Talk:Social liberalism/Archive 5

The Lead

An editor has changed the lead to read that social liberalism "is a political ideology that is situated between socialism and classical liberalism. The meaning of the term, as well as the closely related ideology social democracy, varies widely across countries and across different academic settings". He has also added that it is left-wing in social issues.[1] Changes should not be made that contradict the sources used, but should be supported by sources. Also, articles are supposed to be about concepts not words. Social liberals were in fact conservative in social issues. Please do not revert back to this version without providing sources. TFD (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How the hell are social liberals conservative in social issues? Do you know what the "liberal" part means? Here is a list of parties that call themselves Social Liberals. Tell me when you find one that is conservative in social issues.

Some fifty-year-old history book is not my idea of a valid source for a concept that has evolved considerably over time. And your insistence about sources is ironic in consideration of your numerous edits that involve removing sources from the article 12345 with such inane edit summaries such as "dubious" and "doubtful". Are sources only reliable if they serve to justify your extremely out-dated view? Prochron (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I think I understand the source of your confusion, based on past discussions in this talk page.

Social liberalism is a political ideology. It encompasses economic and social issues. You can say, for example, that a party is social liberal.

Keynesian economics is an macroeconomical school of thought. It is not a political ideology, nor an economic policy; and it is contrasted with monetarist and Austrian economics, not neoliberalism or classical liberalism.

Neoliberalism is a series of economic policies. It cannot be contrasted to Keynesian economics because they are in a completely different class of concept.

It is true that, in general, supporters of neoliberal policies are not Keynesians, and that supporters of Keynesian economics are generally social liberals or socialists. But that does not mean that neoliberalism and social liberalism are opposites, or that all Keynesians are social liberals. There are plenty of supporters of neoliberalism that call themselves social liberals, including yours truly.

The entire article is full of misuses of these terms, and based on the edit history it seems to be you who have insisted on such terminology despite a great number of editors who respectfully disagreed with you. I hope this clarifies the situation. Prochron (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles must be about topics and based on sources. This article is about "social liberalism" which is defined in various sources such as Contending liberalisms,[2] If you believe that the sources are wrong then you must provide a source that provides a different narrative. Social liberals btw accepted or extended socially conservative legislative relating to liquor, drugs, the Sabbath, abortion, gambling, etc. TFD (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

People have called themselves various things in history and in different countries. In fact, today the conservatives in Spain call themselves social democrats. That has nothing to do with what they are. In political science, we use standardized terminology to be able to communicate clearly and without ambuguity. The fact that some self-proclaimed liberal (or rather progressive) supported prohibition 90 years ago ought to have nothing to do with how we define the term today.

Also, the author of your source is not an academic; I don't see why you trust it more than the five sources that you deleted from the article. Prochron (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Richardson is an academic and the source cited is used as a university textbook. No one is talking about what people call themselves but what they are called in reliable sources. Your example of Spain btw is wrong. It is Portugal (Social Democratic Party (Portugal)). They chose the name following the revolution and governed with the Socialists. Were they really social democrats? Probably not, but that was the impression they wished to convey and the policies they persued. While I do not wish to go over everything I deleted, here is a link to my reasons for removing the first one: "It is sourced to a Liberal Democratic Party document and a liberal blog. Neither of these sources are reliable." TFD (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Prochron makes some valid points. Just because some social liberals have voted alongside social conservatives does not make social liberalism conservative. The core of social liberalism is the idea that the government can and should provide for the general well-being of the citizens. Some social liberals may do that by voting against the sale of liquor, because they believe liquor is bad for people, but that would be a minority view today. Social liberals today are much more likely to be liberal in other ways, favoring reproductive rights for example. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular usage of the term "social" in reference to liberalism and conservatism today usually refers to attitudes toward views on private morality. But the historic usage reflected in the name of the subject of this article referred to social welfare. Compare with the term "social democracy". Early social liberals supported regulation of private morality in order to protect the working classes from self-destruction, while later social liberals saw this type of legislation as a restriction on freedom and a form of social control. TFD (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. When we say a party is "socially" liberal, that refers to attitudes towards private morality; the historical usage of "social" here does refer to social welfare. But remember that they are still liberals, i.e. they have retained the classical liberal view on social issues. They are not the self-proclaimed progressives or social democrats who often had socially conservative views in contrast to social liberals. Prochron (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the lead. The source used is from Guido De Ruggiero's classic book, which was actually written in the 1920s, but remains the foremost texts on the history of liberalism. If you think it could be better defined, then I have no complaints, but it must be sourced to a relevant text. Bear in mind that the article is about a political ideology that has its origins in the 19th century, not about however the word may be used. TFD (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A book written in the 1920s cannot be a "foremost" text on anything. Keynesianism did not even exist at the time.

I am not very much against the definition in the first definition. It seems to me simple and unambiguous, a good thing, although I do not like the fact that it implies that classical liberals do not care about social justice, whatever the definition of that is.

My problem is with the confusing terminology in the rest of this article. First, you (or whoever wrote and maintained the content) clearly posit the social liberalism is somehow directly linked to Keynesianism. That is simply not true. Social liberalism existed before Keynesian economics and exist today even as purely Keynesian economics are no longer discussed among economists except as an artifact of history. One is a way to define a person's political position; another is a macroeconomic school of thought. There is no relation between them. If a social liberal believes that neoclassical economics is the best way to help impoverished people, then neoclassical economics is the best way to serve social justice, correct? And there are indeed plenty of social liberals who believe this, including most of the British Liberal Democrats.

There are other problems with the terminology. For example, it is said that neoliberalism rose as a reaction against social liberalism. Never mind the fallacy in saying that an ideology can "rise" as a reaction against another ideology; this does not make sense simply because they are in different classes of concepts. Neoliberalism refers to some specific policies; social liberalism is an ideology. Neoliberals may be conservatives, social democrats, et cetera. The French Socialists during the 80s and the British Labor Party during the 90s are good examples of social democrats enacting "neoliberal" policies that have much in common with their conservative counterpart. That does not mean that they have the same political ideology. And I don't care how many critical theory texts say otherwise; the fact is, there is no current academic or even politician who uses the term the way that you and your 90-year-old sources do. Prochron (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the type of discussion that is better suited to a blog. Social liberalism is a clear subject of study, even if some use the term to mean something else or some people prefer another name. If you do not like the sources used, then provide others. But if you believe that sources are mistaken or self-contradictory ("I don't care how many critical theory texts say otherwise"), then you must take the issue up with them. Our role is to reflect what they say. Since articles must be based on reliable sources, you need to provide them to support changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem like an intelligent and well-read person, and I cannot understand your ridiculous insistence on the infallibility of your sources despite their numerous internal contradictions. For example, your Political Sociology source stated that Friedman's writings were based on Hayek's. This is not just wrong; it is ridiculous. Friedman and Hayek, like most economists, agreed on plenty of things and probably influenced each other. But in terms of all their most important works in economics, they are opposites in every way. That the author can even imagine saying that Friedman was somehow a discipline of Hayek shows his incredible ignorance about the basic trends of economic thinking in the last century. I won't comment much on the rest of the pages you cited, except to say that if an author begins a paragraph with something like "A key weakness of neo-liberalism..." and proceed to state his disagreement as a fact (as if all proponents of neo-liberalism - and even the many credible opponents of it - are blind to this obvious error!), I would hardly rely on him as an academic source.

Plenty of nonsense get published in journals or as books all the time (see The Sokal Affair) and we do not necessarily regard them as reliable sources. There is a standard on Wikipedia for what counts as an academic source and what doesn't. A Marxist sociologist can hardly be regarded as a neutral or reliable source on economic ideologies, especially if he acknowledges that he is presenting an argument in his book, not a survey of existing literature (see the introduction). I will certainly say that his viewpoint is notable enough to be included; but certainly not authoritative (or consistent) enough to be regarded as undeniable facts in this encyclopaedia. Prochron (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since articles must be based on reliable sources, you need to provide them to support changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Friedman (Social liberalism#Reversal, btw says, " Writers like Milton Friedman... who were influenced by Friedrich Hayek...." The source says, "Neo-liberal economists such as Friedman...built upon the insights of Hayek" (p. 74).[3] Neither says, "Friedman's writings were based on Hayek's". TFD (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The source implied that Friedman was an intellectual successor of some sort to Hayek. This is not true, no matter how you word it. It also said that Friedman claimed that a minimum state would lead to "trickle-down effects". Friedman has, in fact, never used this term. He was only a tacit supporter (and definitely not the originator) of what critics generally call "trickle-down" economics. A simple reading of some of his popular writings will convince you of this fact.

Yes, articles are based on reliable sources, and your source is not reliable. I don't need additional sources to point out how ridiculous your source is - or else Wikipedia would be caught in an endless loop of such meaningless debates. Prochron (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you do not believe that these sources are reliable then post them to RSN. If they are wrong then please provide sources that are right. TFD (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not my responsibility to demonstrate to you that whatever source you manage to find is unreliable. Otherwise you can waste your time finding thousands of unreliable sources and I will need to post them to RSN every single time. It is your responsibility to make sure your source is reliable before you use it. That is how Wikipedia functions. Prochron (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And as I restate, I do not need to provide new sources to demonstrate the lack of reliability in your sources. But since you insist on not comprehending me, here is an [article] from the prestigious Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy that is much more well-written. Notice how it makes clear the difference between social and economic issues, how social liberalism and classical liberalism are not opposing ideologies, and that it did not mention Friedman or trickle-down economics in its entirety. Prochron (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion does not seem to be moving toward a conclusion, and to a person not involved it often seems pointless. For example, you discuss whether Guido De Ruggiero is an appropriate source, but both of you use the sentence that is referenced to Guido De Ruggiero. The two versions seem to me to be very close together, but I would give the edge in clarity to TFD's version. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreeing with Rick Norwood. Would only differ from him by saying that TFD's version is a large amount better. --Matt Downey (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Italy and Spain

The new sections on Italy and Spain are lacking sources. I question too the accuracy of some of the additions. Please do not add them back without discussion. TFD (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

in that case, why not ask for sources? this article is extrememly anglo-sajon sight, and put no information of new social liberals politics in continental europe. The info is correct, if you want sources, i will put them, but don´t take the info out of the article --BernardaAlba (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the Anglo-Saxon slant is that social liberalism developed in the U.K. and did not provide as great an influence on continental liberal thinking as it did in the U.K. Guido De Ruggiero for example is one of the few leading social liberals in Italy. Also, I question whether Union, Progress and Democracy and Norberto Bobbio belong in the article and why you mention ALDE which is broadly liberal, not social liberal. In any case you need sources that support what you want to put into the article. There is nothing wrong with my removing unsourced content that seems to be incorrect. TFD (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ALDE group have parties that describes themselves as social liberal. I think is evident that Norberto Bobbio defended social liberal thesis. And about Spain, i think the same --BernardaAlba (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

progressive taxation

The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, progressive taxation, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity. [Source: The Liberal International][4]

I tend to think that progressive taxation, an idea that goes back at least to Adam Smith, is advocated by most social liberals. However, it is a means, not an end, and so should not be listed in the definition of social liberalism. If a good reference can be found, it certainly belongs in the body of the article, as one of the methods by which social liberals seek to pay for the cost of social justice. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, in politics progressive taxation can be an end in itself as in independent form of equality. But that is my personal view. It should then be mentioned in the main body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Downey (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A distinction must be made between principles and policies. Social liberals have also supported regressive taxation when it is consistent with principles of efficiency and public policy. Liquor and tobacco tax, sales tax, property tax, tariffs, etc. But the passage is about liberalism, not social liberalism, and is sourced to the Liberal International that has pictures of Hayek, Mises, Say and Ayn Rand on its thinkers page,[5] people not associated with progressive taxation. And the source used for the text does not mention progressive taxation. (Also, the justification for social liberal policy is freedom, as in positive freedom, not equality.) TFD (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Social liberals are for freedom and equality, and differ in how conflict between those two goals can be avoided. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but the justfication for the new liberalism was freedom. Their motivation was not that they wanted to take money from the rich to give to the poor so that everyone would have the same amount of wealth. TFD (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. By equality, most social liberals mean something like equal rights and equal opportunity, a level playing field rather than cutting off tall people's feet to fit the Procrustean bed. Thus, progressive taxation to pay for schools, highways, and nursing homes, not progressive taxation to equalize the wealth. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even then, health, welfare and education were where possible paid for by regressive taxation: property tax and insurance premiums. The progressive income tax was introduced to pay for wars or to replace revenue from tariffs. TFD (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article be named "Modern liberalism". Social liberalism often refers to liberal social policies.

I propose that this article be named Modern liberalism as per the comment in the heading. Social liberalism commonly refers to liberal social policies while modern liberalism refers to the distinction to pre-Keynesian Classical liberalism. This article of Social liberalism should be rewritten to be about liberalism on social issues.--R-41 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you want is Modern liberalism in the United States. Because the struggle between conservatives and liberals in the United States prompts many people to write Wikipedia articles, there is a plethora of articles with "liberal" or "conservative" in the title, some would say entirely too many. I don't find "social liberalism" in any of my political dictionaries. But on the world stage, the subject of this article is not called "modern liberalism" either, and I can't offhand think of a better place to put this information on the liberal belief in social justice. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the name of liberalism that supports Keynesianism and social welfare and is opposed to classical liberal laissez-faire economics? Modern liberalism exists in Canada - it was very prominent during the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, so it is not just an American phenomenon. Social liberalism is commonly the opposite of social conservatism - conservatism on social issues.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The most common term used in serious writing is social liberalism. While one hears about people being socially liberal, they are rarely called "social liberals". Modern liberalism is not necessarily a synonym for social liberalism. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a name for those who doubt Keynesianism. They're called Libertarians. And people who embrace Keynesianism are called Keynesian economists. This article is about liberals who see the corporate state as the principle enemy of freedom, and who turn to a democratically elected government to provide limits to corporate power. I'm not sure "social liberalism" is the best name for these people, but I'm willing to take The Four Deuces word for it that the word is used by serious writers. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"financed through taxation"

An IP continues to insert "financed through taxation" which is not in the original source. In fact the method of financing social liberal programs is secondary, they may be financed through premiums paid to private companies for example, as in health care in Switzerland or pensions in the U.K. Some governments do not balance their budgets and finance programs through borrowing. Please do not reinsert without proper sourcing. TFD (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

Please explain the removal of Iceland. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal Party (Iceland) does not appear to be a social liberal party, despite the source which I would question as rs. TFD (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The progressive movement

I feel like this article is weaker for having not really mentioned 'progressivism', or the progressive movement specifically, especially in the american context.

Is progressivism and social-liberalism/left-liberalism precisely THE SAME thing?...well no, not exactly, both in specific content, and in a conceptual sense. Social-liberalism is more of an underpinning ideology, or even philosophy, the progressive movement was more of a specific political movement during a place and time, based on certain class interests, concerns, and ideals. As with any poltical labelling, there's all kinds of complications, and you could probably find 'progressives', who don't come from a social-liberal background, and social-liberals who had problems with the progressive movement. Complicating things further still, is that 'progressive' has become the new trendy word for left-liberals to self-label themselves, especially in the USA in recent years.

However, I still feel like there's overlap, and they drew off of each other. The fact that it's not mentioned in the American sections is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.60.206 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Progressivism" is a term used to define four distinct groups in American history (see Progressivism in the United States#Other progressive movements), none of which were directly influenced by social liberalism. Social liberalism was one of the influences on the New Deal, but Roosevelt chose to reject Dewey as a model for American society. If you have any sources that dispute this, then please provide them. "Left-liberalism" in the article refers specifically to Wilhelmina Germany. They were the middle class liberals as opposed to the upper middle class liberals of the National Liberal Party. As explained in the article, some of them supported social liberalism, while others did not. Von Mises and Hayek are examples of "left liberals" who did not. TFD (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)