Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Name Change, Former information about Canada (Old Talk)

I agree with an earlier comment this article, which is like 90% U.S. content should be an article for American Conservatism while a separate Canadian article should be established as the differences between American and Canadian Conservatism and politics in general are fairly large!

This page says absolutely NOTHING about Canadian conservatism, and is entirely about U.S. Conservatism. Either rename it American Conservatism, or add on information about the history and ideology of Canadian conservatism!!!

I have already added on a brief introduction to Canadian Conservatism, it does need a bit of work and touching up which I plan on finshing when I have some more free time, but it is still a start. I do not see the point in creating a separate "North American' article if only American Conservatism will be mentioned!

time for a vote

Since nobody has stepped forward to write about conservatism in other parts of North America, I think it is time to change the title of this article to Conservatism in America, in parallel with the already existing article Liberalism in America.

Informal motion: 1) retitle the article Conservatism in America, 2) move the Canada section into the already existing Conservatism in Canada page, 3) Change the appropriate links.

Comments? Votes? Other ideas? Rick Norwood 16:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

See also: Neoconservatism in the United States. that may be an example to follow. -Willmcw 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest American conservatism, to parallel American liberalism. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish there were a good name for the country I live in. If I call it "America", people point out that there are two Americas, North and South, and many countries in each. If I call it "the United States", people point out that "The United States of Mexico" is also a country. Short of spelling out, "The United States of America" every time, which sounds pompus, I guess American is the best we can do. :) Rick Norwood 15:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

People that claim "American" is confusing are just being retarded, so to speak. When "American" is used, people know you are talking about the USA. I would be very, very surprised to hear many people outside the USA to refer to themselves as just plain "Americans". This politically correct culture has played tricks on the language. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Almost all Latin Americans I've talked to call themselves Americans. But I do agree that, as it is generally understood in English, the term is appropriate. Djacobs

American conservatism it is, then. Do you want to make the change or shall I, he who may not be named? Rick Norwood 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not positive it should be moved quite yet. There is still a bunch of stuff about Canada that would need to be removed. Wait until that is done, and then we'll talk about moving. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Things have been quiet for a few days. I'm going to start moving Canada to Conservatism in Canada, with the understanding that when this is done, the title of the article needs to focus on the US, since that is all that is covered. Rick Norwood 14:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just checked, and everything in the Conservatism in Canada section here is in the Conservatism in Canada article, though that article has undergone some minor rewrites since the move. I've deleted the Conservatism in Canada section here. I'll wait a few hours, and if there is no objection move this article to "American Conservatism" -- or, if someone else wants the job, fine with me. Rick Norwood 14:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

An introduction to conservatism

It seems to me that the entire section titled "An Introduction to Conservatism" is largely a repetition of the preceeding section. What do others think?

P.S. Where are you, experts on Mexico and Central America? Rick Norwood 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, we have reached a decission point. Either Conservatism in Canada need to be put back in this article, and Conservatism Mexico and Central America added OR Canada needs to be moved to the new Conservatism in Canada article and the title of this article changed to Conservatism in the United States, with all appropriate links changed as well.

Gentlebeings, what is your pleasure? Rick Norwood 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Name Change

This article should probably be moved to a name that deals exclusively with the U.S., as Canada is going to have its own idiosyncrasies. And, that's only going to serve to confuse the article in the future. Something like Modern American conservativism or Modern conservativism in the United States or American conservativism (modern) ..something like that. RJII 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The conservative movement in the United States in the Twenty-first Century is unique, and has no counterpart in any other country. The title of the article should be changed to Conservatism in the United States in the Twenty-first Century. The trouble with "modern" is that we hope Wiki will still be around when the Twenty-first Century is ancient history.

Maybe that (though the 21st century has only been around for 5 years), or something like American conservativism (non-traditional). There is a American liberalism which appears to be about the non-traditional or modern version. RJII 01:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

name change

Just so no one is taken by surprise, the name change from "Conservatism in North America" to "American Conservatism" is discussed extensively above. Rick Norwood 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I really hoped someone would do this who knew how to automate the "What links here" fixes, but it didn't happen, so I fixed the links by hand. Rick Norwood 18:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

move Canada

I've moved the part about Canada to the Canadian conservatism talk page, for people there to integrate it into their article if they like -- I don't know enough about the subject to attempt it. Most of it seems to be already there. I've changed the name of the section "Conservatism in other english speaking countries" to "A brief history of American conservatism", becuase that seems to be what is left. Actually, I think the whole section is redundent, but I didn't want to make too big a change at one time. Rick Norwood 18:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup flag

Voice of All restored the cleanup flag. I had hoped to see here some of the reasons -- it seems to be that a lot of progress has been made since the article was flaged. What specific areas need cleanup, and, while we are at it, what areas are still NPOV. I think the article looks pretty good now, thanks to a great deal of work by many people, and would like to either hear some specific objections or see the flags removed. Rick Norwood 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was removed(by me) and the POV tag stays as the article needs a criticism section(but not a POV blogger section).Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 17:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Compassionate conservatism

The entry on "commpassionate conservatism" makes no effort to be objective or balanced, it is simply a swipe at President Bush masked as an entry. It should be removed.--frmaximos 21:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I say feel free to delete whole sections of this article. It pretty much needs a whole rewrite, as it is a copy of the conservativism article (which was horrible in itself) and doesn't really apply here. RJII 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is quite horrible, so bad its hard to know where to begin--fathermaximos 17:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The comment in the section that conservatives have a " tendency to use force" and fire people who do not agree with them. I have never heard of this happening and I have travelled in conservative circles my whole life. This seems to me to be fantastical--fathermaximos 01:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's crazy. RJII 01:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There were several examples of this in the news during the 2000 election. One woman who was fired for having a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on her car was offered a job with the Kerry campaign. I wonder what she is doing now? -- Rick Norwood P.S. In light of your objection, I've gone back and changed my previous comment to a more moderate one. I would really like to see this page be rewritten enough to get the accusation of bias lifted.

Is this a tendency or just an occurance. I saw there were several cases of conservatives being fired by liberal organizations. But this is not a tendancy of either movement it is an occassional occurance--fathermaximos 02:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I have deleted that paragraph. Rick Norwood

Thank you for your fairness and cooperation--fathermaximos 03:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Separate conservatism from Reagan / Bush / Bush leadership?

I'm guessing that the article should be split into at least two different articles. The division would be between conservatism in the US (as a movement) and the leadership of Reagan and the two Bush Presidents. There exist several conservative movements outside the Presidency (ranging from the Religious Right to several news sources to the Heritage Foundation). On the other hand, the three presidents that have lead the conservative movement have their own idiosyncracies, which are not necessarily part of the movement.

What do others think? -- Chip Unicorn

Maybe you're thinking of neoliberalism? RJII 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. Except that most people associate Reagan and both Bushes with conservatism, not neoliberalism. -- 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Some people regard libertarianism with modern conservativism. Reagan is a case in point:"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -Reagan. I would say that libertarianism is modern ultraconservatism --which would be the same thing as classical liberalism. RJII 02:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can separate the modern "conservative" movement in the United States from the Republican presidents who have promoted it. Reagan, like both Bush's, often talked of smaller government, but every US president in the past thirty years has spent roughly twice as much money as the president who came before, Democrats and Republicans alike. We can only conclude that talk of smaller government is just that -- talk, that we have the tiger of ever expanding federal power by the tail, and that "conservatives" are no better at limiting their own power and spending than "liberals". Maybe we need to make a distinction, up front, between modern conservative theory and modern conservative practice. On the other hand, I don't think that is going to help us resolve the neutrality problem. -- Rick Norwood

Fair enough!

I would like to see this article brought into a shape where the fairness is no longer in dispute. Also, I would like the see the title adopted, since the conservative movement in other North American countries is quite distinct from the conservative movement in the United States, and since by 2050 conservatism may have come to mean something other than what it means in 2005. Can anyone help with this? I don't know how to change an article title, nor do I know who to turn to to get a warning label removed. Rick Norwood

Things have been quiet for a while. I'll wait a week, and if there is no objection I'll change the title to "Conservatism in the United States in the early Twenty-first Century" and try to remove the tag that says the article is disputed. Rick Norwood 209.247.222.115 00:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's kind of weird. I don't think conservativism in 1999 is that much different than conservativism in 2001. How about "Modern conservativism (United States)". That will match up with the "Modern liberalism" article, though it hasn't been disambiguated to the U.S. RJII 01:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok by me. Your objection is well taken. I was trying to avoid the word "modern" under the assumption that Wiki will be around for a long time, and "modern" will seem a quaint way to describe the present day in the year 2100. But since "modern" is used throughout Wikipedia, I suppose your suggestion is best, and people in the future can fix "modern" when the time comes.

Hey I think I have a better title: "Contemporary conservativism (United States)" I think that may take care of your problem with "modern" as the page will always be updated to reflect what's going on today. What do you think? I may suggest that the "Modern liberalism" article be moved to to "Contemporary liberalism." (I got the idea from Encyclopedia Britannica who calls it contemporary liberalism). RJII 22:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The excellent addition of a section on Canada has made the name change proposed above unnecessary, and the accusation of bias seems to have gone away. Good! Now, we need sections on conservatism in Mexico and in Central America.

I don't know. I think it still needs to be broken up into separate countries. I think it's inevitably going to get too long as sections for each country starts developing. RJII 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Section

POV Criticisms of 21st Century Conservatism

Extreme POV from the liberal side. The biased liberal tone is evident throughout, even to those who have no analytical skills. (To those of us with said abilities, it's even clearer.) I find it odd that we can have a pro- to neutral article on American Liberalism but can't have the same thing for Conservatives. If a Conservative were to change the American liberalism article, I doubt such a "compromise" would take place as has happened here. Haha, oh, and I just looked at the links section. What's up with that? Are people stupid?

- In "American Liberalism," there is a section called "American Liberal thinkers"... How nice. Let's continue.

- In "American Conservatism," no such section exists.

- There is no "Criticisms of 21st Century Liberalism" section to be found anywhere near the American Liberalism article. How strange.

- What's more, the section about how people view liberals very much "lashes back" without any view to the reasoning behind calling Democrats liberals, etc. Who says they are trying to distort the meaning of the word liberalism? If you know, you'd better put it in the section. If not, don't put it in as your own opinion. (If you do, you're clearly in violation of NPOV.)

- Both links are to very liberal websites, and that's probably for the best.

- The first link - the FIRST link, mind you - in the outside sources section is to a liberal professor's view of Conservatism!

Is it just me?? Or are some people blind to the lack of parallelism between the two articles.Djacobs 7 Oct 2005

This section is pure POV. The same points can be made by anyone opposing anything. It's just whining. I'll wait a day or so before I delete the whole section. Elliskev 4 Oct 2005

Before you start deleting sections, please be aware of how many people have worked long and hard on this article. The current article is the result of a compromise. The criticisms of conservativism have been moved to a section of their own, and the conservatives have their say first. To pretend that conservatism in North America is not controversial is to ignore the reality. Rick Norwood 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand that not everyone agrres with conservativism. That's the nature of belief sets - not everyone agrees. My objection is to the language backing up the bullet points:

A refusal to stick to the dictionary definition of words. The words "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites. The opposite of liberal is elitist. The opposite of conservative is progressive.

Internal contradictions...They say they are for Christian values, but vote to favor property values, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who said "Gather not your riches upon the Earth, for there your heart will be also".

I can only say that the material you object to in the "Criticism" section used to be in the introduction to the article! Rick Norwood 16:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note, again, the heading. The assertion here is not that these criticisms are correct, but that these are criticisms that are, in fact, made by people who oppose conservative policy. One of the subjects that has been discussed extensively on this talk page over the past several months is that NPOV is not the same as no point of view, but does require that each side of a controversy be allowed to make its own points in its own way. The alternative, which is seen too often, is for someone with one point of view to want both sides to be presented from that one point of view. Here is what I say, and here is what I say you say. That doesn't work. Rick Norwood 13:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that these statements are neutral. But, based on the fact that at least one person objects to my deleting it, I won't delete it. I do think some work needs to be done regarding some of the language asserting "truths" to back up the POV, e.g. The opposite of liberal is elitist. The opposite of conservative is progressive. Elliskev 5 Oct 2005

Absolutely. I think that until that can be fixed and written by someone not completely ignorant, it should not be associated with the article. Also: if someone wrote a simple-minded attack on some particular race in that race's article (even though it was labeled "some criticisms of such-and-such race"), would it be allowed to stand "until someone cleaned it up"?? I think not. Djacobs 7 Oct 2005

Not to defend these definitons, but just to show where they are coming from, the origins of what is now called "modern liberalism" are in Locke, who wrote that all men are created equal. He was opposed by conservatives who considered the upper class naturally superior to the lower classes. Modern liberals consider the current conservative movement as upholding the rights of the upper class over against the rights of the working class.

The statement about the opposite of conservative being progressive seems less controversial, and my own dictionary agrees -- conservatives want to conserve the values of the past, progressives want change, and see the future as an improvement over the past.

No, it's just their ideas of "progression" are different. Conservatives are just as dynamic as liberals (or at least some from each group can be dynamic). But their goals are different, and so are the things they are willing to change. Don't try to pigeonhole Conservatives as people who aren't open to change or who think they're perfect. Djacobs 7 Oct 2005

In any case, the compromise arrived at is to let liberals have their say here, but not in the rest of the article, so if a rewrite is done, it should be done by a liberal. Rick Norwood 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I read the NPOV policy and buy the idea of not deleting what I consider POV. But, I don't think that editing the section should be reserved to those with a liberal viewpoint. That just leads to more POV, by definition. Elliskev 5 Oct 2005

I fully agree. Djacobs 7 October 2005

Let me then leave it at this. A lot of people have worked on this compromise. Plese don't do anything that is going to start another big reversion war. Rick Norwood 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of people have worked hard at a compromise. That doesn't make the compromise neutral. If the article is supposed to be a factual explanation of North American Conservatism (mostly US Conservatism), then what does a section about criticism add? It would be better to have a link to the American liberalism article as the "alternative political philosophy" or something like that.. Looking at the American liberalism article, I see no section about criticisms. Elliskev 5 Oct 2005

I have added a link to American liberalism within the Criticism section. I will not delete anything in the section, but I think that the link suffices as it is infinitely less prone to being POV. Elliskev 5 Oct 2005

As I say, I don't think the section should even be there as is because of what I've said already. Djacobs

The entire section is "Criticism of the Bush Administration," not of Conservatism

1. Many people, liberals and conservatives alike, are critical of the current Republican version of conservatism. Many people are critical of the Bush Administration. True, but not relevant to this article - how about "There is debate over whether the policies of the Bush Administration accurately reflect the values of American conservatism?" - which anyway probably belongs in the article about his Administration.

1. Peggy Noonan, writing for the Wall Street Journal, recently said, "For this we fought the Reagan revolution? A year into his second term, President Bush is redefining what it means to be a Republican and a conservative, and most of us who proudly call ourselves both don't like the results." Yes, she said that, but it's criticism of Bush, not American conservatism.

1. "President Bush's job approval ratings are at their lowest point of his presidency as only 40% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of his job performance and 58% have a negative opinion, according to a Harris Interactive poll," said a front page story in the August 24 2005 Wall Street Journal. ...see my point?

1. The current Republican administration is also criticized in Europe, especially for the conduct of the war in Iraq, which in Europe is sometimes referred to as "Bush’s war". A front page story in The Guardian for June 1 2004 has a headline, “Bush’s war has nothing to do with the spirit of D-day.” The German newspaper Spiegel for October 7 2005, reporting on the vote in the US Senate to outlaw the abuse of prisoners in American custody, said, "The move is being seen as a slap in the face to a President Bush who is retreating on all fronts." This one doesn't even have the word "Conservative" in it.

1. Jim Jeffords, the Republican Senator from Vermont, resigned from the Republican Party in 2001 because he no longer supported the policies offered by the George W. Bush administration. Again, true, but all it shows is that Jeffords is not a conservative Republican. It's not really a criticism of Conservatism as much as a statement that the Party and Jeffords disagree ideologically.

1. Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay has stepped down after accusations of financial impropriety. Republican Senator Bill Frist is under investigation for selling stock shortly before a sharp drop in price. ...which apart from egregiously ignoring the presumption of innocence, has to do with the behavior of two politicians associated with the American Conservativism and the Republicans, but not about the movement or philosophy in any way...

1. But of all the criticisms leveled at the Republican version of conservatism, the strongest may be that the national debt, as of October 10 2005 is $7,987,482,617,684. (in the opinion of the author).

I have deleted this section. There are probably many cogent, interesting, and relevant critiques of the conservative movement, but those points above have nothing to do with it. Kaisershatner 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

unilateral deletion

A little history. There was a time when there was criticism of American conservatism in the introduction. That has now all been moved to a single short section. This was a compromise that both liberals and conservatives could live with. Only some people evidently consider that NPOV = CPOV, and cannot live with it.

That there is some criticism of American Conservatism is a fact. Even if the criticism is all wrong, the fact that it exists is germane to understanding American Conservatism -- an article on the subject that gives the impression that all Americans are conservative is not factually correct.

If you think that there are criticisms in this section that have not in fact been made, or if you think there are more important criticism that should replace them, then edit the section. Unilateral deletions of the entire section will be reverted. Rick Norwood 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sourced criticisms may be germaine, the criticism presented here are just plain old editorial POV. --Elliskev 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources, as per your request. "Some of the criticisms leveled at conservatism include:

Demonizing the opposition. Some conservatives, Rush Limbaugh for example, often assert that liberals say this or liberals say that, without paying any attention to what the opposition actually says. For examples, if liberals want fair trials, some conservatives say that "liberals love criminals". <<Source, Rush Limbaugh>> If liberals want civil rights for homosexuals, some conservatives say that "liberals want special rights for homosexuals". <<Source, Rush Limbaugh>> If liberals support freedom of religion, some conservatives say that "liberals hate Christians". <<Source, Ann Coulter>> A refusal to stick to the dictionary definition of words. The words "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites. <<Source, The Oxford American Dictionary>> The opposite of liberal is elitist. The opposite of conservative is progressive. The worlds "leftist" and "liberal" have different meanings. A leftist supports communism, a liberal supports equal rights. Very few liberals today are communists, but some conservatives continue to pretend that they are.

Internal contradictions. Conservative political leaders in the early Twenty-first Century say they are for decreased government spending, <<Source, The Chronicle of Higher Education>> but vote for greatly increased government spending. <<Source, the Federal Budget>> They say they are for state's rights, <<Source, The Chronicle of Higher Education>> but vote for greatly increased federal power over the states, in areas such as gay marriage, medical marijuana, and the right to die. <<Source, John Ashcroft>> They say they are for Christian values, <<Source, George W. Bush>, but vote to favor property values, <<Source, the Republicans in congress>> contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who said "Gather not your riches upon the Earth, for there your heart will be also". <<Source, The Holy Bible>>"

Now, if there is any statement here that you seriously doubt is true, please quote it, and I'll offer further verification. And once again, if you think that nobody has ever criticized American conservatism, please say so. And if you think that there are better criticisms than the criticisms in this section, please list them. I have no objection to a rewrite to improve this section. My objection is to repeated attempts to eliminate it entirely. Rick Norwood 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt the quotes. My gripe is that these are selected quotes by conservatives to back up an opinion. This is perfectly acceptable in a debate format, but not here.

What do I consider acceptable and neutral? How about a quote from a recognized liberal... Carville, Clinton, whoever. That would be relevant and totally acceptable because it is third party, sourced, and relevant criticism; not just an injection by a Wikipedia editor with an agenda. --Elliskev 00:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're exactly right. That would follow with the title. What he hasn't proven with sources is that liberals criticize these people. Without these sources, it is completely biased to criticize them (yourself) within the article. Also, the dictionary definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" (VERY general, not necessarily about their American versions, and hardly complex enough to suffice for your purposes) have no place in the American conservatism section. And again, why does it seem to bother no one that the two sections, American Conservatism and American Liberalism, are both oriented towards the liberal viewpoint. No visible compromise seems to have been made with the American Liberalism article. Djacobs

Adition - Even Al Franken would suffice. --Elliskev 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point. My thinking was that so many people, from Al Franken to Peggy Noonan, have made these criticisms of American Conservatism, that there was no need to cite a single source. I'll think some more about that. Meanwhile, the entire article is still under a cloud for lacking a sufficiently neutral pov and for not presenting an international pov of "American Conservatism". Also, it's too long. Also, why is there a section on "Conservatism in other countries" in an article titled "American conservatism"? In any case, thank you for responding to my concerns. Rick Norwood 12:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New Ciriticism Section

This is not any better. As numerous polls illustrate, many people, liberals and conservatives alike, are critical of American conservatism,

What polls? Source for this is...?

and in particular of the Iraq war. European conservatives in Germany, France, and Russia have specifically opposed the American war, calling it unprovoked aggression based on lies, while other countries which originally supported the war, such as Spain, have withdrawn their support.

The war was approved by Democrats and Republicans (American Liberals and American Conservatives) both. European opposition, therefore, is criticism of America, not just American Conservatism.

In America, more and more people are openly critical of the conservative movement.

Is there anything to back up this allegation? If anything, the continual Republican gains in Congress suggest the opposite. Maybe rewording it to In America, people are more and more openly critical would pass the literal test...

The anti-liberal viewpoints and assertions of conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have alienated many as has the perceived ineptitude and corruption of powerful conservatives.

Loaded

President Bush's approval rating is currently at an all time low and his handling of disaster relief after Hurricane Katrina has been widely criticized.

This, at least, is relevant

House Majority Leader Tom Delay has been indicted for financial impropriety, and Senator Bill Frist is under a ?cloud? for making a medical diagnosis based on a videotape and for selling his stock shortly before a sharp drop in price.

This is political, individual, Rep v Dem, not really Criticism of Conservatism

Peggy Noonan, writing for the Wall Street Journal, recently said, "For this we fought the Reagan revolution? A year into his second term, President Bush is redefining what it means to be a Republican and a conservative, and most of us who proudly call ourselves both don't like the results."

This is the best. This belongs here.

There is an increasing sense that

By whom?

, by paying lip service to family values,

Again, loaded.

American conservatives have been placed in a position to spend or waste an almost unimaginable amount of money, while running up trillions of dollars of debt.

Without source, POV.

--Elliskev 13:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will work on addressing them. Rick Norwood 14:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have posted the new section, under a more appropriate title. Thank you for your criticism, Elliskev, the section is much more clearly appropriate because of it. Rick Norwood 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section is NPOV. It's tough, since I personally disagree with most of it. I am a little concerned about the last sentence regarding the deficit, but I can live with it. All in all, good job.--Elliskev 20:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Rick Norwood 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that an improved version has been inserted. The intro is still shaky, and it could be expanded, but at least it looks like something you might find in an encyclopedia now.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 23:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One of my main goals was to keep it short. I think it needs to be here, but I did not want it to overbalance the other sections in this subsection. Rick Norwood 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Now how bout we NPOV the liberal section. (First, look at their last section: No sources, all straight from the author's mouth - I can hear his voice coming through. Also, no section about criticism.) But again, good fix on this article. Djacobs

01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I've already mentioned on that talk page that the liberal=libertine paragraph is unsupported and should go. In other sections, I'll take a look at where references are wanted. Rick Norwood 19:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Parallelism between articles

Clearly, as I talk about further down under the Contemporary Criticism section, we must be fair and balanced when writing articles. Until a section that addresses all of the criticisms of Liberals has been added to the American Liberalism article, we should by no means have one in the Conservatives' section. And when that section is written, according to what we've done here, it should be written by a Conservative. I don't think anyone is blind enough to say that there is no founded criticism against the left. And I guess we should also name specific liberal people, along with their blunders and mistakes, before we go judging Conservatives simple-mindedly. Djacobs

Deletion of criticisms of 21st century American conservatism

I do not agree with this deletion, but I will not revert it, only add my vote that the section should be restored. If enough other people feel the same way, then it should be restored. I hope we can discuss this subject. Rick Norwood 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the deleteion either, and I tend to be moderate to conservative. It should definitely be included. (By the way, Rick, I've been so busy that I haven't had time to add the section to American Liberalism yet. I'll try to do it soon unless someone beats me to it.) - ElAmericano 01:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi - just to be clear, I'm not averse to having a section on "Criticism," but if you're talking about my deletion supra, the majority of that stuff is unsourced and is criticism of the Bush Administration, not criticism of the philosophy or movement of American Conservatism - that's why I thought it didn't belong here. Kaisershatner 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a bit more time to read the rest of this article, and it is notable for the current POV that Conservatism is a coalition of unrelated interest groups (maybe, maybe not, but that it is more so than American Liberalism, which is not described that way, is arguable and certainly the POV of the author), as well as for the way each of those groups is defined - by what it stands against. Accordingly, I would like to edit the intro to make it less overtly anti-Conservative, and in the spirit of preserving the NPOV and in recognizing the concerns above about deleting the "criticism" section, I would like to move much of the "anti-" information into a criticism section. Please do not flame me, this is in good faith and an attempt to balance the POV of this article. I mean, the word "reactionary" was actually used as a descriptor. Kaisershatner 19:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Types of conservatism

Turning now to the section "Types of conservatism". Much of this section seems to repeat what is already covered in the "Conservatism" article. I sugest it be shortened, with a reference to the main article, and focused on Types of American conservatism, or else eliminated entirely as redundant. Any thoughts on this subject? Rick Norwood 19:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Following the advice of Elliskev above, I have attempted a rewrite of the "Criticisms of American conservatism" section. I've also tried, in a small way, to address the flag that the views of American conservatism in this article is too provincial. Rick Norwood 19:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Capital C?

Since the name of this article seems to have been a subject of considerable discussion in the past, I'm not going to just be bold, but it does seem to me that under WP:NC the title really ought to be "American conservatism" with a small 'c'. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- but do you want to be the one to change all the "What links here"? Rick Norwood 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Aesthetically, the title looks awful compared to nearly every other Wikipedia title. Is there no easy way/bot to change all of those links? - ElAmericano 15:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I will move this page maybe tomorrow to fit with WP:NC. We can all work as a team to fix what links here, but I'll take main responsibility. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a big job. I don't envy you. Rick Norwood 22:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Red state blue state

"The division of the United States into conservative red states and liberal blue states is artificial and does not reflect the actual distribution of voters of either stripe. People who live in homogeneous communities, such as small towns, tend to vote Republican. People who live in heterogeneous communities, such as big cities and college campuses, tend to vote Democrat. Thus, within each state, there is a division between city and country, between town and gown."

I would like this out of the intro and into a subsection, maybe, about "Red State" "Blue State." Thoughts? Kaisershatner 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the paragraph makes a valid point. My vote is to leave it. Rick Norwood 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

While it does make a valid point, I'm not so sure it deserves a place in the intro. We don't completely qualify our topic before beginning an article. Instead of analysis, we usually give some kind of general overview, one that will let the reader know if this is what he has been looking for. Also, though making such claims might seem intuitive to some, the paragraph's assertions definitely need some solid statistics. (These don't have to be stated in the article but should be sourced.) Further, the thought is strangely lacking in the liberalism article. If I say that a lot, it's because I feel they should mirror each other for a truly NPOV. - Djacobs 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree about the point that American Conservatism and American Liberalism should be similar in tone, to obtain NPOV. I would like to see a paragraph similar to the one above in the American Liberalism article, stating where the liberals tend to live. As for a source, the information that city people and university people tend, overwhelmingly, to be liberal, and that small town people tend, overwhelmingly, to be conservative, has been reported many times. Here is one source: The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira. Rick Norwood 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Again in the spirit of synthesis, I have re-instated this para, in the part dealing with American regions that are conservative. Kaisershatner 14:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Section titles, TOC

The article on American liberalism is IMO considerably more well-written. In particular, it actually focuses on American liberalism, while still referencing its roots and the definition of various liberal antecedents. This article has a HUGE section on the types of conservative thought, but one that is largely divorced from the American Conservative movement it is supposed to be describing. I think that could be cut/moved entirely, and I think we should try a more parallel TOC with the American Liberalism article, ie, Roots/Early Conservatism, Cold War Era, Nixon Era, Reagan, GWB, something like that. Kaisershatner 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is all remnants of when this article was not focused on American conservatism. I concur the history could be written better. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Too big a change to make without discussion and a waiting period.

My impression of the recent major edit is that it puts forward one particular kind of American Conservatism, the laisez-faire capitalist kind, at the expense of all of the other kinds mentioned in the older version. But the main point, I think, is that a rewrite so major should be discussed for at least several days before implementation. Rick Norwood 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not looking for contentiousness, but (1) Wikipedia:Be Bold, (2) your POV is that my edit promotes laissez-faire capitalism, but instead of editing accordingly you just reverted it, (3) my POV is that YOUR version identifies conservatism with Christianity, (4) you could easily have found a synthesis of our versions without whole-scale reverting my edits, and (5) your preference for slower editing is not a response to why you reverted my removal or moving down of three huge paragraphs about Conservative thought in general and not pertaining at all to the Subject of this article, and (5) none of us owns the article, right? So if your only stated objections are that I overemphasized L-F Capitalism, and that I edit too quickly for your taste, then fix what you object to, and identify whatever else bothers you by responding specifically on the talk page. Kaisershatner 14:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, sorry if my tone above is argumentative. I made some edits to the version you reverted to try and respect your perspective. Please let me know how I can do more. Kaisershatner 14:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that when you make huge changes to an article without discussing them first, it is up to you to make sure that people will veiw your changes as improvements. Otherwise, they will get reverted. This article, in particular, gets such a large number of rewrites that few people are going to read past the first clear indication that a rewrite is not an improvement before reverting it. Keep in mind that a large number of people have spent countless hours fine tuning that introduction. You need to have more than boldness to get your version accepted -- you need rare insight backed up with reliable sources.

Having said that, I'll read what you've got, now, and get back to you. But, just as you have the right to boldly rewrite, I have the right to boldly revert. Rick Norwood 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)