially strange statement with no basis whatsoever in historical fact.") To say that Conservatives believe in A+B+C+D does not imply exclusive ownership of A,B,C, or D . Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Do I really need go to out on to freaking Google and dig up the facts that the neoconservatives in the early to mid 2000's staunchly defended the Patriot Act, saying it "made us safer", and that they were also just as staunchly advocating a ban on gay marriage? Are those not historical facts? Those were major political staples among Bush supporters.
ADDED: That's not what this article is about, granted, but it shows my point that conservatism can be authoritarian. Stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about, guys. You both KNOW the conservatives preached counterterrorism down everybody's throats and wanted a ban on gay marriage in the mid 2000's.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion this section is about the neoconservatives. EnglishEfternamn Insist that they're basically authoritarian and uses the example of the Patriot Act and gay marriage. The Patriot Act enjoyed very wide across the board support in the country and Congress. (it passed the House 357 to 66 & the Senate by 98 to 1. It was president Obama who called for and signed its renewal. The main opponent right now is Republican Rand Paul.) The Neoconservatives never opposed gay marriage-- those were the social conservatives, who are closely tied to religious groups like the Southern Baptists and Catholics. Rjensen (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Neoconservatives were very closely tied to social conservatives. Who did the neoconservatives support? Bush. The social conservatives? Bush. The point is that right doesn't equal libertarian as the wording in this article implies. That's a popular misunderstanding among American libertarians. There are plenty of variations of centre-right politics that are not libertarian. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 09:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article does not say that all conservatives are libertarians, Nor does it say that all libertarians are conservatives. The opening definition which is the reason for this little debate does not even mention libertarians. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have a better definition, please provide it with the source. There will always be a problem of definition because, unlike in the UK, liberalism and conservatism are not really distinct ideologies, but they differ in what they emphasize or how they interpret principles or what issues they currently defend. I think at one time the definition was tradition, (economic) libertarianism and anti-communism. The current definition leaves out the economic aspect. TFD (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that "gay marriage" per se also has nothing to do with libertarianism or authoritarianism, as it just alters the definition of a government entitlement incentive, though ripple effects from associated court rulings could potentially deprive conscientious objectors (e.g. business owners, organizations) of their liberty in an authoritarian manner. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
EnglishEfternamn, while I doubt the current definition is widely accepted, can you provide alternative definitions by other published scholars? Because our personal beliefs on a matter are not actual sources. As for the terms/claims used:

disagreement

@Abierma3: please stop removing what the source states. To include one part, and not the other part is cherry picking what the source states.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the current version...In the 21st century, classical liberalism—distinct from modern liberalism—remains a major force within the Republican Party.[184] Currently, the Republican Party is split between economic conservatives and social conservatives, although their ideological differences are often reconcilable.[185]...is confusing and off point because it only ties classical liberals to Republicans, when the source directly ties them to conservatives. Since "conservative" might be broader than "classical liberal", instead of saying conservatives are classical liberals, it might be better to state that classical liberals are now known as conservatives, which is how the source phrases it. Today adherents of classical liberalism have come to be known as conservatives. As for the rest, while reflecting the source's exploration of diversity within conservatism is legitimate, I think it's wrong to select the term "split" here for special emphasis. The source does use that word at one point, but also uses lots of other words tying "economic" and "social" conservatives together (e.g. saying social conservatives are "in sympathy" with economic conservatives). Indeed an overwhelming majority of conservatives are both, so simply saying "the Republican party is split between..." them without context is misleading. It might be better to say that there are sometimes tensions among conservatives between those who emphasize social issues and those who emphasize economic ones, though the views are reconcilable enough to form a coalition, which also reflects what the source says. But the key takeaway of this entire segment should be that classical liberals are now called "conservatives" in the US. VictorD7 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: The source says, "Today, adherents of classic liberalism have come to be known as conservatives." The statement I removed said, "In the United States what is termed as conservatism is classic liberalism." The source is saying that supporters of classic liberalism tend to identify as conservatives. Based off this, it would be a fallacy to imply that all conservatives are classic liberals (e.g. it would be a fasle conclusion to say "All A are B. Therefore, all B are A"). I agree that the second sentence seems out of place. The article already mentions the complex combination of ideologies that make up conservatism in the U.S., such as factions of economic and social conservatives in the Republican Party. It's not like this was something new that came about in the 1990s. I propose we delete the second sentence and leave the last sentence of the paragraph as "In the 21st century, classical liberalism—distinct from modern liberalism—remains a major force within the Republican Party." Abierma3 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Except, if anything, it should be "..within the conservative movement." The source explicitly ties classical liberalism to conservatives, this article subject, not just Republicans. In fact I'll add that even that language misleadingly leaves room for the notion that classical liberals might also be forces elsewhere, whereas the source makes it clear that classical liberals are now known as conservatives. The segment should make no bones about that. VictorD7 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are looking at the wrong source for that sentence. See the cited source https://books.google.com/books?id=AwMovLqKw2oC&pg=PA297. It says,"...nineteenth-century classic liberalism still has a hold on the mindset of many of the country's leaders, especially among the ranks of the Republican Party." The source says "many of the country's leaders" with emphasis on Republicans, which means classical liberalism does have influence elsewhere, otherwise the author would have directly said that it has "a hold on the mindset of the ranks of the Republican Party." The Republican Party is the conservative political party in the United States so it shouldn't be unreasonable to discuss it in the Conservatism in the United States article. The only thing the source you are referring to really tells us is that classic liberals now tend to identify as conservatives and that the Republican Party is a crucible of varying ideologies. I don't think it is necessary to say that classic liberals identify as conservatives because we would then have to include every single ideology that identifies as conservative. This would just convolute the article. And as I mentioned before, I don't think the last sentence of the section is necessary because the article already explains economic and social conservatism and how they fit into the conservative philosophy as a whole. Abierma3 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually even that source starts by saying "Classical liberalism is one of the dominant ideologies within both conservatism and the Republican Party of the 21st Century." Since the subject here is conservatism, it makes sense to mention the conservative part rather than omit it. And I quoted the other source earlier because that's the one RightCowLeftCoast used for his sentence you deleted pointing out that classical liberals are now known as "conservatives". Since both sources make this connection, we could combine these sentences to read something like, "Classical liberals-distinct from modern liberals-have come to be known as "conservatives" in the US, and in the 21st Century classical liberalism remains a major force in both the conservative movement and Republican Party." Followed by both sources. It's not SYNTH because both sources make this point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the sentence I removed did not point out that classical liberals are now known as conservatives. The sentence I removed claimed that conservatism is classic liberalism, which is not what the source says and is not true. I have already been wrongly accused of vandalism once by RightCowLeftCoast as I was actually improving the article, so no need to continue with his false accusations. I made some changes to the section, feel free to review them. I oppose adding the statement, "classical liberals have come to be known as conservatives," for reasons I mentioned in my last post. Conservatism is a diverse combination of ideologies, so to prevent NPOV concerns we can't include one without including them all. Abierma3 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Your clarification is noted and mostly valid, except the "false accusation" part, since my statement was correct. His sentence (which I didn't quote apart from the single word "conservatives") did point out that classical liberals are now known as conservatives. I just didn't go out of my way to repeat the logical set distinction both I and you had already made above, but my vague statement accurately describes either formulation. As for substance, I oppose your removal of the sourced portion about classical liberals now being known as conservatives. I'm flexible, but it's important to include that in some way with some wording. With your latest change the segment at least gets the word "conservative" in there, but it's still too vague to reflect what the source says about classical liberals (no exceptions are mentioned) being "conservatives" today. It leaves open the possibility that classical liberalism remains a "major force" in all parties and ideologies, which isn't true. VictorD7 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
His sentence did no such thing: In the United States what is termed as conservatism is classic liberalism. How does that point out that classic liberals are now known as conservatives? The sentence is saying that conservatism is classic liberalism; I don't know how you could come to some other interpretation. FYI, removing something that is factually incorrect from Wikipedia is not vandalism. If you read the vandalism policy carefully, it is clear that this is indeed a "false accusation."
In regards to your statement: It leaves open the possibility that classical liberalism remains a "major force" in all parties and ideologies, which isn't true. Some people would disagree with you and say that classical liberalism is influential on other parties and ideologies as well (even modern liberalism). See this source by Alan Wolfe. I believe the section is fine as it stands. Abierma3 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to my sentence here that you took issue with. I said his sentence pointed "out that classical liberals are now known as "conservatives". That's true whether you're saying all conservatives are classical liberals (as his old sentence seemed to) or only some of them are. Unless you're fixating on the difference between adherents and the "isms" themselves, which would be missing the point as that's an irrelevancy here and I wasn't precisely quoting the sentence. I also didn't mention "vandalism" one way or the other, and only took issue with you implying my post was "continu(ing) with false accusations". And I'll remind you that I said your clarification was mostly valid (in that it clarified), so let's not waste more time on this tangent.
Back to substance, as RightCowLeftCoast correctly quoted, the source explicitly states that classical liberals are now known as conservatives. The source is correct. "Some people" who disagree would be wrong. Wolfe is a (modern) liberal who blogs and writes for the left wing publication New Republic. The brief musing you linked to is an explicit appeal to buck up liberals ("Liberals shouldn’t be afraid to call themselves liberal....I am proud to call myself one of them.") that tries to tie modern liberalism to classical liberalism with extremely vague rhetoric, but doesn't even really contradict what most sources say, which is that there's a distinction between classical and modern liberalism. No one's saying these various ideologies (even Marxism) popped into existence in a vacuum without any connection to other intellectual traditions, so whether there's a degree of "influence" or not is beside the point. Even Wolfe's column acknowledges that modern liberals embrace radically different positions than classical liberals. Classical liberalism, almost universally defined by things like an adherence to individual liberty, free market economics, and limited government, is central to modern American conservatism but has no place in the Keynesian to socialist big government nanny/welfare state policies of modern US liberalism, nor, for that matter, does the latter bear any resemblance to what most of the rest of the world still calls "liberalism" (which is what Americans now call "classical liberalism"), as numerous scholarly sources I recently posted elsewhere and can repost here if necessary attest. That's why Europeans call Reagan and Thatcher "liberal" (or "neoliberal"), while Bill Clinton and Tony Blair embrace as allied leaders of a socialist leaning Third Way (literally, in that picture). No, the sources used in the article both correctly tie classical liberalism to modern conservativism much more strongly than the current weakened article text does. I'll be interested to see what RightCowLeftCoast thinks about this. VictorD7 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I neutrally notified several past-active editors of this article to give additional opinions, in place of asking WP:3O, for a third opinion. I thank VictorD7 for providing an additional opinion in regards to this. I agree with what he had to say, and I thank all editors involved in coming to this current consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What American Conservatives believe.

Here are the definitions of right-wing, conservative, and conservatism in the United States. For contrast, I also give the definitions of left-wing, liberal, and liberalism in the United States.

"Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable."

"Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization."

"Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, and the rule of law, Christian religion, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments." "Liberty" is a core value, with conservatives focused on the free market, and opposition to government encroachment on the individual."

"Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality."

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality."

"Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual."

Which definition is the odd man out?

Right = inequality, left = inequality pair up nicely. Conservative = tradition, liberal = freedom don't pair up as well. Certainly if these four are correct, then the current usage of Right = conservative and Left = liberal is totally wrong.

But then we cone to the two articles on the United States, and we have, in this article, instead of an impartial definition, a statement by a conservative about what conservatism means to him. Some parts of Schneider's views pair up with the general definition of conservatism: tradition, Christianity, opposition to modernism. But then we have, in the US, both conservatives and liberals claiming that freedom is a defining characteristic of their movement.

It seems to me that we need to replace the first sentence in this article with a definition that is closer to the other five definitions given above. In particular, if these definitions are going to make sense, I think we need something to the effect that American conservatives believe that freedom is best assured by small government while liberals believe that government is necessary to protect freedom.

I am probably not the best person to suggest an impartial, academic definition of conservatism in the United States. I hope that someone will do so.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that past of this is due to the difference between conservatism outside of the U.S. and conservatism within the U.S. There has been a lot written about this sub-subject, and perhaps deserves some weight in the article. Here are some sources:
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
it would help if Rick tells us who he is quoting. He seems to suggest thjat there is one definition of conservatism that works for USA and Germany and Russia and Britain & China for 2015 and 1935 and 1900 and 1850. I doubt that . Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, Good question, perhaps it is a statement of opinion?
That being said the above sources does show that there are multiple sources that differentiate American Conservatism from Conservatism elsewhere, especially Conservatism in Europe.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the term "liberalism" is that it covers 99 percent of the American political spectrum--In terms of classical liberalism, I suppose Rand Paul is the most liberal of all the presidential candidates this year. That's why Wikipedia uses terms like "modern liberalism" to refer to folks like FDR and LBJ down to Obama. As far as Europe is concerned, it works to say ""Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization." -- The retaining the hierarchy, the nobility, the aristocracy, the royalty, the landed gentry, the Army and the Navy officers, the high bureaucratic officials, the bishops & generals etc. I can testify, as indeed I think every American professor who's been to Europe, the European professors are much higher status than their American counterparts ( and also a lot more conservative, at least as far as History professors are concerned) Schneider is a highly successful historian of conservatism, and his views seem to represent the consensus. His definition still a great deal more about policy issues than the other definitions that Rick cites. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Schneider just referring to 20th century U.S. conservatives, i.e., the Old Right and New Right? Maybe it would be better to use Rossiter or Frohnen who saw conservatism as having older roots. TFD (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Schneider starts his history after the Civil war with Henry Adams and William Graham Sumner. which is section 1.3 in this article. The only longer history is The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History by Patrick Allit. He and Schneider are pretty much in agreement i think. Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Who am I quoting? Sorry, I should have said. I'm quoting Wikipedia. My point is that Wikipedia should be internally consistent. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable sources, it falls under WP:UGC.
The references I provided above verify that there is significant weight of reliable sources that European Conservatism and American Conservatism are different, due to what ideals are attempting to be conserved. As Classic Liberalism is what is attempted to be preserved in America (as it being the basis of the American Constitution), and a form of monarchy or cultural system is attempted to be conserved in Europe, it leads to two different takes on what Conservatism is. A Conservative in Saudi Arabia is different from a Conservative in Canada is different from a Conservative in Texas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to be as clear as I an be, and I trust that Rjensen, RightCowLeftCoast, and I can work together to arrive at a consensus on this as we have in the past on other questions. My reason for quoting Wikipedia was not to establish the truth or falsity of these definitions, but rather to work with other editors toward internal consistency in Wikipedia. Yes, RightCowLeftCoast is correct that American Conservatism and European Conservatism are not the same. Wikipedia makes this point in several articles. I agree. I have never said otherwise. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

There appears to be the beginnings of an edit war by Rick Norwood, Abierma3, Calidum. Please stop, and see WP:BRD. I do not want to see an editor blocked, banned, or have editing restrictions placed upon them. We may differ on what we view is best for this article, but if we can edit civilly we should be able to arrive at a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I see two separate editors that have been active in discussions reverting a bold edit that has no consensus. A third editor has been re-adding the bold edit for which there is no consensus without participating in the discussion. If anything, it is me and Rick Norwood who are trying to uphold the BRD process. I think it is also worth noting that no editor has violated the three-revert rule. Stop wikilawyering to push your POV. Abierma3 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Abierma3, as I'm sure you know, it is essential that neither of us engage in personalities under any circumstances. RightCowLeftCoast is completely correct in saying that while we "may differ on what we view is best for this article, but if we can edit civilly we should be able to arrive at a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


I'd ask Abierma3 to self revert his most recent revert. While that was my first edit on this matter here, you've now reverted the same material multiple times, as has Rick Norwood, which is edit warring as admin defines it. Also I see 4 editors supporting the change and only 2 opposing it, which in my opinion is a consensus, even without getting into the basic article hygiene matter of not having two large, duplicate segments. VictorD7 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy (anyways, the so-called 4th editor supporting the change has not participated in any discussions). Looking at the ongoing discussions, there is clearly no consensus for wiping the lead in such a fashion, so it is rightly reverted, whether by me or other editors (as it has been). Even though it is your "first edit on this matter here," you have been active enough in the discussions to know that there is no consensus for the change, such as the ongoing discussion in Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Segregation_in_the_lead, which is really the heart of the issue here. I would encourage all editors to continue working towards a middle ground instead of making edits without consensus or accusing editors of edit-warring for reverting edits made without a consensus. Abierma3 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The 4th editor has clearly made his opinion known whether he's joined in the discussion or not, and 4-2 is a consensus in Wikipedia terms. Regardless, you reverting multiple editors 3 different times is edit warring, and unacceptable. I advise you again to reconsider and self revert while the discussion continues. VictorD7 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia says, "Consensus is not a vote." You assert that "4-2 is a consensus," but "4-2" is a vote, so it is not a consensus, especially on this particular issue. Please read Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_a_majority_vote. It says, "One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option." It also says, "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time." We need to continue to work towards a middle ground in discussions and reach consensus instead of making edits without consensus. Abierma3 (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have not delved into editing the main page as of recently. I have not because I see an ongoing edit conflict/war and seek not to be a participant in it. The material was not whipped from the article, it was moved from the lead to the body of the article (which that new section needs citation) by edits made by Rjensen; only after the content was duplicated/moved into the body of the article, was the content then removed from the lead section. It was then re-added by Rick Norwood slightly before five hours later. I agree with VictorD7s call for self-reversion by Abierma3. VictorD7 was not a participant of the edit conflict/war until he re-removed the content (which is supported by a majority of editors presently active in the discussion and recently editing, i.e. consensus).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read my post above you. I ask this in good faith as I'm not sure whether or not you understand the cited Wikipedia policy on consensus since you did not address it but continue to claim that a majority vote is consensus (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?). Also, I don't think anyone is accusing anyone of wiping the article. I have specified in my previous posts that there has been a "wiping [of] the lead," not a wiping of the article. Let's all get back to the relevant discussion at hand and continue maintaining civility instead of getting distracted by extraneous wikilawyering or making false accusations against each other. Abierma3 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not a simple majority vote ruling all, but on Wikipedia consensus refers to weight of opinion and arguments, and 4-2 is a 2 to 1 ratio that is invariably seen as a consensus by RFC closers. The discussion has been well participated in by both sides and evidence confirming move supporters' various claims has already been provided. Regardless, even if there wasn't a consensus, resorting to guarding the page through edit warring wouldn't be the way to go about fixing things. You reverting multiple editors at least 3 times to preserve the same material you prefer is edit warring. As the discretionary sanctions decision reads, "7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring." So I'll advise you one last time to self revert so we can continue discussing this without anyone being blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I'll also point out that by preserving the material and simply moving it to a new, far more appropriate location, we've already reached a middle ground. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on evidence, not on a vote. I suggest that both sides start providing evidence. Else the debate will be endless.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Segregation (again)

Apparently this question is going to come up periodically, and be raised by the same few people. There are two things that need to be established for segregation to be in the lead:

1) The civil rights movement was important in American history.

2) During the civil rights movement, the people who opposed civil rights were called conservative and the people who favored civil rights were called liberal.

There is ample evidence on both points, but to save time, if you doubt or deny either of these points, please tell me which, and I'll the provide evidence to back up that assertion.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

1) not quite: the civil rights movement was important for liberals; it was not especially important for conservatives. [Schneider Cadres for Conservatism p 58 says: "the civil rights movement never appealed to conservative young people as it did to liberal or radical youth"; 2) Rick claims: "the people who opposed civil rights were called conservative and the people who favored civil rights were called liberal" I say not so. The people who opposed civil rights were called "white southerners" or "segregationists" (northern conservatives at the 80% level supported civil rights, as the 1964-65 votes in Congress prove.) C Vann Woodward's famous book Strange Career of Jim Crow (1955) was a powerful demonstration that segregation/Jim Crow was not an old tradition but a newfangled idea. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, in saying that the Civil Rights movement was only important for liberals, you make my point, that liberals supported and conservatives opposed Civil Rights. On the second point, how the words were in fact used at the time, I've already offered the following examples: "Segregation, Carl H. Nightengale, p. 299 "The US Supreme Court, stacked with racial conservatives, went along with these ploys and weakened the Fourteenth Amendment's civil rights provisions..." p. 235 "W. E. B. DuBois who joined with his fellow black elites to join with white liberals in a movement for guarantees of equal rights." How Race is Made, Mark M. Smith, p. 184, "...southern liberals were too radical on some matters to southern conservative exploitation of anti-Communism and segregation." Apparently this is not enough examples. Please let me know how many examples you want, and I will undertake to provide them. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that "conservatives opposed Civil Rights". They did not consider the issue of high importance as liberals and radicals (New Left) did. In the North conservatives supported civil rights; in the South conservatives opposed civil rights: it was a regional divide. Your Nightingale (1896) and DuBois (1907) references are more than a century ago, long before the civil rights movement. As for the Smith quotation, you are garbling a footnote (He is listing interpretations which he disagrees with.) His argument is that integration support from southern liberals faded away. Smith has one half of one sentence on conservatives in his entire book, so he is not actually very useful in discussing conservatives. I've been looking through the American history textbooks: none of them link The term "conservative" to opposition to the 20c civil rights movement. I don't think you can find many RS on 20th century politics who agree with you. Rjensen (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Rjensen's more specific rebuttal, I'll add that I reject the premise of this op. As for 1, lots of things "were important in American history", but that doesn't mean they belong in this lede (nor are most of them present). Regarding 2, sources have already been cited showing that "many" liberals supported segregation. Add that to the fact that segregation is a long defunct issue that has no bearing on modern politics, and I don't see a legitimate reason for emphasizing segregation in the lede over the other salient issues and events in American history, including many that actually do relate directly to the conservative/liberal divide. VictorD7 (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that I understand your position: Civil Rights is not of high importance and segregation is not a conservative/liberal issue, I have a much better idea of the evidence you require. I will begin to provide that evidence. Clearly, it is going to take a lot of evidence, and so please be patient while I do the necessary research. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not quite: conservative activists supported civil rights but did not make it a high priority (as did blacks, white liberals and radicals). In 1965, for example, Republicans in Gallup poll supported civil rights 72%-21%, while Northern GOP in Congress voted about 80% in favor. Note that liberals supported segregation and ignored civil rights when they were in power in 1930s. Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Rick Norwood, that's not remotely what I said. No one has disputed that Civil Rights was "of high importance". So were World War 2, the Industrial Revolution, and the Homestead Act, yet none of those things are mentioned in the lede. I rejected your premise that the question is whether "the civil rights movements was important in American history". Unless you acknowledge what I'm saying we're all going to be wasting a lot of time here. By your logic I should start providing "evidence" of the importance of those three things I just listed and countless other events. But we don't construct ledes in ad hoc fashion by adding single items we feel are "important". The lede should concisely summarize the article body that follows, with an emphasis on providing a basic, almost definition like intro to the subject. Since the article covers all of American history and every major political party, getting into something as specific as segregation era politics in the lede while ignoring most of the rest of US history is heavily undue. VictorD7 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Words matter. We are never going to make any progress if you assume that Republican means the same thing as conservative, or that "never appealed to conservatives" means the same thing as "was not important to conservatives" or that a person who is liberal on one issue is liberal on all issues.

Right now, I'm focusing on the question of whether the American Civil Rights movement is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Here is one source. https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/sixties/walkthrough/civilrights I'll find others. And if I find a source that says the American Civil Rights movement is not important, I'll provide that, too. So far, every book on American history that I've looked at has a chapter on Civil Rights, but I'm looking for a direct quote to the effect that the Civil Rights movement was of major importance. If conservatives think the Constitution is important, doesn't it stand to reason they would think a systematic violation of that Constitution is important?

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To repeat myself: civil rights was very important indeed, but it's not a liberal-conservative issue. Liberals when they were in power during the New Deal supported segregation, while the Republicans did not. Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
See my above reply to the erroneous premise that the question is how "important" the Civil Rights movement was. I'll add here that we likely won't get far if you don't acknowledge that the words "conservative" and "liberal" have entirely different meanings in different contexts, and that the Republican party was then (like now) the more conservative party in the modern American sense of the word that is this article's focus. I'll save you some trouble by pointing out that finding isolated quotes here or there from writers who associate the word "conservative" with support for segregation (either because they're partisans trying to demonize modern conservatives through association or they're just honestly using a different sense of the word) doesn't change the fact, as cited above from sources, that liberals (meaning New Deal and other left leaning policy supporters) supported segregation too. Progressive hero Woodrow Wilson even personally instituted a great deal of segregation at the federal level. Those facts aren't in dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If the meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" are entirely different, why do the people involved choose those names for their beliefs? They are different, but they are not entirely different. There must be common ground or those names would not be chosen. Was the Republican Party the more conservative party under Teddy Roosevelt? Was it under Nelson Rockefeller? You say that liberals supported segregation, VictorD7, but have not supplied even one example of someone who said, as a liberal I support segregation. In fact, though it really wouldn't help, you haven't even given an example of someone who was liberal on other causes but not on segregation. Words mean what they mean. Trying to change the meaning of words only gets in the way of serious discussion. Woodrow Wilson was a notorious anti- Semite who invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington D.C. That he had some liberal views hardly makes all of his views liberal. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Rick would be interested in this essay: "Limiting Liberalism: The Southern Veto in Congress, 1933–1950". Nonsouthern and southern Democrats formed a cohesive voting bloc in Congess to the left of the Republicans on almost every issue. Only on issues related to race and labour did the cohesiveness break down, and then southern Democrats still voted left of the Republicans on labour issues. Republicans were more pro-civil rights than even nonsouthern Democrats. I find particularly interesting the statement that "the storied conservative coalition was confined to labor roll calls". Srnec (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I also find this passage from that source highly pertinent: "…we demonstrate the emergence during the 1940s of three distinctive alliances: a bipartisan civil rights coalition linking nonsouthern Democrats and Republicans; a party-based liberal coalition joining nonsouthern and southern Democrats on welfare state, fiscal, regulatory, and planning issues; and a cross-party conservative coalition coupling southern Democrats and Republicans in the single area of labor policy." VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States/Archive_12&oldid=1048350625"