<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DarkNite</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DarkNite"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DarkNite"/>
	<updated>2026-10-07T17:23:51Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_politics&amp;diff=610248</id>
		<title>British politics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_politics&amp;diff=610248"/>
		<updated>2009-01-14T23:57:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DarkNite: Just a clarification of the Conservative role in the 80s-2000s&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''British politics''' take place within the context of a [[democracy|democratic]] [[parliamentary]] system dominated by three major parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The political culture of the UK tends to be more liberal than that of the United States, but less so than that of many other European nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Institutions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Parliament===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also [[Parliament]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cornerstone of the unwritten British [[constitution]] is ''Parliamentary supremacy'', or ''Parliamentary sovereignty''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Britain is one of a small number of nations without a written constitution, and the British legislature, ''Parliament'', is free to legislate however it pleases. In British law, the only authority higher than parliamentary legislation is the law of the [[European Union]], and Britain is subject to EU law only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has chosen to accept it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parliament consists of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]]. The Queen today takes no part in active politics (the last time that a monarch refused to ratify a law passed by the Lords and Commons was in 1714). While the House of Lords is considered to be the more prestigious chamber, the Commons is dominant by virtue of the fact that its members are elected rather than appointed. The Lords can only delay rather than veto legislation, though the Commons rarely chooses to push through laws against the Lords' wishes (it has done so only five times since the Lords' absolute veto was removed in 1911).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reform of the House of Lords is a current political issue in the UK. The House of Commons has resolved to make it more democratic, so that 80% or 100% of its members are elected rather than appointed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Executive===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British Government operates in the name of the Queen (or the &amp;quot;Crown&amp;quot;), but power lies in practice with the '''Prime Minister''' and his '''Cabinet'''. The British Prime Minister has one of the most powerful roles of any democratic head of government or head of state (though some, like the French President, have similar or more extensive powers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Devolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- bgcolor=cccccc&lt;br /&gt;
! Nation/Region || Legislature || Executive || Leader(s)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| '''[[Scotland]]''' || [[Scottish Parliament]] || Scottish Government || First Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| '''[[Wales]]''' || National Assembly for Wales || Welsh Assembly Government || First Minister&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| '''[[Northern Ireland]]''' || Northern Ireland Assembly || Northern Ireland Executive || First Minister and Deputy First Minister&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| '''[[London|Greater London]]''' || London Assembly|| Mayor of London || Mayor of London&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Northern Ireland is a dyarchy in which both leaders are regarded as equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Local government==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each locality in the UK has its own '''local authority''': there are '''councils''' of various sorts, as well as a number of elected '''mayors''' (most notably in London, whose current mayor is the controversial right-wing politician [[Boris Johnson]]). The powers of local authorities have been declining for many years, but it is believed that they are due for a significant revival.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that most mayors in Britain are relatively powerless officials who serve as mere figureheads (rather like the Queen), as the power is with the local council, of which the mayor is the leader. However, a number of cities, such as London, have powerful mayors with a full executive role.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Parties==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British political spectrum has historically been dominated by the '''[[Labour Party]]''' on the left, the '''[[Conservative Party]]''' on the right, and the '''Liberal Party''' (now the [[Liberal Democrats]]) in the centre between them (&amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; in British political terminology is often used to mean &amp;quot;centrist&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;moderate&amp;quot;, rather than &amp;quot;left-wing&amp;quot;). In theory, these parties represent the three main political ideologies; liberal, conservative and socialist, but recently, there has been a perception that the main parties are crowding together on the centre ground. In the 1990s, Labour moved decisively away from the traditional left (angering many of its more traditionally-minded supporters), to the point where it was perceived by many as being less left-wing than the Liberal Democrats. Since the advent of [[David Cameron]] as its leader in 2005, the Conservative Party has moved away from the territory of the traditional right (in this case too, angering many of its more strongly conservative or [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] supporters).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Labour===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Labour Party is the current party of government in the UK. It is also the largest party in the Welsh legislature and the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following its defeat by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979, the Labour Party adopted a strongly left-wing, socialist program. Following a catastrophic defeat in the 1983 general election, more moderate politicians took charge of Labour and slowly moved it closer to the centre ground of British politics, a process started by [[Neil Kinnock]] in the mid-1980s and carried forward enthusiastically by [[Tony Blair]] after his election as leader in 1994. Many more traditional, left-wing Labour supporters see Tony Blair as an usurper whose policies are too right-wing for comfort. This has been the case in particular following the Iraq War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Blair's policies were arguably a mixture of left (e.g. higher taxes, higher government spending, greater integration with the European Union, equal rights for gay people) and right (e.g. pro-market reforms in the public services, retention of Lady Thatcher's labour laws, support for the [[War on Terror]] and [[George W. Bush]]'s foreign policies).  His successor [[Gordon Brown]], once a close ally of Blair, has spoken out against the idea of the party shifting back to the left&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conservatives===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British conservatism has traditionally been a moderate, non-ideological creed: its heroes include such pragmatic figures as [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century and Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth century. These figures contrasted with contemporary conservatives from other European countries such as the French thinker [[Joseph de Maistre]], who were often strong, ideologically-minded supporters of absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Conservative Party's ideology diverged from cosensus corporativism during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher]] (1975-1990), becoming far more economically liberal and more socially conservative. Since Lady Thatcher resigned in 1990s, the strongly conservative element within the party has been somewhat eclipsed, due to Sir John Major (PM 1990-1997) wanting to distance himself from Thatcher's disastrous third term, and the current Conservative leader, [[David Cameron]], now espouses evironmental paternalism as opposed to Thatcherism. While this has caused dismay to many Conservative activists, it is much more suitable for 2000s consensus politics, increasing the electability of the Conservatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Liberal Democrats===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Liberal Democrats (or &amp;quot;Lib Dems&amp;quot;) were formed in 1988 by the merger of the old centrist Liberal Party with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP). They have long advocated disestablishing the [[Church of England]], and their current leader is [[Nick Clegg]], who has publicly said he is &amp;quot;not an active believer&amp;quot; in God, but claims to be &amp;quot;open-minded&amp;quot; about religion, has married a Catholic and is bringing his children up as Catholics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Nick Clegg is a believer in families, not God'' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3076044.ece Times Online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Liberal Democrats are divided between a relatively left-wing faction (to which the former leaders Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy belong), which has taken positions to the left of the Labour Party on a number of issues, and a more right-wing, pro-[[free market]] faction to which the present leader belongs (several of whose members contributed to a controversial collection of essays published in 2004 called ''The Orange Book''). Despite the range of view on economic issues, the party is consistently liberal, even libertarian, on social issues. The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of anti-discrimination laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scotland ===&lt;br /&gt;
The largest party in Scotland is the '''[[Scottish National Party]]''', which is in fact a major force in Scottish politics, being the largest party in the [[Scottish Parliament]]. It advocates independence for Scotland.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Wales ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is also a Welsh nationalist party, called '''Plaid Cymru''', or simply '''Plaid''', which currently in coalition with Labour has control of the [[Welsh Assembly]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Northern Ireland ===&lt;br /&gt;
Northern Ireland has a number of political parties:&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Democratic Unionist Party]]''' - strongly Unionist&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Sinn Fein]]''' - strongly Irish-Nationalist (&amp;quot;Republican&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Ulster Unionist Party]]''' - moderately Unionist&lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]]''' - moderately Irish-Nationalist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Minor parties===&lt;br /&gt;
There are several other minor British parties worthy of mention:&lt;br /&gt;
* The '''[[UK Independence Party]]''' advocates the withdrawal of Britain from the [[European Union]] and other more strongly conservative policies than those supported by the official Conservative Party.&lt;br /&gt;
* The '''[[Green Party (UK)|Green Party]]''' campaigns for protection of the environment, decentralisation and social justice. &lt;br /&gt;
* '''[[RESPECT Party|Respect]]''' is a strongly left-wing, socialist party led by the maverick ex-Labour politician [[George Galloway]].&lt;br /&gt;
* The '''[[British National Party]]''' is generally seen as an extreme right-wing or fascist party. It advocates the repatriation of non-white people from the UK to the countries of their or their families' origin.&lt;br /&gt;
*The [[Monster raving loony party|Monster Raving Loony Party]] is a 'joke' party, which however often receives significant numbers of [[protest vote]]s especially in high-profile [[by-election]]s (which may attract a large number, sometimes dozens, of other not entirely serious candidates).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:British Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DarkNite</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&amp;diff=610190</id>
		<title>Talk:Liberal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&amp;diff=610190"/>
		<updated>2009-01-14T23:35:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DarkNite: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==&lt;br /&gt;
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: &lt;br /&gt;
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' &amp;quot;A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.&amp;quot; is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''&lt;br /&gt;
The lists header &amp;quot;A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. &amp;quot; on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. picture'''&lt;br /&gt;
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Liberals in north america today'''&lt;br /&gt;
Again, no facts here. &lt;br /&gt;
the following claims are made: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second is unfactual due to the word &amp;quot;Some&amp;quot;. I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america]) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called &amp;quot;liberal media&amp;quot; (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Picture ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be &amp;quot;an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint&amp;quot;, but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Liberal Organizations ==&lt;br /&gt;
Center for Democracy &amp;amp; Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy &amp;amp; Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as &amp;quot;Progressive&amp;quot; organizations instead.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union  backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion?  Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]!  Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile.  Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can &amp;quot;think about&amp;quot; and claim as your own.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose.  But take my idea and let's collaborate.  That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me.  Let's collaborate and put something together.  Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Founding Fathers were liberal==&lt;br /&gt;
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. &amp;quot;No taxation without representation.&amp;quot; Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; for to begin with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Point is, &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase &amp;quot;pro-life.&amp;quot; Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not &amp;quot;pro-life&amp;quot; must be &amp;quot;pro-death.&amp;quot; And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed &amp;quot;conservatives&amp;quot; are as guilty of it as self profesed &amp;quot;liberals.&amp;quot; The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; lol...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==List at top==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a &amp;quot;liberal platform&amp;quot;, if you will. Why are there &amp;quot;studies&amp;quot; like this: &amp;quot;In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.&amp;quot; Why can't we just say &amp;quot;secularism and atheism&amp;quot;? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or this: &amp;quot;Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).&amp;quot; Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Clean up article==&lt;br /&gt;
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line &amp;quot;A &amp;quot;living Constitution&amp;quot; that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals&amp;quot;. This should be two lines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? &amp;quot;A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology&amp;quot; - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the &amp;quot;anti-bellum&amp;quot;). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: That better?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama: Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''&amp;quot;I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,&amp;quot; Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, &amp;quot;Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized.&amp;quot;  Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  states:  ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer.&amp;quot;  From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.''  It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04.  It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time.  The RNC spokesman said that Obama was &amp;quot;only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor&amp;quot;, but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said &amp;quot;Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track&amp;quot;.  I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestions: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the &amp;quot;See also&amp;quot; section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal Arts==&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't.  Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good suggestion.  I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==&lt;br /&gt;
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.'' &lt;br /&gt;
This definition is absolutely correct.  Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills.  Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]].  [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example.  He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939.  After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist.  Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions.  So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than  [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]].  Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different.  Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The philosophy of Liberalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DarkNite</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&amp;diff=610179</id>
		<title>Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&amp;diff=610179"/>
		<updated>2009-01-14T23:31:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DarkNite: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, &amp;quot;Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!&amp;quot;  This is Leninism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Socialism''' is a system of government which asserts that individual volition should be at all times subordiate to the state and society. Whilst Conservatism also stresses the importance of society (as opposed to liberalism, which emphasises the individual), it has very different views on how to promote it. The central value of socialism is equality, which socialists believe is necessary for a healthy society, whereas Conservatives believe that inequality is both necessary and inevitable, instead espusing noblesse oblige. Socialism work from the questionable premise that humans are generally a force for good, and will cooperate with their fellow men. There are many kinds, the most extreme of which is below&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Communism''' is an extreme form of socialism by which the means of production and distribution are tightly controlled by government rather than individuals.  This denies the right to [[private property]]. This is built on the premise that national government has superior claims on all property, and that eventually the need for government will evaporate into a harmonious anarchy. These are inevitably undemocratic or secular/theocratic (as in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba).&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Leninism==&lt;br /&gt;
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.  The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity.  Conservatives have been very hostile.  China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an &amp;quot;[[Iron Curtain]]&amp;quot; to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Democratic Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
The second form (sometimes called &amp;quot;Revisionism&amp;quot;) prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own (&amp;quot;nationalize&amp;quot;) major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europa and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism.  Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Communal Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Sometimes that has led to totalitarianism, as in [[National Socialism]] practiced by the German Nazis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;National Socialism&amp;quot; in German means something like &amp;quot;national society&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;national&amp;quot; meaning Aryan-and-not-Jewish; it called for an overwhelmingly powerful government alongside capitalism. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Key elements==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners.  Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.&lt;br /&gt;
===Welfare state===&lt;br /&gt;
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of the [[New Deal]] in the 1930s.  Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Religion===&lt;br /&gt;
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Acts 2:44: &amp;quot;Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance,  Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism.  Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.&amp;quot; A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated.  The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS).  This made - literally overnight - health care &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many &amp;quot;[[progressive]]&amp;quot; measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism of socialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism is often criticized by conservatives such as [[Bill O'Reilly]]. In his book ''''Culture Warrior'''' O'Reilly starts the book out by painting a bleak picture of what America would look like with a socialistic government. He states problems such as lawlessness, lack of morals and ethics and an overbearing politically correct &amp;quot;feel good&amp;quot; government.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPY4AAAACAAJ&amp;amp;dq=Culture+Warrior |title=Google books |accessdate=2008-02-22}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past Socialist Countries==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chile===&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 under the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism by democratic means. Strongly influenced by [[John Maynard Keynes]], the Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, &amp;quot;make the (Chilean) economy scream&amp;quot;. Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==&lt;br /&gt;
===[[Cuba]]===&lt;br /&gt;
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===North Korea===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of &amp;quot;Juche&amp;quot; - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Different Strands of Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Social democracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Welfare state]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Jude P. Dougherty, &amp;quot;Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile,&amp;quot; ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique&lt;br /&gt;
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761853&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761601&amp;amp;sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761601&amp;amp;sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DarkNite</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&amp;diff=610173</id>
		<title>Socialism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&amp;diff=610173"/>
		<updated>2009-01-14T23:30:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DarkNite: That intro needed a major clearing up. This is the objective evaluation of socialism as an ideology and its more extreme counterpart - communism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, &amp;quot;Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!&amp;quot;  This is Leninism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Socialism''' is a system of government which asserts that individual volition should be at all times subordiate to the state and society. Whilst Conservatism also stresses the importance of society (as opposed to liberalism, which emphasises the individual), it has very different views on how to promote it. The central value of socialism is equality, which socialists believe is necessary for a healthy society, whereas Conservatives believe that inequality is both necessary and inevitable, instead espusing noblesse oblige. Socialism work from the questionable premise that humans are generally a force for good, and will cooperate with their fellow men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Communism''' is an extreme form of socialism by which the means of production and distribution are tightly controlled by government rather than individuals.  This denies the right to [[private property]]. There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that national government, has superior claims on all property. These are inevitably undemocratic or secular/theocratic (as in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Leninism==&lt;br /&gt;
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.  The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity.  Conservatives have been very hostile.  China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an &amp;quot;[[Iron Curtain]]&amp;quot; to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Democratic Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
The second form (sometimes called &amp;quot;Revisionism&amp;quot;) prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own (&amp;quot;nationalize&amp;quot;) major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europa and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism.  Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Communal Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Sometimes that has led to totalitarianism, as in [[National Socialism]] practiced by the German Nazis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;National Socialism&amp;quot; in German means something like &amp;quot;national society&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;national&amp;quot; meaning Aryan-and-not-Jewish; it called for an overwhelmingly powerful government alongside capitalism. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Key elements==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners.  Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.&lt;br /&gt;
===Welfare state===&lt;br /&gt;
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of the [[New Deal]] in the 1930s.  Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Religion===&lt;br /&gt;
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Acts 2:44: &amp;quot;Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance,  Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism.  Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: &amp;quot;From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.&amp;quot; A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated.  The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS).  This made - literally overnight - health care &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many &amp;quot;[[progressive]]&amp;quot; measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism of socialism ==&lt;br /&gt;
Socialism is often criticized by conservatives such as [[Bill O'Reilly]]. In his book ''''Culture Warrior'''' O'Reilly starts the book out by painting a bleak picture of what America would look like with a socialistic government. He states problems such as lawlessness, lack of morals and ethics and an overbearing politically correct &amp;quot;feel good&amp;quot; government.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPY4AAAACAAJ&amp;amp;dq=Culture+Warrior |title=Google books |accessdate=2008-02-22}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past Socialist Countries==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chile===&lt;br /&gt;
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 under the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism by democratic means. Strongly influenced by [[John Maynard Keynes]], the Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, &amp;quot;make the (Chilean) economy scream&amp;quot;. Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==&lt;br /&gt;
===[[Cuba]]===&lt;br /&gt;
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===North Korea===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of &amp;quot;Juche&amp;quot; - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Different Strands of Socialism==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Social democracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Welfare state]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
* Jude P. Dougherty, &amp;quot;Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile,&amp;quot; ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique&lt;br /&gt;
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761853&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761601&amp;amp;sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1228761601&amp;amp;sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DarkNite</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&amp;diff=610148</id>
		<title>Talk:Liberal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&amp;diff=610148"/>
		<updated>2009-01-14T23:21:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DarkNite: /* The philosophy of Liberalism */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==&lt;br /&gt;
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: &lt;br /&gt;
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' &amp;quot;A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.&amp;quot; is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''&lt;br /&gt;
The lists header &amp;quot;A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. &amp;quot; on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. picture'''&lt;br /&gt;
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Liberals in north america today'''&lt;br /&gt;
Again, no facts here. &lt;br /&gt;
the following claims are made: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second is unfactual due to the word &amp;quot;Some&amp;quot;. I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america]) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called &amp;quot;liberal media&amp;quot; (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Picture ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be &amp;quot;an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint&amp;quot;, but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Liberal Organizations ==&lt;br /&gt;
Center for Democracy &amp;amp; Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy &amp;amp; Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as &amp;quot;Progressive&amp;quot; organizations instead.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union  backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion?  Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]!  Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile.  Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can &amp;quot;think about&amp;quot; and claim as your own.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose.  But take my idea and let's collaborate.  That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me.  Let's collaborate and put something together.  Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Founding Fathers were liberal==&lt;br /&gt;
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. &amp;quot;No taxation without representation.&amp;quot; Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; for to begin with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Point is, &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase &amp;quot;pro-life.&amp;quot; Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not &amp;quot;pro-life&amp;quot; must be &amp;quot;pro-death.&amp;quot; And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed &amp;quot;conservatives&amp;quot; are as guilty of it as self profesed &amp;quot;liberals.&amp;quot; The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; lol...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==List at top==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a &amp;quot;liberal platform&amp;quot;, if you will. Why are there &amp;quot;studies&amp;quot; like this: &amp;quot;In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.&amp;quot; Why can't we just say &amp;quot;secularism and atheism&amp;quot;? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or this: &amp;quot;Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).&amp;quot; Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Clean up article==&lt;br /&gt;
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line &amp;quot;A &amp;quot;living Constitution&amp;quot; that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals&amp;quot;. This should be two lines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? &amp;quot;A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology&amp;quot; - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the &amp;quot;anti-bellum&amp;quot;). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: That better?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama: Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''&amp;quot;I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,&amp;quot; Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, &amp;quot;Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized.&amp;quot;  Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  states:  ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer.&amp;quot;  From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.''  It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04.  It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time.  The RNC spokesman said that Obama was &amp;quot;only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor&amp;quot;, but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said &amp;quot;Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track&amp;quot;.  I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a &amp;quot;professor&amp;quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestions: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the &amp;quot;See also&amp;quot; section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal Arts==&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't.  Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good suggestion.  I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==&lt;br /&gt;
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.'' &lt;br /&gt;
This definition is absolutely correct.  Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills.  Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]].  [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example.  He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939.  After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist.  Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions.  So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than  [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]].  Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different.  Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The philosophy of Liberalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DarkNite</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>