Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Intro claims all conservatives in America supported small-"r" republicanism, what about the pro-British Loyalist Tories?

Being a Canadian here who knows about the history of the American Loyalists (those loyal to Britain during the American Revolution) and that many fled to Canada while some remained, I find the claim that all conservatism in the United States being associated with small-"r" republicanism to be seriously flawed. The Loyalists were monarchists - many of whom supported the conservative Tories. Secondly there was a brief movement in the United States that supported George Washington to become a king - I'm not sure if they were conservatives - but monarchism tends to be considered more small-"c" conservative than republicanism.--R-41 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems, to me, to be a semantics issue. A conservative alive, voting, and working in 2012 has different views and values than a conservative who was alive in 1775. I recognize what you're saying, but I'm not really sure how the issue can be addressed without rendering the article essentially meaningless. Conservatism is context-dependent. TreacherousWays (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

About 80% of the Loyalists remained after the war ended (only 70,000 to 80,000 left out of about 500,000). historians have found zero trace of any of them supporting monarchism after the war ended. . No one wanted Washington to be king (one recent immigrant suggested it but he got no support). Conservatives in 2012 talk endlessly about being faithful to the principles of the Founding fathers & some (Tea Party) actually dress up like them at rallies. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Loyalists were persecuted immediately after the American Revolution. The Patriots (the name of the Revolutionaries after the Revolution) persecuted Loyalists - many of whom were Tories who were British monarchist conservatives. The issue of inclusion really depends on exactly what this article is about - if it is about the history of the territory of the United States, then the history of conservatism needs to account for the Tories - they were monarchist conservatives who resided in the Thirteen Colonies and what is now the United States. If this article is only about the history of conservatism in the United States from the American Revolution onward, there still should be a note of the Tories existing during the Revolution and briefly after the Revolution - they were persecuted and that is one of the reasons why many left the US to go to Canada and one of the reasons why others "disappeared" from the political radar of American politics immediately after 1776 - to avoid persecution by being quiet or assimilating into the new republic. I support that the article should be context specific and historically accurate - I suggest that the intro include a statement that before the American Revolution there were monarchist conservative Tories in the Thirteen Colonies, and that after the American Revolution almost all American conservatives have supported the republic.--R-41 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, your proposal is logical, well thought out, and backed up by the historical record. Therefore, I doubt it will be welcomed by most... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Before the Revolution there were also "court parties" composed of local planter and merchant elites who supported the governor and of course the Dutch established a patroon system, and parts of the French and Spanish empires that were later incorporated into the U.S. had conservatives. None of this survived into the modern era and are correctly treated in the body of the article rather than the lead. There is also doubt whether the loyalists were conservatives. See Canada's origins: liberal, tory or republican.[1] Loyalist emigres included religious pacifists, Indians, slaves, mercenary German soldiers, British soldiers and recent immigrants whose motives for leaving were not necessarily attachment to Toryism. Many loyalists were "late loyalists", Americans in search of cheap land, who could easily have rebelled and supported annexation with the U.S., as happened in Texas and Oregon and nearly happened in Upper Canada in 1837. TFD (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Loyalists had a choice or remaining the the US and accepting a republican government, or leaving to some other place in the british Empire, usually canada. About 80% stayed in the US and became good republican citizens (I can't recall a single example of such a person being a crypto-royalist). In addition others went to Ontario after 1783 looking for cheap land; they seem to have been non-political. Lots of Americans moved to Canada over the decades (and even larger numbers of Canadians came south), but politics was an issue for maybe 10% (usually involving revolts or draft laws). The article does not ignore the Loyalists -- they get a paragraph and two cites. The point is their political royalism did not survive in the US --- it did survive in Canada and that's a fascinating story of anti-americanism. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"it did survive in Canada and that's a fascinating story of anti-americanism" - that is a very POV statement, I would logically come to the conclusion that the Loyalists would have believed themselves to be have been rightful citizens of the American Thirteen Colonies under the British Crown, why does that make them "anti-American"? Because they opposed the new power that be that took over in the former Thirteen Colonies that makes them "traitors" to their homeland? - That sounds like contemporary American patriotic attachment to the Revolution, Rjensen. From a rational perspective - a revolution is a political act, not a divine intervention for a nation -so all that it means is that Tory Loyalists that were anti-Revolution, not anti-American in the sense of being hostile to their own homeland. The fact is that a substantial number of Loyalists were associated with the Tories - monarchist conservatives. The intro should be time-specific about the time in American history when support of the republic became ingrained in American conservatism rather than saying in general that all American conservatives are small "r" republicans. The Tories are an important historical example of monarchist conservatives in American history.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is called "Conservatism in the United States", not the American provinces. We are supposed to provide weight reflecting how subjects are treated in sources. And books on conservatism in the U.S. provide little discussion on loyalists. Rjensen's description provides the mainstream view and of course loyalists did not consider themselves "citizens". TFD (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Loyalists who went to Canada, says Granatstein, had a "shared sense of grievance against the United States...they had the deep hatreds of those who had lost property, family and homeland." He mentions "their avowed anti-Americanism" (J.L. Granatstein, Yankee Go Home (1996) p 15, 18.) Those who stayed in the US gave up/kept very quiet about any monarchism they had. Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities active in conservative politics and cleveland and jefferson conservative dispute

As for my new section celebrities active in conservative politics I think it belongs since most of the celebrities such as John Wayne were incredibly active in conservative politics Wayne was even asked by the Texas Republican party to run for president, Jimmy Stewart who spoke at republican national conventions was outspokenly conservative was even asked by his friend president Reagan to run for governor of california, Shirley Temple ran for the U.S. house as a republican and served as ambassador to Ghana under ford and was incredibally active in the California republican party. Clark Gable was apart of the the movement to draft Eisenhower for president, Ginger Rogers co-founded the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Gary Sinise founded Friends of Abe in 2004. amyway you have heard my reasons and examples if anyone thinks the new section is inapropiate or anyone on the list does not belong feel free to voice your opinion and if the consensus is to delete the new section I will gladly oblige Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with lists is that they are limitless. How long would the list of liberal celebrities be? Why not just mention in the article that the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals was conservative and mention who the main founders were? TFD (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how what you show for most of the examples actually important to conservatism. Is Jimmy Stewart actually more important to conservatism than the hundreds of other people who have been suggested to run for Congress? Did Shirley Temple Black have any more conservative impact than any other Republican ambassadorial appointee? Has Friends of Abe actually done anything? Because otherwise, it sounds more like a trivia section. These people have reasons for fame that are properly covered in those articles, but not everything they do is of particular import because they are famous. I have no problem with celebrities being included on the list, so long as they would qualify for the list even without their celebrity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

good points I suppose I'll take down the sectionCotton Rogers (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how we can include Jefferson and Cleveland as conservatives. Both were Democrats and both challenged the elites of their day. They were both free-traders which was a liberal, not conservative, policy. TFD (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This not the section for it but to answer your concerns conservatism has many facets and schools ther is not just one narrow defination on policy isues or we would have to eliminate almost everyone since few if any would pass that litmus test exactly(example Ron Paul is incredibly differant on policy issues from Rick Santorum but both are still conservatives since they have a conservative outlook from one of the many branches and schools) also this is about the history of conservatism not the history of the Republican Party party affiliation does not matter both Jefferson and Cleveland fit almost perfectly under the defination of paleoconservatism also in an irrelevant side note Jefferson did belong to a Republican party(he was never a Democrat) not the one of today though historians later called Jefferson's Republican party the Democratic-Republican party to distinguish from the current one since it later became named the democratic where after which many left to form the party that would eventually become known as the Republican party of today they named Grand Old Party often abbreviated to GOP(even when it first created and new) to honor the Republican Party of Jefferson Cotton Rogers (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add in my last rant most conservatives today are free traders see Neoconservatism so it is a conservative policy easy mistake to make though since this stuff does get pretty complicatedCotton Rogers (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As you say, if policy issues are not sufficient to determine whether or not one is a conservative then you cannot add Jefferson and Cleveland because some of their policies would be endorsed by some modern conservatives. The fact is that free markets were not endorsed by conservatives of the 18th and 19th century. TFD (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy issues are important I'm sorry if I gave the impression they were not but like I said conservative come from many differant schools and there policy issues and the policies they instituted as presidents helped define Paleoconservatism so they must be included there is a reason Ron Paul calls Grover Cleveland his most favorite President. See Paleoconservatism and you'll see what I'm Saying Cotton Rogers (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The significance of policy, especially free trade, differs according to circumstances. Note that 19th century conservatives, in particular people outside the US who actually called themselves conserrvatives, opposed free trade while people calling themselves liberals supported it. Modern conservatives draw on a number of sources - that does not mean that all those sources were conservatives. Would Ron Paul have called himself a conservative had he lived in the 19th century? TFD (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Ron Paul would call himself a conservative but what people call themselves is irrelevant both Cleveland and Jefferson were hardcore state rights, limited goverment, constitiutionalist conservatives both heavily objected to a national bank supported the gold Standard sound money and definately were conservatives again one issue were they might not fit your defination of conservatism is irrelevant no one is a perfect cookie cutter conservative there cannot be a litmus test or most if not all on the list would fail again check out Paleoconservatism they almost exactly fit the defination so they are without a doubt conservatives one issue asideCotton Rogers (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[See statement right above first] I just checked out Cleveland he was not for free trade he supported tariffs he just advocated to reduce the tariff any support for a tariff is not free trade so Cleveland is definately a conservative Cotton Rogers (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. You must find reputable sources declaring them "Conservative." You have no say in the matter. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand how wikipedia works just fine I do not appreciate the sleight. some things are just common knowledge and go without saying I no name on the entire list is referenced if anyone checks out the hyperlink to their political views they can clearly be seen they are conservatives but if it helps you I will referance them to end this pointless controversyCotton Rogers (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See Rossinow, D.C. Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008, p. 14: "Somehow, liberalism was transformed from the laissez-faire dogma of Grover Cleveland to the state interventionism of Franklin Roosevelt."[2] TFD (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just referanced A source saying Cleveland was conservative and clearly from his policy views he is a paleoconservative also he never supported free trade he only wanted to reduce the tariffs because he thought they were to high he never wanted to eliminate them which is not free trade wasn't that your original arguement Cotton Rogers (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is a great example of "Original Research." You don't get to decide, based on your interpretation of political positions, whether one is a "Conservative" or not, particularly given how these positions have shifted from Left to Right over the years. That is up to the Reliable Sources to determine...not for you to "infer" based upon their positions. And since I already noted that one of the people you added (Clint Eastwood) has specifically stated that (1) he is "not a Conservative," and (2) he is a "Libertarian," (which is certainly NOT synonymous with Conservatism, and is indeed vehemently opposed to Social Conservatism) I have little "faith" in your personal opinions of peoples' political positions. Furthermore, the "source" you chose for Thomas Jefferson is NOT RS, and indeed is a review of another book, AND notes in the review itself that the mainstream view among historians is that Jefferson was a "Liberal." We are not here to present fringe views as fact. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan do not insult and belittle my opinion you need to follow the rules of etiquette of wikipeidia. also if you checked out conservatism as I had suggested earlier you will find libertarianism defined as a school of conservatism so it is conservatism you are wrong on that just check out the hyperlink try to do it without insulting my opinions. also if anyone inferring anything it is you there policy postitions are conservative by evey defination of the word that is another fact you are ignoring Cotton Rogers (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your source for Cleveland does not say he was a conservative. Also, you should avoid tertiary sources. Incidentally your source infoplease defines "free trade" as "international trade free from protective duties and subject only to such tariffs as are needed for revenue."[3] TFD (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My source does say Cleveland was a conservative president in the second paragraph it clearly states Cleveland took a conservative course as president Cotton Rogers (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You need a better and clearer source for your view. TFD (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And the sources you (Cotton Rogers) just added for Jefferson are completely absurd. You need to read WP:RS. I could write a blog entitled "Thomas Jefferson: American Fascist," but that wouldn't be RS for claiming that Jefferson was a "Fascist." You need RELIABLE SOURCES. As in, books or peer-reviewed journals written by people with the letters "P", "H", and "D" after their names....especially for such a controversial subject. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan maybe there not the best sources but saying there completely absurd is going a to far lets keep this a civil disscussion not a mean-spirited arguement where you unfairly belittle others opinions that is not following the rules of wikipedia of etiquette and it is not mediating this conflict but just is plain unhelpful and unconstructive. As for Jefferson I'm adding sources that are most reliable for the first source check out the quote by Jefferson "the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, as for the second I think fits you defintion as a reliable source as well if not let me knowCotton Rogers (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland sourcing

An editor just reinserted Grover Cleveland to the list with a bunch of sources... all problematic.

1. The NYTimes reprint of an Omaha World-Herald source is from an opinion piece, which is not RS per WP:NEWSORG.
2. The Infoplease source appears to use "conservative" as in "cautious", rather than as a marker of his political bent.
3. The Graff quote states that he allied himself with conservative businessmen does not state that he was himself a conservative; it is often helpful to build allegiances with those on some other side of the fence (and besides, conservative may be describing business practice rather than political practice in that regard).
4. Only looking for conservative ideas specifically "in certain quarters" does not brand one a conservative. I can tell you quarters in which I support libertarian ideas, but I'm not a libertarian.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think an editorial in a major paper is likely to refer to a politician "that conservative of conservatives" if he was in fact a liberal? In 1908, Cleveland's views would have been well-known. This is just Wikilawyering. Russell Kirk calls Cleveland a conservative in The Conservative Mind (p. 364) Kirk's book is specifically a history of U.S. conservatism, so that's as RS as it gets. Kirk also calls Cleveland "the only strong and intelligent president of the time." (p. 297). As Kirk was a conservative writer, this implies that he considered Cleveland a like-minded conservative. Cleveland's agricultural secretary founded a magazine called The Conservative. Kauffner (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Do you think an editorial in a major paper is likely to refer to a politician "that conservative of conservatives" if he was in fact a liberal"? Yes, particularly in the days being sourced there. The OW-H was a paper of non-neutral political intent at the time. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up what Cleveland's agricultural secretary did; your are not adding the ag secretary to the list. Obama nominated John Huntsman to an office; do we presume then that they are of the same political stripe?

Cotton just added to both Jefferson and Cleveland to a cache of this page, which is an entry on the blog of a University of Missouri student. He added to Jefferson a link to a Senate page on which the word "conservative" appears but once, in a quote from Jefferson not referring to himself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

but Jefferson was praising great conservative institions of state goverments, conservatives favor state rights he is describing those institiutions as conservative showing he wants conservative institutions to have more power in governing the country which seems conservative; if he is praising conservatism that I think means he's conservative. Also conservatives constantly quote Jefferson and named many conservative institiutions after him so whether he is coservative or not doesn't that make him a prominant figure of conservatism if so many of his ideas inspire conservative thinkers and stoke conservative thought Cotton Rogers (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If Russel Kirk (who basically defined conservatism and whose work makes up most of this article) calls Grover Cleveland a conservative that to me means he is conservative. Incidentally he was a Bourbon Democrat who are defined as conservative democrats with the article specifically mentioning Cleveland as a conservative. Shadow Bill Murray (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note Shadow Bill Murray has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Cotton Rogers [4]. TFD (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Shadow Bill Murray, Kirk did not call Cleveland a conservative. To him, there were no conservative presidents after 1800. Kauffner, you need a source. An anonymous editorial in the 1908 Omaha World-Herald is insufficient. Also, it is unclear what the editor means by "conservative" - it seems to mean that he understates his opinions. TFD (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cotton: While I can certainly understand how you would find that quote to be evidence, it is WP:OR to say that based on one quote, Jefferson was a conservative. We can say off of one quote that JFK was a Berliner, but he wasn't. We need to avoid extrapolation of that sort. (Plus, if we buy the claim that Russell Kirk defined conservatism, we can't assume that someone using the term before it was defined was following that definition!) The listing of prominent figures is presumably ones who were in conservatism, rather than to conservatives; otherwise longhaired radical give-your-money-to-the-government, redistribution-of-bread guy Jesus would be on the list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any valid sources for Cleveland as a conservative and will therefore remove his name from the list. TFD (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat themselves.

This argument is going nowhere. It crops up on this page every six months or so. The person pushing for Lincoln or Jefferson being added to the list is never convinced by argument, and finally must simply be reverted by the many people who disagree. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh gee. I wonder if "Lincoln Worshiper" [5] is another sockpuppet.  :::facepalm::: --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Worshipper has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Cotton Rogers [6]. TFD (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Demographics of Conservatism in the United States

I have recently come across two articles from The Atlantic (Magazine), regarding the demographics of Conservatives

Florida, Richard (2012). "Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative". The Atlantic Cities. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 8 July 2012.

Florida, Richard (2011). "The Conservative States of America". The Atlantic (Magazine). The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 8 July 2012.

The only issue I can see is that because these two articles are about recent documentation, and I am not aware of past surveys/studies like the ones above, to give it a historic view over the decades prior. However, if past surveys/studies are found, would such an expansion be proper in this article, or would it be better off in Political ideologies in the United States, due to its wider context?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The info from Gallup is solid. What might be useful is a quote from the closing paragraphs (esp "Conservatism, at least at the state level, appears to be growing stronger. Ironically, this trend is most pronounced in America's least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states. Conservatism, more and more, is the ideology of the economically left behind. ") Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been other studies, but this is a good start. Rjensen's suggestion seems fine, and it would be good to find sources explaining why this occurs. TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen's edit

Rjensen wants two things in the article that seem to me to be out of place. First, he wants to say that Reagan favored both increased military spending and an increased military. This seems to me redundant, especially in the lead, which should be brief. Second, he wants to quote a newscaster as making the point that, while red states are poorer and less well-educated, the cost of living is lower in red states. Well, yes, the cost of living in poor states is less than the cost of living in rich states, but so what. Also, a newscast is not as reliable as an academic source. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First let me say I assume good faith regarding the edits of Rjensen. That being said, the content regarding POTUS Reagan can be moved to the section regarding his presidency within the article. Additionally, there are references that support that in general conservatives in the United States support a strong military, then that can be included in the lead, or other appropriate section.

In regards to demographic information about conservatives, I would not be unopposed to there being a dedicated section on the demographics of conservatives, and the history of that sub-topic. If such a section is created, in a NPOV manor, than a summary can be left in the lead, as there should be, and the majority of the content moved into the new section. Without said section, a brief overview of demographics should be included somewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As for Norwood's point: CBS News reported a study by a prominent econometric firm, and that qualifies as a RS. As for Reagan, my point was that in recent years--long after Reagan left the scene--his ideas and positions dominate the GOP. That was emphasized by all the 2012 presidential contenders (except Ron Paul) and many other leading GOP elected officials and commentators. (For many years after his death the Democrats treated FDR in the same way as the dominant idea man of the party.) Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection to Reagan as a symbol of conservatism, though because he raised taxes and ran trillion dollar deficits he would probably be unacceptable to the Tea Party today. On the other hand, conservatives have never objected to huge defecits as long as a conservative was in power, so maybe Reagan would be just fine.

It is clearly a true statement that poor states have lower cost of living. So what? They're still poor, have more hunger and less education. It's beside the point. It's an excuse. Conservatives claim that conservative economic policies make people richer. Where those policies are put into place, people are poorer. Or (to be careful not to confuse cause and effect) it may be that ignorance and poverty lead people to elect conservative politicians. In any case, poverty and conservatism are strongly correlated.

You still haven't explained why the article needs to say that Reagan supported the military twice in the same sentence.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Norwood needs to be more careful--with statements like " Where those policies are put into place, people are poorer." he is taking sides. One suspects that he is liberal--but that liberalism has to be transcended in Wikipedia. If he cannot try harder to be neutral he needs to move to other articles. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Reality has a liberal bias." What I said is a fact, and in an effort to be fair and balanced, Wikipedia should not ignore facts.

Thank you for taking care of the duplication about Reagan and the military.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source stating that reality has a liberal bias. Or perhaps it should be quoted and the statement attributed. That being said, I don't believe said statement should carry any weight in an article regarding Conservatism in the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We should know better than to allow an article to imply correlation equals causation. Many of those red states have been blue states in the past, and vice-versa, yet the relative CoL, income, and educational rankings remain fairly constant over the long term. (i.e., Today's poor, backwards Republican state of Mississippi was once the poor, backward Democrat state of Mississippi. Likewise California, and others.) A more sensible comparison might be made by comparing the fiscal conditions of state governments over time, but that's deeper than I want to get into this today. Yes, we should always AGF, but POV-pushing is what it is and nobody should apologize for resisting it or calling it what it is (as to do so may be instructive for the guilty party, if he has ears to listen). Belchfire-TALK 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The "reality has a liberal bias" quote is a joke, not a reference. But the reason the joke is funny is because conservative beliefs so often ignore reality. When Mississippi voted Democrat, the Dixiecrats were in power there. The red state/blue state distinction hadn't been invented yet. When the Democrats at the national level switched from segragationist to promoting intergration, Mississippi became Republican. But Mississippi has always been strongly conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can slant appearances any way we choose by introducing new variables. There's no question about that, and it's pointless to go running down that rabbit hole. But Mississippi is just one example of many, and the segregationist aspect doesn't explain California, does it? Again, I offer that the best way to estimate the relative effects of Red vs. Blue government is to look for evidence closer to the proximate cause: the relative status and health of state governments. If we limit the time frame to recent history, because the Red/Blue meme is a recent invention (it isn't really, but I'm OK with that constraint), the effects only become more pronounced. And the constraint makes sense anyway, because the two parties' style of governance and management really only started to diverge sharply following the Johnson years. Anywho... I suspect you know full well what I am talking about, which is why you run so quickly for the race card. Same old, same old. Cheers! Belchfire-TALK 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of this is covered in the Southern Strategy, which is well-cited. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I'm not at all happy with the changes. They're each bad for different reasons, but generally, they destroy content and shift the POV away from neutrality. Let's discuss them, first. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Substantial material was removed without adequate explanation. I will restore it and welcome discussion. TFD (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (I see it has already been restored. TFD (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, I thought that "BRD" would make it clear that I had already reverted. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, Belchfire: I encourage you to explain your reasoning for removing substantial material without explanation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to note for the record that both editors have been active since I made this request, yet neither has seen fit to respond here. I know, I know, WP:AGF. Fine, I can do that, but I can't keep assuming competency if this persists. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

wedge issue

A "wedge issue" is an issue that is divisive within a party. The issues listed sharply differentiate the Left and the Right, but rather unite the Right than split the Right. Therefore "wedge issue" is not an appropriate phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, that's not correct. A wedge issue can also be used to, for example, pry social conservatives away from the DNC by getting them excited about denying basic human rights to gays or women. See Wedge issue for more details. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not support the edit and in any case an editorial in the National Review is not a valid source. TFD (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article formerly made the statement "After the fall of Soviet Communism in 1991, conservatives used wedge issues that distinguished them from their opponents." and then proceeded to use ridiculously irrelevant sources from 2009 and 2011 that coincidentally happened to use the words "wedge" and "conservatives", without relating in any way to the time period mentioned. This was nothing less than a desperate attempt to thwart a reversion and save face. The sentence deserved to be pulled from the article because it was an unsourced opinion, and even with a source, it wouldn't be something that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Belchfire-TALK 16:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Be clear: what, in specific, do you object to?

a) The identification of "God, gays and guns" as wedge issues?

b) The segue that sets the chronology?

c) The mention of "God, gays and guns"?

d) Something else? (Be specific.)

If there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that life is too short for guessing games, so let's not play them here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I object to is material in the article not supported by reliable sources and adding material and then searching for sources. TFD (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have made a typo that renders your comment harder to understand. I'll respond as best as I can.

If you're saying that you don't want uncited material, I can't argue with you. If you're saying we should try to find citations before deleting, I can't agree. If something seems likely but needs citation, I'd rather do a bit of research rather than just give up. This also avoids article churn from deleting and restoring the same material repeatedly.

If I misunderstood, please clarify and I'll try again. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He said the same thing I am saying. The article contained an unsupported statement, which was removed. In an attempt to salvage the unsupported statement, irrelevant sources were provided on the flimsy justification that they contained the phrase "wedge issues" and the word "conservatives". But those sources were not talking about things that happened "after the fall of Soviet Communism in 1991" and were in no way related to that time period, except perhaps in the same what that one might say the Toyata Prius was introduced after the Ford Model T. In short, the sources are a joke, and the statement is still unsupported, so it was removed... again. We do not reach the matter of any objections to "God, guns and gays," because there is no sourcing to support how that meme was used in the article. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of sourcing, not content. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, anti-Communism was the GOP's "ultimate wedge issue in U.S. politics".[7] When that went away, they switched to "God, guns and gays" as the a trinity of wedge issues to replace red-baiting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I just said that. But if you don't have sourcing, you don't have content. Then you will have to establish relevance. Let us know when you've found something. Belchfire-TALK 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "This is a matter of sourcing, not content". There's no question of relevance, or even truth, just avoiding synthesis. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence

The opening sentence is one that isn't really true, and certainly is not supported by the source as quoted. "Conservatism has played an important role in United States politics since the 1950s" is the claim, but the quote is "before the 1950s there was no such thing as a conservative movement in the United States." That doesn't mean that there was no conservatism before the 1950s, just that it wasn't organized as its own movement, and certainly this article claims to identify conservatives who had a conservative impact well before the 1950s. And the quote doesn't even claim that the conservative movement had an important role in the 1950s, merely that it existed. I'm not sure what information should be up front in this article, but surely we can do better than this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the citation is to provided evidence against an earlier claim that the Conservative movement began in 1776. The article then goes on to provide evidence that, before there was capital C Conservatism, there were conservative ideas, just as there were liberal ideas before there was capital L Liberalism. The article also provides ample evidence of the importance of the Conservative movement of the 1950s. The purpose of the lead is to provide a brief overview of points discussed in the body of the article. That said, if you can do better than the current lead, more power to you. Just be aware that it is a highly controversial subject, so it is best to do a little at a time instead of trying to rewrite the entire article overnight. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change the entirety of the article at this time. If, as you say, the reference is there to provide proof against a claim which is no longer being made, then can we agree that the reference is not actually appropriate support for the statement which is made, and thus does not belong in the place where it is? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence makes no sense. The 'conservative tradition' has played a major role... since the American Revolution. Two reasons. How do you have tradition at the moment of conception? It wasn't considered traditional back in the 1780s or 'conservative' at that time. It was mostly the ideology of classical liberalism. In modern times, conservatives have taken some of these classical liberal views and made them a part of their doctrine, but that doesn't mean conservatism began in in the 1770s. There still a distinction that needs to be made there between conservatives and classical liberals. The article at times makes it sound like they're one and the same. Secondly, conservatism as a 'unified' ideology didn't exist anywhere until after the French Revolution. And again, I think people are just confusing classical liberalism and American conservativism. Even though Conservatives admire many of the traditional elements that were established by the classical liberals, they're not the same. --Peraguss 19:47, 4 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.250.40 (talk)

The lead says there was no organized conservative movement until the 1950s. In the early days, those who favored rich landowners and laws against the vote for non-Christans were conservative with a small c, those who favored extending the vote to a larger segment of the population and freedom of religion were liberal with a small l. Patrick Henry was a conservative. Thomas Paine was a liberal. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem valid points, what do you suggest? (The tradition comment though seems pedantic. Google "has been a tradition since" and one finds similar usage across a range of sources.)[8] TFD (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

this is a misreading of the opening sentence. It does not say the tradition BEGAN with the Revolution it says it "played a major role in American politics" since then. That's quite accurate, as the RS all talk about the major role played by Hamilton, Adams etc in the 1780s and 1790s. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

List of People

The list of conservatives throughout American history is somewhat arbitrary: are we to mention every single conservative, or just the most prominent? If the latter, then there should be no more than a dozen mentioned, not the hundreds currently here. Open to suggestions. ypnypn (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

the list only includes the most prominent people and organizations, but we are dealing with a very large nation across 25 or so decades. I count 59 "politicians" -- which is less than three people per decade. Most readers will be interested in a particular theme (like jurists or religious leaders etc) or a particular time period (like late 20th century). That will give them a handful of names, which is what they want from an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Communist Emulation Section Missing

Seriously. Academically. In his book Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to The Tea Party - Oxford Press, 2012, political historian Geoffery Kabaservice (writer of books biographically critical to both the Left and Right for Studies on Post War Political Development series) has pointed out in no uncertain terms that there is a fascination with the Progressive Era rabble-rousing tactics of the American Communist Party by Conservative pioneers like Clifton White and William Rusher. In multiple passages (with supporting notation, of course) Kabaservice outlines the Conservative movement's adoption and emulation of American Communist Party campaigning tactics. Amongst others, the Clifton White backed Syndicate group. In his poli-sci history book Rule and Ruin, Kabaservice cover's Conservative emulation and deployment of American Communist Party rabble-rousing. The document continues in explaining how California Conservatives used Communist Party treachery to try to smear Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel out of the Senate seat race by trying to spread rumors that he, a married man, wasgay, which earned Kuchel's subsequent ire toward Conservatives. Here are some of the passages in concern.

"The young Conservatives were exactly like the Red Guards of the '30's. With the same anger and the same passion[62]. Clifton White (Conservative pioneer) saw in movement Conservatism the vehicle by which to take over the Republican party, using tactics he had learned from the Communists." R&R p. 50 (ref: Marvin Liebman, Coming Out Conservative, San Fransisco Chronicle, 1992 - page. 149)

"[Conservative activist] Bozell protested that this was in effect red-baiting. Substituting Conservatism with Communism. But his own McCarthyist background limited the sympathy for this claim.[45]" R&R p. 82 (Mathias news release, April 29, 1964 CMMP IX-2 "Primary Campaign Press Release" 1964)

"[Hugh Scott of the Young Republican's] pleaded with the YR's to stop alienating potential voters and to put aside The Syndicate's Leninist tactics and win at all cost mentality. He reminded them that "power comes from the public opinion and public backing and not from petty back-room intrigue and trickery. [15]" R&R p. 164 (Hugh Scott's address to Washington D.C. Young Republicans, April 25th 1966 CR May 10, 1966 - p. 9661- 9962.

Something of certain keen interest to most readers of this article. Especially considering the dichotomy it paints given so much Anti-Communist sentiment amongst Conservative thought-leaders. Unless this is just a page wiki-captured by Conservatives as an ad for their movement, it should have space in this article.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kabaservice is talking about Clifton White, who was beaten by Communists in organizational politics in the 1940s at Cornell and decided to use some of their tactics. Keep in mind that the main Communist organizational strategy, as explained in hundreds of scholarly studies see Tanenhaus book on Whittaker Chambers, was to have a small central committee that exerted very tight control over the political AND PERSONAL lives of CP members, demanding total obedience. White never did anything like that. Instead White spread ugly rumors by mimeograph machine--a tactic that goes back a few thousand years (minus the mimeo machine). "Rabble rousing" as a Communist technique???? -- Goodness has no one heard of Ben Tillman and the Populists of the 1890s?? No other RS seems to agree with Kabaservice on this point. His sources seem to be disgruntled GOP moderates but they do not mention the "communist tactics" theme. Rjensen (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why do I not feel swayed that this argument mitigates the relevance Communist-style campaigning has on the Conservative movement as outlined in graduate level academic reading. Yeah, disgruntled is generally what you'll get from people when you level unqualified accusations about their sexual persuasion, etc. In the interest of remaining as antiseptic as possible, the Conservative tactic is to offend opponents and not care. I've got a Thatcher quote for you about not caring what your opponents think of you, if you wanna hear it. ;)

Implying that Clifton White, and the Conservative that followed, only use a few of many Communist tactics, and therefore is wasn't Communist tactics at all, is like trying to say that using only six feathers from a goose to stuff your pillow disqualifies you from having to say you used goose feathers to stuff it with. That said, the book doesn't say they only use a few tactics. It sets no definitions of how many or how often. It just says they do. I maintain it remains verifiable, reliable and quite relevant.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is very little information in your source to support mention in this article. Can you provide an article that directly addresses this? Showing the same anger and passion as Red Guards or acting like leninsts btw does not literally mean they adopted their tactics (c.f., "acted like storm-troopers".) Bozell accused moderates of acting like McCarthyites - nothing about Communist tactics there. Smearing one's opponents is actually a standard U.S. political tactic. And the Communist Party of the USA did not even exist in the Progressive Era. TFD (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD said, "There is very little information in your source to support mention in this article." For those who own the book, or have access to a copy, the index of Rule & Ruin points out 8 pages spread throughout the book where Communist emulation is mentioned, either by the author, Conservatives themselves, or moderates addressing them. If the holder of a BA. PhD, Political Science, History ( http://www.linkedin.com/pub/geoffrey-kabaservice/6/99a/573 ) and author of graduate level academic books on post-war political development has labeled it as Communist emulation then there is precedent enough not to have to run off and find more supporting data.

TFD said, "Showing the same anger and passion as Red Guards or acting like leninsts btw does not literally mean they adopted their tactics." I seeeeeee. The book makes specific references to using communist-style tactics because Clifton White admired it.

I'm not going to run around fact-checking everyone that makes an argument of opposition to this entry. TFD said, "And the Communist Party of the USA did not even exist in the Progressive Era." Oh? You so sure about that? Progressive Era "1890s to the 1920s", and Communist Party USA "Founded: 1919". I don't mean this to offend, and please don't take this personally, but, please don't debate this if you're still working on the 101's of 20th Cent. political development. Any fact that's check-able in this debate, trust me, I'll check.

TFD also said, "Smearing one's opponents is actually a standard U.S. political tactic." Wrong. Smears including the outrageous accusations of homosexuality are NOT "standard U.S. political tactic".

For clarity on the syntax of my intended entry, I'll return in a day or two with preliminary verbatim. I think that should clear things up.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nasty tactics have a very long history in American politics (hey and European politics too!) and there is no reason to say they were copied from the Communists. The MAIN Communist tactics regarding tight control of their members and very tightly organized drills to take over front groups, and efforts to recruit fellow travellers, were NOT mentioned by Kabaservice or anyone else. Kabaservice comes down to one person (Clifton White). White's tactics were pretty ordinary according to Schoenwald [Time for Choosing p 130]; Goldberg [Goldwater p 188]; Perlstein says White's grass roots local-level technique in 1963-64 was what he learned from the Communists at Cornell and also from JFK's Irish Mafia [Perlstein Before Storm p 181]. Grass roots precinct work was what proved decisive for the GOP in the 1890s [I even wrote a book about that The Winning of the Midwest (1971) ch 4 and 8] As for White's power, he wanted and expected to become GOP national chairman when Goldwater did win the nomination, but he was rebuffed and never got a top job. Goldwater distrusted White & got rid of White and nearly all his secret friends who were given no role after the 1964 convention (Goldwater in October did encourage White to make a commercial, but then he publicly denounced the commercial) [Perlstein Before Storm p 394, 494-6]. So White is a second tier player at best and the "Communist-tactics-by-Clifton-White" theme fades away as little more than grass-roots organizing of the sort John Beckley perfected in the 1790s for Jefferson. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See the Historical Dictionary of the Progressive Era, p. vii, "The Progressive Era is a period in American history from the 1890s until World War I. The exact range is questionable and historians often disagree, although 1890 and 1920 seem reasonable boundaries."[9] The Communist Party of the United States of America was formed in 1921. But are the authors actually claiming that these Communist tactics were somehow specific to that era? TFD (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anon (above) says Smears including the outrageous accusations of homosexuality are NOT "standard U.S. political tactic". Well yes they are, they came in with the first parties in the 1790s. Look at Jefferson's treatment in 1800-04 (esp re religion and having a black mistress). Hamilton's allegations against Burr were so nasty that a duel resulted. Then again, try Jackson in 1824-28 --he was denounced as a murderer and bigamist (Andy shot people who said that.) For that matter George Washington came in for smears as well. for the Civil War era take a look at Michael Vorenberg (2001). Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. Cambridge University Press. p. 163.

I stopped in momentarily, on Mother's Day, to read what some people had written. It's honestly hysterical to watch you guys try to argue against one of the highest authorities in academia; the Oxford Press. I'm not going to sit here and nit-pick any of the details on relevance you guys are trying to bring up. It's a waste of time, since that has already been done. Both The Oxford Press and PHD., Kabaservice agreed it was both relevant and verifiable enough to have the educated world know about it. If you have a problem with that, contact the publishers. Further opposition to the addition of a Communist Tactics section will only prove my suspicion that this Advertisement...Uh, I mean "article", is captured by bias editors belonging to the American Conservative Movement who really don't care at all about educating the reader, and in that case shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. I'll continue with proposed verbatim,

In stark contrast to overwhelming disapproval of Communism by the Conservative Movement, this hasn't prevented the integration of wide-spread Communist Party campaigning tactics by it. Having a run for the office of state chairmanship of the American Veteran Committee in 1946, future Conservative pioneer, Clifton White, was defeated by what political historian and author Geoffrey Kabaservice calls the secrecy, rigid unity, manipulation of parliamentary procedure and the sheer ruthlessness of the American Communist Party. Specifically the American Communist Party falsely spread rumors that White had diverted AVC funds to spend on a tryst with his then secretary. Kabaservice continues, that rather than being turned off by these tactics, he instead set out to emulate the Communist strategies in his aspirations to take over the Republican Party. Through his mentoring of the Syndicate, a political faction inside the Republican Party, Clif White introduced these tactics to mainstream Conservatives and scored preliminary political victories using them. (p 49 - 51)

As documented by Conservative writer Thomas Hayden, proliferation of Communist-style campaigning tactics emerged in the vast and influential Young Americans for Freedom campus groups, throughout the early 1960's. (p. 49) Other Conservative figures like Brent L. Bozzell Jr. wrote that Conservatives used their strategies interchangeably depending upon convenience with those of the American Communist Party, going so far a to label it "red-baiting". (p.83) In 1965 Republican moderate Hugh Scott had even pressed Young Republican members to set aside their Leninist tactics in an attempt to mitigate the alienating effects he claimed it had on many voters. (p.164)

As late as 1967, then president of National Federation of Republican Women, Conservative Phyllis Schlafly was admonished by fellow Republican and even many Conservatives to silence her commissar-style rhetoric. (p.204)

I know. It's scary for most Conservatives. But, in order to further Wikipedia guiding principles you'll just have to get over your fear of what it means to have used the very tactics of the political ideology the Conservative movement detests so much. This article is not a fan page for the Conservative Movement. The significance of the dichotomy this relationship paints is worthy of note in this article.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

hmmm--- well I have published with Oxford University Press for 44 years (earliest 1969, latest 2012) and I also have the same Yale PhD that Kabaservice has. So I guess I'm due the same bowing and scraping that 50.128.155.168 accords to one of the highest authorities in academia. Some additional points: the Clifton White run-in with the Reds came when in his liberal days--it was years later that he moved to the right & supposedly remembered what the Communists taught him (organize, know the rules, keep a tight lid on plans, smear the enemy). Now White learned this from the Communists because that was the first experience he ever had with organizational politics. If he had more experience he would have learned it in precinct politics in the Democratic or Republican parties, (or the NY Liberal Party), or Tammany in NYC, or from watching the Kennedy machine in Massachusetts, or from labor union politics. Or from reading the history of American politics since the 18th century. As for Schlafly, White was her bitter enemy (so much for his devotion to "rigid unity"). Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you this Robert Jensen, or are you this, http://www.amazon.com/Robert-W.-Jenson/e/B001H6OBCY/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 , Robert Jensen. I don't see any mention of Oxford Press publications or a Yale PHD in the Robert Jensen article, but the moderators notes at the top suggest there is a user here on Wikipedia that has a personal interest in the article. My sincerest compliments on a illustrious career as an esteemed writer. It appears you write either mostly moral works or theological works. Both highly regarded topics, but, not political history works, sir. Kabaservice has an education precisely in the field in which we currently debate. Yes, you DO deserve the same bowing and scraping that Kabaservice and Oxford Press receive from me, respectfully, if we were debating additions to the Christian Evangelical Wikipdia page or a page on morals, or bringing radical ideas into the mainstream. But we're not. Just because I might have written a book on knitting, doesn't make me an expert of authority on golfing, so as to go over to the Golf article and tell everyone what they can or can't put in it. And certainly not expert enough to bring the content of a book written by an expert in golf, into question.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that White was destine to become a political rabble-rouser anyway, but it was just Communists that got to him first. It's on these grounds that mention of it shouldn't be in the article at all. Right? As history will show, there are plenty of places to learn underhanded political tactics from. White learned them from Communists. Not only did he learn them from Communists, he proliferated Communist political tactics throughout the Conservative movement - a movement obsessed with Anti-Communist measures. That is noteworthy. Noteworthy enough to have a PHD in the field of poli-sci history include it on numerous occasions throughout his book, and a major university press agree with and subsequently publish it. Rule & Ruin does not mention that it was White who scolded Schlafly. The book says Republicans and even fellow Conservatives did. Again, if you take exception to excerpts from Rule and Ruin, then you need to contact the publisher. But until Oxford Press strikes these vast sections from the book, they remain relevant. To quote Speaker of the House Beohner, "The discussion on relevance is over." It ended when the book was published.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

actually I'm Richard Jensen and I have a short bio on my Wiki page. :) The question is not whether White said he leaned from the Communists, the question is how important he was in the conservative movement. He never made it to the top and he was explicitly excluded then publicly repudiated by Goldwater in 1964. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What is important with a brief article such as this is to outline the main points as identified in reliable sources about the subject. While your source is reliable, it provides little information about what you wish to add. White himself is not even significant enough to receive mention. TFD (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're intentionally trying to avoid the significance. It wouldn't matter if it were Jiminy Cricket who introduced the now widely used Communist-style emulation to the Conservative Movement, you see? It's the fact that one of the corner-stones of American Conservatism is opposing Communism, yet, they adopted their political extremist tactics and have been successful in using them. That is abundantly relevant.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"now widely used" -- no RS (Reliable Source) says that Communist techniques are "now widely used". Kabaservice talked only of one second-tier person (Clifton White) during the mid 1960s, and he was repudiated by Goldwater. Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Being a writer yourself, you should know that once introduced through initial repetitive seeding into a story-line, you don't have to keep mentioning where a behavior comes from, every time it's used. It is clear that Kabaservice, in Rule & Ruin, documents where the behavior comes from. You don't have to say, "During the initial 2009 Tea-Party rallies there were several incidents of angry Conservatives activists shouting down politicians during speeches, Oh and once again, going back to chapter 3, remember, this goes back to Clifton White's initial emulation and proliferation of Communist-style rabble-rousing." Once precedent is established as to where behavior comes from and that behavior remains consistent, it goes without saying. Nowhere did Kabaservice say, "Oh yeah, you remember that thing I was saying about Communist extremist behavior being emulated by the Conservative movement before? Well, it's now the 2000's and this time the yelling and screaming has been birthed from those people who have learned it from playing Grand Theft Auto too long." No, it's still Communist-style rabble-rousing.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Federal reserve

An editor removed, "As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke's energetic reaction to the great financial crisis of 2008 was based on Friedman's ideas.[David Wessel, In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (2010) ch 14][N. Gregory Mankiw, Brief Principles of Macroeconomics, p. 238[10]] with the notation, "fails verification". However, chapter 14 ("Did Bernanke keep his promise to Milton Friedman") of the first source appears to support the edit. TFD (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How about showing us some relevant quotations that support your assertion? I looked it over, and all I see is the author making a case to show how Bernanke gradually abandoned Friedman as the crisis progressed. Belchfire-TALK 07:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

disputed section

I've removed some of the more absurd claims in the disputed section, and so removed the "disputed" tag, but more work remains to be done, and the whole article is choppy as contending edits sit chock-a-block. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"perceived" liberal bias

I reverted an edit which removed the adjective "perceived" from a claim of liberal bias on the part of college professors, the edit having a comment "lol" and "removed weasel word". This would leave the sentence stating, as a fact, that college professors showed liberal bias. Now it is a fact that college professors tend to be liberal. The question is, are they liberal due to bias, or are they liberal because they know what they are talking about. Doctors favor the germ theory of disease, but do they do so out of bias? Geologists believe the earth is billions of years old, but is that belief due to bias? The claim of bias requires evidence of bias, of unfairness, of slanting the facts. To claim that college professors are in fact biased is different from saying that conservatives claim college professors are biased. It says that the conservatives are right, and the college professors are wrong. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the question isn't whether college professors are biased or whether they "know what they're talking about." Talk pages are for discussions relating to the article and are not meant to be a forum for you to express your opinions on the validity of your political beliefs. I reread your paragraph twice thinking that either I was missing something or it was meant to be a joke: That you would equate the validity of leftist politics with the validity of the germ theory of disease and the validity of the earth's age betrays an amusing level of hubris. You really aren't the type of person who should be editing this article. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"bias" can be defined as the other guy's position. :) As for college professors, professors of mathematics (say) may have implicit unexamined biases on political topics--and if so they are likely to be on the liberal side. However professors of history and political science etc have been well trained to surmount unconscious "bias" and examine political issues in depth. That's how you get a PhD and a professorship then and now. What i'm saying is that subject-matter experts do not have unexamined viewpoints that unconsciously twist or direct their ideas. That gets dissolved in many many seminars and papers. Rjensen (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Antigrandiose: I'll try to explain more clearly. My point was not that liberal ideas are as well-established as the germ theory of disease, but rather that not every firmly-held belief is biased. I do not want the article to say liberalism is right, but I also do not want the article to claim that all liberalism is due to bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the entire problem could be solved if the word "bias" were removed. The word is not used in any of the three cited sources. The sentence would reflect the sources if it stated something to the effect: "That same year a documentary, Indoctrinate U, was released which focuses on the anti-liberal behavior of some leftists within academia."

Rjensen, I have no doubt that you are able to surmount your political beliefs when speaking or writing about your subjects, but to say that all historians and political scientists are able to do that (or even want to do that) might be stretching things just a bit.

Thanks for the clarification Rick. Sorry for the testiness. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are professors who are biased, just as there are people in any profession who are biased. And the film in question may (or may not) have found some; I haven't watched it. I'm not sure it is notable, but if it is, your suggestions is a good one —- except that I assume you mean anti-conservative rather than anti-liberal. Or do you mean anti-liberal, since all forms of bias are anti-liberal in the broader sense of "liberal", as in the Liberal Arts. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant "anti-liberal" in the traditional sense of the word. I understand that some casual readers might misunderstand. I meant anti-liberal in the sense that some of these professors have tendencies that appear to an outsider to be heavy-handed and totalitarian.

I don't think the film is trying to make points about anyone's bias. The sources for the movie simply report on the movie exposing some of the more obnoxious and thuggish behavior that is routinely perpetrated by leftists on our college campuses. While campus leftists might have many many biases, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of being "liberally biased" using "biased" to connote "an unreasoned judgment." I think that this sort of behavior is considered reasonable and even acceptable by many people on the modern left. (I'm old enough to remember when the opposite was true). The word "bias" should be removed. It's not even the term the sources use. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 14:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We cannot say that American academia is biased, it is an opinion and cannot be stated as fact. Also, the claim is not new, it goes back to Buckley (God and Man at Yale) and Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind). TFD (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We can state what others have stated with attribution, if the content has sufficient weight to warrant inclusion. However, we have to present it in a neutral manor as not to advocate A, B, or X, Y.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The real trouble with this film is that it is not a random sample. The film-makers wanted to show that leftist college professors were heavy-handed and totalitarian, and so they filmed the most heavy-handed and totalitarian professors they could find and edited the film to show these professors at their worst. This is hardly evidence for anything, except that some college professors, like some people in every other profession, are sometime heavy-handed and totalitarian. To conclude, as Antigrandiose does, that this behavior is "routine" or that it more common on the Left than on the Right is to go far beyond what this evidence shows. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed content

FYI, User:The Four Deuces has removed content from the article. Here is the diff. Perhaps the content could be worded better to match the source, but to remove it outright? I think it could have been better worded. The sources says the following:

Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”

This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, cautions that the finding reflects only what respondents said they would do — not necessarily what they actually would do in real life.

Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.

This deserves some weight, and I do not agree with the outright removal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The text I removed said the report "found that, in the social sciences, academics admit that they would discriminate against conservatives." But the source only mentions academics in social psychology. It also does not say that it is about the U.S. The source anyway is the Washington Times, which has predictably garbled the original report which can be read here. The report does not say that "academics admit that they would discriminate against conservatives". Using isolated studies is a bad idea anyway. TFD (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In reading the actual source (thanks for posting a link to it), on page 6 it does go into political registrations of faculty in the field which the study had focused on:

What about other areas within psychology? Here we have little firm empirical evidence. Cardiff and Klein (2005) obtained the political party registrations of 4,563 California faculty and found that among all psychology faculty (N equals 295), Democrats outnumbered Republicans at a ratio of 8:1. This might seem high, but in Survey 2, we found a liberal to conservative ratio of almost 14:1 (for ratings of ideology “overall”). Keeping in mind the inherent problems of comparing these two very different samples (and of assuming that “liberal” and “conservative” self-descriptions are reliable proxies for Democratic and Republican voter registration), this comparison suggests that social–personality psychologists might be even more liberal on average than psychologists overall.

It later goes on to state:

But what is perhaps the most important issue—an issue that we believe most psychologists, regardless of political background, will find troubling—is that conservatives are barred from discussion and are forced to keep their political opinion to themselves, coupled with a denial of the severity of this issue. We found this in our quantitative data, as described in this article. But perhaps even more telling is what we found in our qualitative data.

If we are to exclude the Washington Times source, we can go strait to the published study, which itself provides empirical data on conservatives in academia (at least within the field which the study focuses on).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that a study about social psychology professors in the Netherlands adds information about Conservatism in the United States. It may, if confirmed by other studies, add information about Conervatism among political science professors in the Netherlands.

On the second topic discussed above: Conservatives in the United States have a problem: they must explain why college professors (and reporters and scientists) are seldom conservative. The reply is usually "bias" but that begs the question of where this bias comes from. Why are professors and reporters and scientists more prone to liberal "bias"? In conservative Republican Bobby Jindal's view, conservatives have become the stupid party. That might explain it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used with care, because we need to determine the weight they should receive which can only be done with secondary sources. (See WP:MEDRS. Although one could argue whether it applies, it is a useful guideline for ensuring neutrality.) With any original study, subsequent researchers may not be able to repeat the results or obtain a different interpretation, which the authors actually mention. Their references to previous studies of course are acceptable. But it seems to be a very narrow range of academics ("social-personality psychologists). TFD (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading the study, it does not state where the respondents of the survey live. It states:

Of those contacted, 508 individuals participated (mean age equals 36.8 years; 53.6% of the sample was female). This response rate (26.2% of those contacted) is close to that observed in previous studies using similar methods (e.g., Klein & Stern,2005). Compared with the demographics of the entire SPSP membership in 2011 (gender, age, and country of residence), our sample represented the population quite well (see supplementary analyses in the Appendix).

Reading further, the respondents are members of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, a part of the American Psychological Association. Therefore to state that the respondents are "in the Netherlands" is completely false. The study is about discrimination against conservatives in academia. The content verifies, that within the field of respondents, there is self-reported discrimination based on political ideology. A brief mention, neutrally worded, should be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:MEDRS. It is wrong to include primary studies that have not been evaluated because subsequent research may invalidate their methodology or provide different results. If no secondary sources in the field mention the report then it lacks weight. The SPSP is an international organization and includes members worldwide, the study included respondents in the UK and Canada. TFD (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That would mean that the study goes beyond the scope of this article, but that makes its findings even more worrysome, IMHO. As I said, the study doesn't state where in the world the respondents live.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed, and I'm surprised it took me so long, that this paper does not tell us anything at all about liberals or conservatives, it only tells us something rather sad but hardly unexpected about human nature: that people will favor those who agree with them. The people who conducted the study never asked the conservatives if they would discriminate against liberals. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep those with issue should attempt to reword the addition instead of reverting. WP:MEDRS refers to medical sources, this was merely a survey, relax. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If we must include this survey, we should report what it says, without exageration. Most of the people surveyed said they would never discriminate. About a third said that they would discriminate to some extent, but on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 never discriminate and 7 strongly discriminate, all of the means were between 2 and 3. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So wait, the Washington Times says nothing about this applying to America, we have no idea what portion, if any, of the folks who said they would discriminate are in America (the only places where the paper separates out Americans is to say "we also found that Americans rated themselves as more conservative on foreign policy than did residents of other countries [...] but not on social or economic issues")... how exactly is it justified putting this material in this particular article then? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

the actual article says 85%+ were from the USA. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, 81% (I missed that on my search, looking for other terms, thanks), but it doesn't separate out their results except as cited above, doesn't say what portion of the "third", nor what portion of the strength of discrimination arises from that 81%. The point stands. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that solves the representation issue. To make any difference from 95% one has to assume VERY high unlikely correlations with nation that the authors somehow missed. Rjensen (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To assume that there's no correlation with nation because one doesn't see the authors mentioning it is WP:OR at best. Can you point to an actual statement in this paper about conservatism in America that should qualify it for inclusion? (I'm not sure what "95%" this is you're invoking.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The survey is about discrimination against those who self-identify as conservatives. That appears to me to be relevant to conservatives. If this is not to be here, then it can be well argued to be included in the Conservatism article. The fact that there is discrimination against conservatives is notable, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There may well be an argument for inclusion of this information in the Conservatism article, or some child article thereof. This is not that article, and general statements about conservatism, rather than US-specific ones, don't belong here. --Nat Gertler (talk)

The fact that some liberals discriminate against conservatives is only notable if it is shown that no conservatives discriminate against liberals. Until a better study comes along, all this survey shows is that about a third of the people they asked admitted they showed a slight tendency (2.5 on a scale of 7) to discriminate against people they disagreed with. Was it relevant that the question was asked about liberals with reference to conservatives rather than about any group with reference to any other group? We don't know. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I read it, the study was made of academics in general - not just of selected liberals. Thus the indication is that academics as a whole tend to discriminate against those they perceive to be more conservative than the individual norm. The "2.5" result is "statistically significant as long as the nature of the study is properly presented in neutral language. Presumably there were some conservatives in the study, and what is shows is that, ceteris pariblus, if there were equal numbers of each, the net effect should be zero. That it was not zero indicates that something of statistical interest was observed. Collect (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The study showed that the more liberal a social psychologist was (not all academics) the more they were likely to discriminate against a conservative. But it did not investigate the question of whether a conservative was likely to discriminate against a liberal. If they had asked that question, the net effect might have been zero, but the question was not asked. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

New content in Environmentalism section

I have noticed there is new content added to the Environmentalism section. I have attempted to independently verify the content, and I have found some issues. The first two references provided ended up being dead links, I have tagged them accordingly. Also the second source does not provide a url, I found the book online on books.google.com, but worse, when searching the book, it didn't find the quote.

Up to this point this fails verification in so many ways! However, I must assume good faith, so if someone can provide other sources then the content can be saved. Otherwise, it should be removed post haste!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Both the quote and the links are from the article Earl Butts. They should be fixed both places, or the quote removed. But we need some explanation why mention of Earl Butts is appropriate here, or he should go, too. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Earl Butts, a typo? It appears as a redlink, was Earl Butz the article that RN meant?

If so, I do not see the quote added to this article in that article.

If there is no reason to have a mention of James G. Watt in this article, why is it here?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad. I meant James Watt. The only reason to mention him is if he was a major conservative who strongly opposed enviornmentalism. I assume that is why somebody put him there in the first place. The article about him says he was strongly opposed to environmentalists. I'll check if that's true, and make changes as needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The links at the James G. Watt article, are the same ones added here. They are still dead links, and I have tagged them accordingly, however WP:BLP may mean that the content can be removed. I have tagged requesting a reference.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

classic 19th century liberals are included as "conservatives" in this article;

I don't think, Rjensen, that the statement above, which you used to characterize your recent revert, is strictly true. It may be that I misunderstand what "classic 19th century liberals" means. I would have thought they were followers of John Locke and Adam Smith. Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation, modern US conservatives believe in regressive taxation. John Locke believed in religious tolerance. Modern US conservatives often say that "America is a Christian nation". It seems to me that the libertarian arm of the US Conservative movement has some beliefs in common with Classic Liberalism, such as the inherited superiority of the upper class, but differs strongly from Classical Liberalism in other areas. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith & John Locke were 18th century Brits, not 19th century Americans. but I reverted an edit that was based on three words in the source and ignored the evidence of conservatism in the Whig Party (which we have gone over before). The Whigs were religious evangelicals much like social conservatives in 2013 ; they were strongly pro-business; they had little support from labor unions. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would concentrate on the edit, rather than its description, which was in response to an earlier deletion of the descriptions conservative and liberal for Whigs and Democrats. TFD (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I did say "followers of". I have no problem with the edit, only the claim in the reason given for the edit. I will follow TFD's advice. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Question for Rjensen

I've done a search of "Lincoln's Enduring Legacy" and can't find a statement to back up your recent edit, which seems to equate the GOP with blacks, and to suggest that modern liberals do not revere Lincoln. The book does have a lot of good quotes, however, such as the Teddy Roosevelt quote about leaving the Republican party because the Progressive party followed Lincoln's dream, Or the FDR quote about extending Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves by emancipating the American worker. But, I haven't read the book, though I may, and apparently you have read it all the way through, so if you could add a quotation supporting your rewrite I'd appreciate it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading more of "Lincoln's Enduring Legacy", and am now convinced that it is improper to cite a collection of articles rather than a particular article. One comment by one author stands out, and I'm going to put that in place of your synthesis. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced to p. 10 (the introduction).[11] While it mentions some (liberal) writers called Lincoln a "white supremacist", I don't see any evidence that liberals have thrown him out of the pantheon. The term liberal today seems vague. TFD (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)