From Conservapedia
< Talk:Liberal
This is the current revision of Talk:Liberal/Arch3 as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 04:11, 26 October 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between "liberal" and "liberalism"? (Don't play semantics, you know what I mean). And is it acceptable to simply have "liberalism" redirect here? I ask because Wikipedia was recently criticized for the inverse redirect, and I wondered if there was any sort of specific policy on that at Conservapedia... Feebasfactor 18:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia Citations

  • It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly

Some problems with Views

The following items from the list of views need some work:

  • a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)."
  • globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
  • opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
  • support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.

Hope this helps. -Harmil 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

"Strong" foreign policy

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years? If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? user:Tanktunker

  • I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous Liberal said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
    • He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tanktunker (talk)

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [1]. We could always bring back "opposition to American foreign policy [1] which advocates human rights [2][3] and democracy" [4]

with the references, of course.
  1. Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme(PDF).
  2. "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals" by Gal Beckerman, The Forward, September 30, 2005.
  3. Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil, Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003.
  4. President Bush's address to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in Vietnam. RobS 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of deceit as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. RobS 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone explain to me...

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

One of the liberal views is environmentalism. Certainly Greenpeace engages in environmentalism and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --Crocoite 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that's a little oversimplified - I happen to have a very old and good friend, a rancher who lives in Montana. He's a Republican, gun carrying, NRA member, pro-life, chruch-going, and a real American Man's Man. Yet he's a keen supporter of Greenpeace and the NRDC, because he's also a huge lover of nature - he's very keen on the reintroduction of the wolf, he advocates banning off-road vehicle use in most rural areas and has similar views on skidoos, he drives a Prius because he doesn't want to pollute the atmosphere or contribute to global warming, he generates his own windpower. I think people see the world in much broader shades of gray than the two boxes of Liberal and Conservative you seem so keen to put them in. BenHur 18:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

That's a non sequiter. You're assuming Greenpeace is an organization concerned about the environment. We usually ban disinformation activists/specialists. Right now you are in violation of 90/10 rule -- 2/3 of your edits are meaningless talk such as above. Rob Smith 20:47, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Why is it a non sequitor? The comment above mine says Greenpeace is a liberal organization, and I'm simply saying my Republican, God-fearing rancher friend wouldn't call himself a liberal if you paid him! He's a very 'typical Conservapedia' person in many ways, but he loves the environment, that's all - I'm simply saying there's people like you, who wouldn't agree with you about Greenpeace. And regarding my edits, I'm a new user around here, and I have contributed one edit to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was reverted, causing two comments, and this comment here. So that's 75/25, surely?

Finally, I'm not even a member of any environmental organizations myself! BenHur 21:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)


There should be something in this article about the root of the word "liberal", which comes originally form the Latin adjective "liber", the meaning of which is "free", and was also the root for anothe Latin adjective "liberalis", which means "generous".

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal is. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - Borofkin2 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. RobS 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice deceit." - Borofkin2 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. User:Order 24 July
We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. RobS 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - Borofkin2 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. User:Order 24 July, 11:50
How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for al-Qaeda? RobS 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. User:Order 24 July 14:00
Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. RobS 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. User:Order 24 July 14:45
I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? RobS 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.
I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [2]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. User:Order 24 July 15:15
I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further al Qaeda's stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.
For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.
This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.
So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. RobS 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.
But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. User:Order 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)

<-- OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:

  • A $500 per child tax increase.
  • A 55% death tax.
  • A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
  • A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
  • A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [3] RobS 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.
What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say
Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term "conservative." The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, liberal Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for "liberal."
This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.
How some something like:
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.

Feel free to start with your own definition. User:Order 25 July 11:50

If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.
I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. RobS 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

taxpayer funded abortion

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:

  1. Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
  2. State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).

Tester 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

You're not serious, are you? Rob Smith 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Liberals also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well. I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)


Great! Will do.
"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine. It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase. Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [4] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports") "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their real intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to exterminate minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes. This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."
So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion." Rob Smith 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? Kazumaru 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website. But it does make for a starting point here [5] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor"). Rob Smith 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... Kazumaru 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
A fringe nutjob who wrote for the Yippies Overthrow publication, and the Guardian newspaper, which was founded by a few KGB operatives and hired a reporter who actually took part in torturing American POWs during the Korean War. Yes, this fringe nutjob not only has a record of writing for marginal, fringe & extremist publications, is the inventor of bizarre conspiracy theories, this same fringe nutjob is in fact Wikipedia's Gatekeeper of political content--the person assigned by Jimbo & the Foundation to judge acceptable politcal content and sourcing for the information your children get all the Google hits on. Rob Smith 00:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Source? I like sources. Can I get a source? Kazumaru 00:38, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • "Berlet published a column in Overthrow, an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)" [6]
  • “Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left,” The Guardian (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3." cited from Berlet's own webstie [7]; Conservapedia's article on the Guardian#post-60s_radicalism gives you everything you need to know about Guardian, cited from a mainstream publisher (Prometheus Books), Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America, pg. 125.
  • "Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, and is highly regarded as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. He's definitely a credible source for WP and has been used as such in several articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC) [8]
  • "a valuable Wikipedia editor" Fred Bauder Sun Dec 4 15:37:38 UTC 2005 [9]


We need an article taxpayer funded abortion. Anybody care to give it a start? Rob Smith 13:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Another definition of liberal

In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the realism page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)

In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power. They believe that there is a complex interdependence between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization.
The opposite of a liberal is a realist.

Thanks!! Jazzman831 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

"an actor whose methods...etc" "complex interdependence between states" (really? who wudda thunk it...) "no hieracrhy of importance" IOW, peace isn't anymore of a priority than war, or famine relief is no more important than extermination and slavery.
Sheeesh, why do we get all these types? Can you give an example of this type of "actor"? Rob Smith 01:12, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, an actor in international politics is rarely actually an individual, it is any organization which makes or is involved with the foreign policy. But I'm not just making this stuff up, I basically copied the definition straight from my IP class notes. Some examples of liberal actors would be the UN, as well as many countries in Europe. The European Union is a textbook definition of a liberal organization. The US is basically a textbook definition of a realist, the opposite of a liberal. We (meaning the country's leadership with indirect influence from the citizens) generally believe that power and unilateralism are better (more effective) than institutions and international law. The USSR would be another great example of a realist state.
I realize it might seem to muddy up the definition of "liberal", but this isn't a new definition for a different type of liberal. It's applying the same definition (more or less) to a different level of politics. Jazzman831 16:45, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Sounds like more double speak to muddy the waters. Liberals, world-wide, tend toward socialism/socialistic thinking and policies. That the State should regulate and control more. That much is universal. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:50, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Eeeeeeh kind of. Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics. For example, no country has as part of it's foreign policy a "support of affirmative action" because it doesn't make sense in world-level politics. The IP definition of liberal also has nothing to do with socialism, that's again a lower level of politics. You could maybe argue that they want more government control... but that's not exactly right either. I wish they had invented a new term, because the two "liberals" are distinct from each other.
Just pretend that the IP liberal is actually some new word, like "miberal". If you go up to my definition and replace "liberal" with "miberal" it gets the message across better. "Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess! I hope this makes sense. Jazzman831 17:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT) PS: Just be glad I'm leaving the definition general. We could get into neoliberalism and transnationalism and REALLY get things interesting! :)
Considering it was Alger Hiss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Josef Stalin who created the United Nations, liberal may be the correct word to ascribe to it. However then, we must therefore incorporate its history into the United Nations, and an understanding of what the word liberal means. Rob Smith 17:37, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Unfortunately I don't have any information about the etymology of the word liberal. I don't know if it is related to the creation of the United Nations. I will see if there's a discussion in my IP books anywhere. Either way, they are still two different meanings, even if one meaning branched from the other in the past. Go through the article and you will find that much of it simply does not apply to world-level interactions. Jazzman831 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
That's fine rhetoric, but it's not accurate. It probably doesn't bother anybody on this website but me (there aren't a whole lot of political theory nuts in the world), but getting nuances like this correct are important if you want to be an accurate encyclopedia. Jazzman831 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
You seem to be describing a paid bureaucrat, however the "methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" is a little bit suspicious. And what term would describe an actor who rejects "no hierarchy of importance among international issues"? Rob Smith 18:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Bureaucrats though, tend to be very "conservative" i.e. "resistant to change" as a group in whatever political machine they find themselves in. A "conservative bureaucrat" in a Marxist regime would resist efforts to bring his country's policies in-line with an open and free market system. Conversely, a "liberal bureaucrat" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), in the same regime would be pushing for something closer to what US conservatives would like. Maybe it's time to chuck this "definition" for something workable. Samwell 19:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Luckily, Rob, I brought my text books with me to sell off... and luckily they haven't sold yet :) Here are some quotes which should clear things up, and prove I'm not just inventing this stuff! (from World Politics: the Menu for Choice by Russett, Starr, and Kinsella):
Power vs. international law and institutions
  • "liberalism was and continues to be a reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics"
  • "[Liberals] emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which prevented countries' actions."
Glossary definition
  • "Liberalism - A perspective that emphasizes the importance of institutions and linkages between states for facilitating cooperation, coordination, and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution"
An actor who rejects a lack of a hierarchy (in other words, an actor who believes there is a higherarchy) would be a realist: realists place security above all other matters. I'm not sure what you mean by the beaurocrat comment, though. Jazzman831 20:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, yes, this is classical liberalism; "benefits of collective security and the rule of international law" is moreless the same as a Wilsonian Democracy. This picture is however, incomplete. Because it is not a straight line from Wilson Democracy through the New Deal & post WWII institutions such as the UN or IMF. State planning intervened, and the modern idea of "liberalism" was corrupted. I haven't read enough of this stuff (your cite) to know if it makes that fact clear, or is just another fig leaf. This author evidently is David Kinsella, not to be confused with Stephan Kinsella, whose ideas I think are radically different. Rob Smith 23:21, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
I was talking with my friend who has had much more study on the subject, and she suggested I use the term idealist instead of liberal. This is an older term that means the same thing, but it's not as confusing or muddying as liberal. You are right, liberalism and idealism are similar, and they have similar roots, but they aren't the same thing. Both overlap, but they have different scopes and applications. Should I take this over to idealist then? (And yes, it is David; I don't know anything much about Stephan). Jazzman831 11:38, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Actually, I'm not certain that would fit, here's why: "reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics" and "focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" can be very pragmatic, as opposed to partisan ideologues (conservatives tend to speak in these terms, pragmatists vs ideologues). An actor (individual or entity) who ignores partisan "power politics", and driven by pragmatism and reality, probably is not so much of an idealist. "Idealist's" are generally regarded as dreamers; yet none the less, elected and appointed offices are full of these types, and they never cease trying to convert others to thier idealism. Rob Smith 12:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

See, though, this is just another problem with English, not a problem with the definition. Just as there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal), there are two types of idealists (the "opposite of a realist" idealist and the "opposite of a pragmatist" idealist). (There are also two types of realists!) My book takes 2 pages to give a basic definition of liberal (including the transition from idealists to liberals) and then another 400 pages distinguishing liberal from realist. (There's also another term, "radical", which generally describes the socialist view of world politics). Repeating this entire discussion is not practical in a concise encyclopedia, so I boiled down a whole semester's study (and then some) into the definition I gave at the top of this section (aaaaaaaaaall the way up there!). That definition needs to go *somewhere*, because right now the realist article states that "The opposite of a realist is a liberal" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist. Please advise me on where I should put this information. Jazzman831 16:06, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Let me offer an unfair, stereotyped conjecture about Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, which I have not read and is only based upon my own personal experiences and biases: these gentlemen appear to attempting to rehabilitate 'liberalism' (to a youthful audience) using band aids, duct tape, rubber bands, and paper clips. They are attempting to put a good face upon it, and deny & sweep under the rug much of the historical record since the aftermath of the First World War. They are attempting to paint a picture that draws a straight line through the idealism of Woodrow Wilson (and that entire generation at the time of Wilson which was highly ideological, that went to war to "make the world safe for democracy"), that then in theory this idealism supported radical social & economic change during the New Deal, as well as more foreign interventionism (which the record shows, again failed). And the two points that connect the dots in this theory of a continuity of "liberal ideals" is the failed League of Nations, and the (in theory) more successful United Nations.
All this disinformation is intended to indoctrinate young people who's political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet. So of course we have throw in the mix somewhere the notion of good guys & bad guys. Liberals of course, are always the good guys, forward thinking, kind, considerate, defenders of the oppressed, etc., and anyone who opposes them is of course, a conservative or Nazi by any other term. Never mind how we arrive at these conclusions, it is just getting there is all that matters. Rob Smith 16:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Um... no, that's not really the case at all. And it's a little foil-hatted, to boot. HSK are not the only sources we used in that class, either. We also drew from International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (which is actually a compiliation, so there are at least 20 or so more authors associated with it), as well as East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Relations Since 1945 by Geir Lundstad. My national security policy book also used the same definition, but I don't remember who wrote that off the top of my head (the book is at home). We also touched on it very minorly in my political theory class, which was taught by a visitng professor. My friend who is a 8th semester poli sci major at a completely different school from me read this conversation last night and agreed that I was using the right definition, and that this is the "official" international relations use of the term.
You keep substituting your opinion about liberalism for a critique of the definition of liberalism. Even if you don't agree with liberals (in either sense of the word) liberals still exist. Unlike the monster under your bed, what is in your mind has no impact on what is in the real world. You also keep using your modern frame of view to interpret the past. You complain that they aren't defining Wilson's ideology correctly, because they weren't defining Wilson's ideology. Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions. R, S, and K did not draw a false line from Wilson on; they gave a breif (2 paragraph) overview of ideological history from WWI through the creation of the UN to set the ground work. That's on pages 27-8. Then on pages 28-519 they describe modern ideology.
If you had taken my class you would have surely seen that there was no vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature of liberals -- half the class was about realists as well! We were taught the definition and we were taught how to apply the definition, but there were no value judgments made. If anything, the class had a "conservative" bias, because we basically brushed off the "radical" view entirely! There simply was no sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all.
Is there anybody else who has studied IP back me up here? I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased) opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education. I might have to ask for a refund! ;-) Jazzman831 18:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
That's all very good, and does answer much. Those paragraphs would be interesting to read (as everything you cite would be). But how do we reconcile somebody focused on the business of administration, i.e. "institutions and international laws," vs mindless partisan "power politics," and call them ideological dreamers instead of realists? This definition says persons focused on mindless partisan power politics are realists, and bureacratic administrators are dreamers and idealists. In either case, no generalizations would be true, because dreamers & realists exist both as bureacratic administrators and and persons "focused" on "power politics."
One further note, using the term "actor," to refer to an insitution rather than individuals doesn't tell us much; we are are still dealing with persons, and not some mindless machine or animal. Rob Smith 18:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Oh, I guess part of the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics". (Naturally, political power is a redlink :/) "Power" in this case would, like most of these terms, be best served by many paragraphs, but it can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack.

All of these terms have false implications in them due to the fact that they also mean something else. So idealist doesn't necessarily mean a dreamer, and a realist doesn't necessarily mean a pragmatic, at least not in the most conventional usage of these words.

The term "actor" isn't used to imply that these are mechanical organizations; it's used to group together all the people who have influence on decisions. You and I are individuals having a discussion, but if "The United States" and "Canada" have a discussion, even though there are more than one person involved, they are discussing the interest of only 2 actors -- each country. Also note that it's never President Bush making a foreign policy decision. He's affected directly by his advisors and his staff, and he's affected indirectly by the media and public opinion. So in a sense, it is a country acting, not a man. Jazzman831 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

I get it. Change the meaning of terms after you get committed to debate. Move the goal posts. Yes, that is liberalism.
So, you're still arguing only dreamers go after political power, and practical people do not. Yes, this does indeed appear to be the type of liberalism taught in college text books.
Here are two problems: (a) why do we have to redefine "liberal" since all the other terms we've discussed seem to serve just fine for the purpose and ideas they are intended to convey, and (b) what does this new definition of "liberal" stand in contrast to?
Let's get specific: the root term, "liber", from Latin means "to free." In 1900, liberalism was very popular, because it was respected as the thought & ideology that "liberated," or freed human beings from oppressive feudal regimes which lacked the Rights of Man. Than after WWI, on a vast international scale, the idea of "freeing" human beings from theism took root. By the 1930s in the United States, people didn't only need to be freed from religious beliefs, they needed to be freed from poverty & ignorance ("ignorance" in this sense, is another codeword for religious beliefs). Being freed from poverty means people have to be made wards of the state, and give up thier rights that liberalism had won for them. Being made a ward of the state means accepting Social Security and free Healthcare, but the cost is in human freedom.
So liberalism today seeks to liberate human beings from theism, and looks to the day a non-Christian messiah will come, heal the sick, raise the dead, give free healthcare, destroy international borders, raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour--including those who make $2 a day in Indonesian sweatshops, so without borders, and an equal distribution of poverty, we then will have true godless fraternity (to use a sexist term), liberty, and equality.
This is to raise from the ash heap of history that great leftist utopia that collapsed in 1992. "Liberal reformer" like Gorbachav tried to save it, but "conservative Communists" opposed him in a coup and took him hostage. Both failed. So who is Yeltsin?, since Gorby holds the title as the forward looking liberal reformer? Yeltsin was just another Stresemann, Kerensky or Al-Maliki, just an interim caretaker til the true liberal messiah arrives bringing us all our free lunch and making us all slaves again. Yes, this is progressivism. Rob Smith 21:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such. You misunderstood the definition and I clarified it, but nothing is different than it was when I started.
I have said nothing about dreamers (and neither have my text books). I have specifically denied that idealists are dreamers -- twice, I believe. And even if "idealist" did mean "dreamer" you've got it backwards! Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same think as what you seem to think it does).
I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of liberal does not apply to the world level of politics. "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", "affirmative action", "political correctness", "the Fairness Doctrine", "censorship of prayer in classrooms" (need I go on?) are all NATIONAL issues. They make NO SENSE on the international level. (b) the opposite of a liberal is a realist!! Still!
What the heck is with your anti liberal historical rant?! It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and as I said before, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS.
I am continually told that Conservapedia is a meritocracy. What qualifications do you have, may I ask? If Conservapdia wants to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" we really need to get past all the rhetoric, and rely on people who have studied the subjects. Otherwise we seriously need a name change. Jazzman831 22:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
  • (a) So, "the opposite of a liberal is a realist"
  • (b) "Realists are the ones who 'go after political power'"
  • (c) "liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
  • (d) Being focused on institutions and international laws is not "political power"
  • (e) "I never once changed the definition"
  • (f) "the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics".... "Power" in this case would... can be simplified to "the use or display of force"
  • (g) "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics....make NO SENSE on the international level."
  • (h) "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
  • (i) "Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS. "
Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning. You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical. You claim only "realists" are focued on political power. You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense." You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws is not "political power."' You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning.
In this lengthy discussion, we have had absolutely no disagreement on any of the terms both of us have used, save one. I point to it historic meaning, which is known, accepted, and has a record. You propose to redefine the term because it, "make NO SENSE on the international level." You go on to say, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Earlier you will recall, I noted, "somewhere we have throw the notion of good guys & bad guys in the mix." Evidently we have reached that point, where terms have changed their meaning so we have to throw good guys & bad guys in the mix, and the wrong good guys are being called bad guys.
So to set set the world right-side up again, we need to redefine terms. And of course it is only one term we need to redefine, liberal.
Can we agree, this pretty much summarizes what we have discussed? Rob Smith 23:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Pw sign 44.gif
Unfortunately there's no easy way to do this so I will have to make a list as well. My responses are in italics.
  • "Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.
  • "You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical." I do not. I said being focused on international law as opposed to political power (meaning generally coercive force).
  • "You claim only "realists" are focued on political power." Correct.
  • "You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense."" No, I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense (and I listed several), not all of the issues. You are putting words in my mouth.
  • "You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws is not "political power."'" Correct.
  • "You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning." I "assign a motive" when you go on a two-paragraph rant on the evils of liberalism and communism (which isn't liberalism on an international level -- it's radicalism). You are assigning value to a definition. And if the reasoning is convoluted, it's certainly not my fault; I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature and my class notes.
As far as I can tell, we disagree about "liberal" and "political power". We also disagree about "idealist", and "realist", unless I misunderstood what you were calling a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". So that's 4 terms. As I've said, I'm not trying to redefine a term, I'm trying to define a different, but similar, term that happens to use the exact same word. It's like the word "constitution". Ohio has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. The United States also has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. Both are similar, they use the same word, but they are not the same thing and one can not be directly applied to the other. Can you tell me, how many Democrats use the UN to negotiate domestic policy? And how many Republicans (realist is the analogy to conservative) use the military to enforce domestic policy?
I'm not sure what you mean by the good guy - bad guy thing. Last time you mentioned it you were talking about the bias of my classes, and now... you're the good guy and I'm calling you a bad guy? Or some political leader's a good guy being called a bad guy? I'm not sure.
I notice you keep ignoring my qualifications and you still haven't told me yours. You called basic IP concepts "disinformation". If this is a meritocracy why am I answering to someone who admits to not knowing the subject matter? I'm spending a lot of time here debating when I could be filling out other fundamental IP and national security concepts. It really would be faster if you'd flat out say that one sysop's opinion trumps two people's advanced study, and I'll move on to something else. Jazzman831 00:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


  1. So, when you quoted your teachers saying "political", you really meant "military." Ahh, now we see point.
  2. "I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense;" when you started this discussion, you expressly stated international issues, and articulated that very well. I never diverted into taxpayer funded abortion or eco-racism or any domestic issues. Nonetheless, international relations still is a sphere of human activities which for the most revolves around one group of persons selling the produce of thier labor to another group of persons, kinda like what happens everyday in grocery stores or an individuals place of employment. Here, the "actors" usually involve governments either facilitiating trade or impeding it (and nowadays, various NGOs also are involved).
  3. "I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature;" does your literature instruct you to assign a motive of hate to someone who questions its authors reasoning?

What we see here is, "liberals" now are just benign pacificist bureaucrats who stand in contrast to power mad militant killers. And the fact that they are focused on thier institutional jobs which require a political appointment does not make them political, or power hungry in any sense. The are just moreless social workers, focused on international law. Ahh yes, the good guys win out in the end.

As for me, I am a qualified historian. But the nature of my work and career remains classified. I was for many years a partisan political operative, but don't have the stomach much for it anymore, so now I just focus on my true love, historical research and writing. Rob Smith 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Another definition of liberal -2

Please read my original definition again. Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats or about realists being warmongers or killers. (In fact, realists and liberals were both a response to the same act; liberals did not come to being because of the actions of realists). Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever. Nowhere in the definition is their factually incorrect material. Most importantly, nowhere (within the original definition or elsewhere since then) have I personally endorsed liberalism. (For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist).
Please let me know when you have actually read anything at all about modern internation political theory, and we can continue this discussion (not that we will need to once you actually read the definition for yourself). You have officially succeeded in bullying me away from a subject you know very little about. Score one for the meritocracy. Good night. Jazzman831 01:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Simply put, why the need to redefine the term? Its meaning is very well understood by both liberal activists and critics of liberalism. Redefining it to some nebulous concecpt above that raises more questions than it answers just adds confusion. It's not that different than the Cheka, OGPU, GPU, MVD, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and finally KGB just finding a new name everytime the old one falls into disrepute. But the basic idea remains intact. Rob Smith 01:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob Smith: "why the need to define the term?"
  • "Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics"
  • ""Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess"
  • "Either way, they are still two different meanings"
  • "there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal)"
  • "right now the realist article states that "The opposite of a realist is a liberal" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist"
  • "I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of liberal does not apply to the world level of politics"
  • "I'm not trying to redefine a term"
Maybe from now on I'll just continue my part of the discussion/bullying by copy/pasting my own words. (See other responses below) Jazzman831 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, Jazzman is being taught with today's revisionist thinking. One cannot undo in some posts the years of brainwashing, which is what it realistically is. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:21, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
TK, I resent the implication that I'm not smart enough to know I'm being hoodwinked. I don't know what kind of crap you learned in school, but since I didn't attend the same school you did I don't insult your intelligence by presuming I know more about it than you do. I'd expect the same respect of my eduction. Jazzman831 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Of course. If college students got the idea "liberal" meant somewhere between useless and dangerous, we'd be in big trouble. So we have to promote nonsense like the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political. Then throw in the mix things like denying what we just said, or redefine terms in the midst of debate. This moreless puts the liberal stamp on the argument just in case someone gets confused.
One of the more pecular things about this redefinition is obscuring the line between "politcal" and "coerecive use of force." While liberals evidently are benign pacifists only pursuing careerism in international institutions which govern our lives, we need these politcally appointed caretakers to keep in check the power mad realists who wish to take our rights away, make war, rape the planet, and all sorts of other anti-liberal schemes.
It's been very "enlightening." And Jazman, here's a realists point of view. [10] Rob Smith 10:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob Smith: "we have to promote... the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political"
  • "I said being focused on international law as opposed to political power"
  • ""You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws is not "political power."'" Correct." (emphasis added).
Rob Smith: "redefine terms in the midst of debate"
  • "I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such."
  • "nothing is different than it was when I started"
  • "Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time."
Rob Smith: "liberals evidently are benign pacifists... [more ranty stuff about how I think liberals are better than realists]"
  • "there were no value judgments made"
  • "There simply was no sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all."
  • "Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats"
  • "Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever."
  • "nowhere... have I personally endorsed liberalism."
Rob Smith: "power mad realists... [more ranty stuff you think I said about realists]"
  • "Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same [thing] as what you seem to think it does)." (emphasis added)
  • "Nowhere does it say anything about... realists being warmongers or killers."
  • "For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist"
Rob, it is very obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. At first I wanted to help you understand, but now I see that it's an entirely futile effort. The definition of a liberal is World Politics 101 day 1. I literally learned this stuff on the first day of teaching in Intro to World Politics. Please let me know when you have taken 1 day of a class, and then your critique might actually have some merit. (Get it? It's that damn meritocracy biting me in the butt again! Talk about revisionism! The one with the most merit is the one with the stronger, more admittedly ignorant opinion). Your qualms with my definition come not from a problem of the definition, but of your ignorance of the subject matter. Jazzman831 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
It's so simple. I asked how being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not poltical. You can't explain it. Then, when you (or your teachers whom you claim to parrot) use "political power," somewhere you translate the term "power" into "coersion", Then you turn the phrase around to "power politics", which gives a whole new and entirely different meaning from "political power." I dwell on. I ask you again. You retort: ""Power" in this case would...can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack."
Now its hard to see if your parroting your teachers or not. Obviously, "focused on political power", and "focused on power politics" have two entirely different meaning. I pressed you on it several times. When you finally did give a defintion of "power", it was in reference to something other than what your cited text books said. You referred to "power politics" and military force. Being "focused on political power" does not carry this connotation. And you as yet have not explained how being focused upon institutions and international law is not be being focued on political power. Rob Smith 20:16, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob, read a book, please. Why can't I explain how it's not political? Ready for this? It is political! It has been the whole time! I said it's not POLITICAL POWER. Here it comes again:
Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power!
Got it? They ARE political. They are NOT political power. Understand yet?
No. Rob Smith 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way; I'm sorry I wasn't careful enough with my phraseology. I'm not a professional teacher. However, if I clarify something, is it really that hard to use the clarification? When I say "political power is not mindless power politics" stick with that; it's what I really mean, even if you misunderstood what I meant otherwise earlier on. It's kinda hard to change the past.
You seriously need to educate yourself in this area before you critique others. You are a historian, so let me use an analogy from within your field of study. What you are asking me is akin to me asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies" and everything would be clear.
Has Conservapedia changed somehow without me knowing? Have Ed Poor and Andy Shlafly turned away from their undying oath to "Conservapedia is a meritocracy"? I also hear people complain a lot about how Wikipedia is scaring away their professionals, leaving them with only novices. Was it possibly because of "discussions" like this one? Jazzman831 22:05, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


  • You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way
Typical marxist doublespeak.
  • asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies"
Me recommending commie propaganda? Not likely.

Summary: Ok, so you come here as a student of 101 IP class (whatever IP is, I'm assuming it stands for something like "International Politics" or something; I don't work hard to keep up on academic fads). You give a fairly liberal-to-marxist alleged "definition" of "liberal." The defintion raises more questions than it answers, as marxist gobbledygook usually does. When quearied on it, you (a) claim your just parroting class notes and matierials, (b) begin using words and phrases that evidentally don't appear in the class notes. Then you proceed to give your own interepretation as to what the teachers said while at the same time maintaining its all course material.

Somewhere, beginning with the questions I asked to clarify the definition, everything got lost. This only supports my suspicion the definition you cited is in fact liberal-marxist gobbledygook, and your answers only support that. You started reading things into the text that were not there, for example, the inability to see the difference between "focused on political power" and "focused on power politics" (I pray you are not contemplating pursuing and career in diplomacy).

In spite of all this, and reflecting on it all, I actually have come to see the point you & your teachers are trying to make. Put briefly, the UN & liberals are the good guys, focused on law & every sweet smelling thing, whereas the handful of "realists" in the world, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and Iranian theocratic actors ignore all this stuff and do what they deem is in thier own best interests. So while Kim Il-Sung spends much of his time watching pornographic videos, the people of Cuba eat rats because the cats & dogs were all eaten decades ago, and the Iranian actor(s) dream of Islamic Middle Eastern hegemony, we all take comfort in the fact they are not lead by dreamers, but by realists.

So you made you point, I understand it. And actually it is not a simple as I've characterized, but I'm not certain you understand what your teachers are saying. Rob Smith 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Is that seriously your response, Rob? That I'm a Marxist? And that my professors are Marxists? And that the "for Dummies" series are commie propaganda? Very professional mode of discourse. I thought sysops were supposed to be of superior quality to other editors, but that reply just makes you sound idiotic. You don't have to do a lot of work to find out that those claims are just plain wrong. For instance I have said several places on this site that I am quite the opposite of a Marxist, and I have said several times within this conversation that I am not a liberal. No offense meant, but do you read my replies, or just skim them for quotes to take out of context?
Rob, how in the hell do you know what I'm adding to the text? Have you read the text? You don't even know that IP stands for international politics, how are you supposed to somehow magically know what's in an entire IP (that's international politics) text book? I can see the difference between YOUR definition of political power and YOUR definition of power politics. I said before, I'm sorry if I wasn't careful enough, but I MEANT the same thing by the two phrases. I never said the two were the same thing. This whole conversation is about the different use of the same words within two different fields of study -- is it really that hard to grasp that you can't just substitute whatever definition you want?
For some reason your eyes keep missing this next part, so I'm going to make it easier for you to read: I never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My teacher never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My book never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. I have called myself a realist several times -- why would I call myself a bad guy? This next part is going to blow your mind, ready? If you read my definition and think that liberals are the good guys and realists are the bad guys, it's because YOU think liberalism is somehow inherently good and realism is somehow inherently bad. It's especially baffling to me that you take issue with the fact that Sung, Castro, and various Iranian leaders are bad guys -- and ignore that the US is a good guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very conservative viewpoint here.
The important point to remember here is that you are pushing away an editor who has made many good faith and useful edits. You obviously don't have many editors with experience in international politics or national security theory, so I found a niche in which I could help out. I have a long list of red links within both of those areas but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily decide you don't like my work. I don't think it's very good for the project as a whole to be in the practice of pushing away editors based on edits in areas in which you have no expertise. Jazzman831 16:30, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
To quote Ronaldus Magnus, "Well, ...well,... and ...well...."
  • Ok, so in IP 101 they teach "power politics" and "political power" are the samething; it must be in IP 102 they draw a distinction.
  • You've gone onto a discussion of "realism" without satisfactorily defining "liberalism", so I'm not going to ask for a definition of "realism." Let's just not go there.
  • You've repeatedly made personal comments, some even of disparaging character, which makes me think (a) you are not suited for the field of foreigns affairs, and (b) you are using liberal & commie methods.
  • "I have a long list of red links ...but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily (sic) decide you don't like my work."
Response: Nothing arbitrary about it. See my recent comment here [11] The source I am referring to calls every US President who opposed Communism a "killer", and FDR, who faciliated Communist enslavement of 100,000,000 people, and handed over 2,000,000 people to the Communists for extermination, a "hero."
So let me conclude, you better have your sources particularly well qualified -- that is your responsibiltiy. If it is commie prop, with commie intent, my job is to keep it and the offending editor out. Rob Smith 17:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
  • No, they don't teach that they are the same thing. Please read what I wrote and try again. I really am not going to explain this point any more because I can only say the exact same thing so many ways.
  • Realism is the opposite of liberalism. What realism is, liberalism is not. The two help define each other, and neither makes sense without the other.
  • You have repeatedly accused me of being a liberal, Marxist and commie, are these not personal remarks? I have observed your behavior; that these traits of yours are disparaging is not my fault.
  • Wait, so you are basing your Marxist claims on a reference I've never seen? That's a bit of a non-sequiter, don't you think? I never used that source for class, or for this discussion, and until you linked to it I have never read it. It is an anonymous blog, not an international politics authority, and has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever.
In conclusion: it's my responsibility to prove that I am qualified (which you define as "gives the answer I want to hear"), even though there's really no way for you to know if I'm qualified, since you aren't familiar with the subject matter. Against my repeated denials, and my declaration on my user page and elsewhere (and my 1000+ uncontested edits to Conservapedia), you continue to call me a "commie" (which is, by the way, a dasparaging remark). You claim my book (which you have not read) is propaganda, my teacher (whom you have not met) is a Marxist, and the entire field of international politics (in which you have had zero hours of training) is secretly a liberal plot to promote socialism, and I'm just not smart enough to notice. Jazzman831 17:43, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


Ok let's beat a dead horse a little more. I never said anything about you. I refered to some of the arguments and claims you made as being marxist, and you specifically declaimed them all and blamed your teachers. I asked you to clarify a few times who was speaking, but never got a straight answer.

Here's what I think you and/or your teachers are trying to say:

  • Liberalism is defined by "liberal institutions" such as the United Nations, and the rule of law.
  • Realpolitik characterized a succession of events and crises that finally precipitated the formulation of the United Nations.

So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term Realpolitik and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. Rob Smith 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
  • Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't defined by institutions, it is characterized by the utilization of institutions.
  • We didn't use the term realpolitik, because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe Thomas Jefferson, would you? Realpolitik does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where realpolitik takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.
I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."
That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? Jazzman831 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Yah but virtually all these alleged "realist" actors are members of the liberal insitution, the UN. And this definition of "realism" is misleading, because in truth they are virtually non-existent (Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is the only case in recent memory).
That is a very interesting quote; I'd gather from it (and other evidence) RKS are trying to "systematize" the study of international relations. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I believe some of the cracks in the foundation have been identified. Namely, attempting to draw a straight line from early twentieth century liberalism til now.
Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to classical liberalism, and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by Woodrow Wilson, not Franklin Roosevelt, Alger Hiss, and Josef Stalin, the architects of the United Nations. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? Rob Smith 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.
First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.
Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.
Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).
I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. Jazzman831 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh haa....the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler. And this isn't Marxist goobledygook? Rob Smith 20:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Here's the problem: divorce this idea of "liberal" from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue pedophile Peacekeepers and the greedy Oil for Food scam represents modern "liberalism"). Rob Smith 20:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Are you really that thick Rob? NadhoB 20:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
My little finger is thicker than my father's loins. (1 Kings 12:10). [12] Rob Smith 21:06, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
(I'm going to ignore the "loin" comment, because frankly it brings to mind disturbing images.)
I'm assume, since you are a historian (which I believe without having you prove it, by the way), that you know that those three Germans you mentioned didn't skirt the UN, since they all died before the UN's formation. I'm guessing what you meant by the "goobledygook (sic)" comment is that those four were all realists? If so, you are making the false assumption that if one or many members of a group are bad then all must be bad. The United States is a realist power, and like it or not, some dictatorships are also realist powers. This isn't Marxist opinion, it's a fact (and anyway you haven't shown any glorification of Marxist ideas, only the association of "good" ideas with "bad" ones). So, if I use your logic, the United States can't be realist, because only bad guys are realist. This, by process of elimination, makes us liberal instead, which by your definition (the definition on the main article) means that as leader of our country, President Bush supports abortion, high taxes, same-sex marriage, fair trade, labor unions and globalism? That doesn't seem right to me, but then again, I only have a background in international politics, not world history.
I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? Jazzman831 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)


Go back and see what I posted before: you somehow got "liberalism" all confused and bound up with the United Nations. The United Nations is not democratic, never was, and may perhaps never will be. The United Nations is not even a parliament or law making body.

So if you wish to discuss the concept of liberalism in the field of international relations, foreign policy, "globalism", or whatever, forget using the UN as part of that definition. We may discuss it as part of an example, or in its historical context & development, its role in international relations, foreign policy and globalization, but let's not use it as part of a defintion. To quote yourself, "That makes no sense." Rob Smith 18:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Please look at my definition. It really clears a lot of things up when you know what you are talking about.
Liberalism is not defined by the UN, the UN is an example of liberalism, as it clearly says in the definition. I added it as a clarification to the reader; to give the reader something with which they are familiar in order to solidify the concept. Liberalism does not hinge on democracy, as it says clearly in the definition (you were the first an only person to mention democracy, so how it got mixed up with what I said is beyond me). Remember those "international institutions", "international law", and "avoidance of political power" things you got hung up on before (they were all in my definition)? Those are what liberalism hinges on, not democracy. Liberals generally support democratic peace theory (great another red link; guess the IP nerds all got scared off), but that's not because liberals promote and requires democracy, it's because they recognize that democracies lower the barrier towards creating a "complex interdependance" between states (another term directly from my original definition).
Why does the UN have to be a law making body? Didn't we have the conversation about "actors" verses "states" already? Any state, NGO, or IGO (such as the UN) is an actor. Any actor can be classified as liberal, realist, radical, or somewhere along the scale between them (though since most can not use force, there is a high proportion of liberal IGOs and NGOs).
So since you tell me to use the UN as an example, and I do use it as an example, I guess you finally think something I say is right? (Have you actually been reading up on international politics? Or am I actually changing your mind?) I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? Jazzman831 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • the UN is an example of liberalism
This is where we have a problem.
  • Liberalism does not hinge on democracy
This is where we have another problem. Rob Smith 20:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm just butting in here, but I think the country would be much better off without the UN. They are way too libral and only seek to stop the United States from taking actions, like in Iraq. As for the second point, Liberalism does not need democracy to florish--look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. --Todd 20:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob does not have a background in international politics'
Problem three. Minor problem, as long as you are willing to learn new ideas.
  • Rob clearly doesn't read my entire post, but still expects to understand my entire argument
Problem four. A larger problem, because I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself.
  • Rob wants to apply his definition to liberalism (as well as realism, actor, and political power) then claim my examples don't fit my definition.
Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. Jazzman831 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. Rob Smith 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).
If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.
I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. Jazzman831 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
You're really not getting anywhere. You're not even trying to answer my questions, and your personal demeaning responses directed at me only add weight to this being marxist trolling. Rob Smith 00:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, nowhere in my post did I attack you, but you imply, again, that I am a Marxist. Isn't this demeaning? This is an ad homenem argument that has no basis in this debate, and at any rate is easily refuted by my numerous edits on this site. You also complain that I'm not answering your questions. Your last post contained no questions, therefore there were none to answer. I did write a lengthy response to your statement, though; I don't really know what else I could have done to satisfy you.

My post, however, had five questions, none of which you answered. One set of questions I have asked five times total, just within my last 6 posts, and you have either not been reading my posts all the way through, or you have decided to ignore my question entirely. In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully, which explains how we can be discussing a 66-word definition for over 6 days. I take it, by the fact that your posts get shorter and more vague each time, that you have run out of criticisms. Is this a fair assessment? (And, before you say it, that's not meant to be an attack; your posts have gotten shorter, and they get less and less specific as time goes on. Your last one didn't even reference the subject in question). JazzMan 00:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. Rob Smith 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
According to the same 66 word definition, NATO would be a "liberal organization". Samwell 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Correct, Samwell. Collective security is a major attribute of liberalism, thanks for the helpful example. JazzMan 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not really sure where to put this, but I wrote it to respond to Rob's post then had to go to class and never posted it. I'm going to keep it separate from the pedophilia discussion, because... well I just will. Begin original message:
Such a strong intellectual argument, Rob. I'm glad you are contributing positively and with solid points, not at all how you guys always claim a liberal would respond. I'm pretty sure if I had come up with an answer such as yours you would have complained that I was demeaning you again. If I or another editor had said that about something you wrote you would have blocked them and called them a troll. This is just another sentence to see how thoroughly you read what I write. I'm still betting on "skim". If you don't have any more arguments, it's not time to turn to ridicule. It's ok though, this probably doesn't happen to you very often. Most of the time around this site editors get blocked long before a sysop runs out of counterarguments; you just don't know what to do when confronted with this situation. Here's what you do: thank an editor for his well-defended contribution and add it to the article.
  • Trash: says who? And why? There are a lot of people who disagree with you and you really need some actual solid points to back a claim like that up.
  • Unencyclopedic : how? The definition is written in absolutely encyclopedic language, and it's just as useful in an encyclopedia as any other political ideology. This is also the first time you have had any problems with its use in the encyclopedia.
  • Marxist tripe: back to the old standby, I see (though you finally dropped the "gobbledygook"). How is my definition Marxist? You've never really explained that, and the only time you've ever actually used the word is to denegrate me in some way. I'm assuming you do know what Marxism is, and you aren't simply using it as an attack word. This is a correct assumption, right?
  • Garbage used to corrupt young minds: ah yes, insulting my intellegence again (and that of the many thousands of political scientists in the world). I fail to see how this stuff corrupts anybody at all. You also have failed to prove the motive of an entire field of political science (including those outside academia) to corrupt minds. At any rate, all you have to go on is what little I have told you about my entire political science experience. It's really rather ignorant to assume that you know everything about political science based on a couple of claims, especially when I've stated over and over that I'm simplifying some of them for the sake of argument and brevity.
In conclusion, you are requiring me to have an overwhelming burdon of proof, wheras you seem to just spout off things from time to time, and then drop them when you can't back them up. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but you keep calling me names and resorting to unsupported claims and accusations. I try to answer every single point in each of your posts, and then you accuse me of not answering your questions. You sort of answered some of my questions, but it's still rather clear that you aren't reading all the way down to the bottom of my posts (and not reading all of the text within my posts). I asked a question 5 times, and referred to it one more time. You last post answers it tangentially at best. I'd ask it again, but you can just read the last paragraph of 5 of my last 7 or so posts and find it there, written five different ways. JazzMan 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Ok, let's divert into the specifics: The UN Security Council obviously is made of realists, isn't it? Why would it exist otherwise? And we know realists are invited to join this liberal organization. How do realists get in? They practice realism, i.e. kill all thier domestic poltical opponents, and that qualifies them as members of a liberal organization.
How does the Security Council of this liberal organization keep peace? It sends pedophiles to commit atrocities. And this is "being focused on international law."
Right. We know where all this is going, don't we? Rob Smith 15:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Where what is going? You seem a little obsessed with pedophiles today, Rob. Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument. I'm trying to have a rational discussion and you can't seem to get past your own opinion.
Realists have to kill all their domestic "poltical" opponents to get in to the UN? Are you nuts? Who did George Bush kill to become president? I believe you'd call me a Marxist (incorrectly, of course) if I suggested Bush violently forced himself into office.
As for the Security Council there are two points to be made. The first and most important point I have made before: politics is not black and white. Just as being a member of the UN does not automatically make you a liberal, using force does not automatically make you a realist. What is the UN's process? Do they shoot first and ask questions later? No, they discuss issues for months and months before anything happens; this inaction has lead to the death of thousands of people. This is another sentence I'm putting in to check your reading comprehension. You are zero for three so far. When they do use force, it's not using it to "keep, increase, or demonstrate [its] power," which is how realists use force (it's from the definition page, by the way). The UN does not have an army, it has a Peacekeeping force. It does not build up its force to influence countries into action, it sends in force to keep the peace. Technologically, the UN Peacekeepers are not set out for warfare, and purposfully so. If you have to have a military force, this is certainly the most liberal way to do so. JazzMan 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument
You gonna deny an organization you've bent over backwards for days now, to say, "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization" did not send pedophiles while it was " focused on international laws"? I gave you fair warning above, at least twice, "forget using the UN as part of that definition", "divorce this idea of 'liberal' from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue pedophile Peacekeepers and the greedy Oil for Food scam represents modern "liberalism"). But for some reason, you wish to continue pushing the idea pedophilia is liberal. You almost have me convinced now to put this stuff in. Be my guest and convince me, please. Rob Smith 20:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Rob how can I ever convince you of anything, when you clearly aren't actually reading my defense? Believe me, it has very difficult so far. Did I say they did not send pedophiles, or are you just assuming that's what I must have said? It is ignorant to say that "the UN can not be liberal because it sends pedophiles to commit atrocities". Are you trying to say that they actually recruit pediphiles, and send them out with the order "go be bad little men"? This is the fifth time I've added a sentence for you to miss when you aren't reading what I write. That is not a rational or credible argument whatsoever. It's a great rhetorical argument, though -- but rhetoric is something they teach in revisionist classes, not educational ones. I didn't take the revisionest class, so I'm not really sure whether or not to associate pedophilia with liberalism or realism. It kind of just sounds like not strong enough background checks to me.
I really wonder why you are so afraid of calling the United Nations a liberal organization. You obviously don't like the UN, but you also don't like liberals, so what's wrong with associating them? Are you a liberal, or are you just being argumentitive because you've run out of things to say? You are trying really really hard to prove something that (a) isn't true and (b) isn't in your own interest to prove. I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 21:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Would you agree the UN "Peacekeepers" have sufferred some damage, and people may rather continue thier own bloody conflicts rather than import US taxpayer funded pedophiles? And where are the liberal reformers to reform this liberal mess? What about US taxpayers who pay 40% of the UN's budget? What are we supposed to do? Say, let that liberal organization handle its own mess it created, and continue footing the bill? What happens when liberals start trashing the US for funding UN pedophiles? Don't say I didn't say I told you so, cause I did. There is a serious, serious crisis in liberalism. Rob Smith 22:09, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Rob, do you agree with socialism? Do we have a definition of socialism on the socialism page? Do you agree with homosexuality? Do we have a definition of homosexuality on the homosexuality page? Do you agree with evolution? Do we have a definition of evolution on the theory of evolution page? (I could keep going, but I find you barely read anything I write, and my wrists are getting tired). You obviously don't agree with liberalism, but yet you still aren't allowing a definition of liberalism on the liberalism page.

The point is this: stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe. Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is not the same as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism is. If it makes you feel better, I admit that some UN peacekeepers are apparently pedophiles. What does this contribute to the definition of liberalism? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

This really is one monster of a debate. Bohdan 23:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
That it is. JazzMan 00:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Saddam is realist? Who opposed Saddam's removal? Who opposed Iraqi democracy? Who, while being focused on international law and institutions, refused to enforce thier own resolutions? Who opposed bringing human rights to Iraq? And who to this day opposes Iraqi democracy and human rights? Your professors & school books ignore all this, and it did not happen over night; that is to say, "liberals" abandoning "liberalism", and "liberal actors" abandoning "liberalism" isn't just a phenomenea of recent years. Its been developing for several decades now.

This isn't my definition, but it is an observation anyone can see of recent events. Rob Smith 23:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, we are back to Saddam then? You keep jumping around from topic to topic and it's hard to tell what will catch your interest next. To answer your questions, in order: yes, the US (in a realist way, overruling the UN's failing liberal tactics), terrorists? (unless you are talking rhetorically; remember I said I didn't take the rhetorical class), the UN (decision making is another portion of international politics study; read the book and this makes sense), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically). You did not go to my class and you did not read my text books, please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [13]
The point is this: stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe. Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is not the same as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism is.
I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
What do you know of Toynbee's theory of Challlenge and Response? [14]
"the challenge of being called upon to create a political world-order the framework for an economic world-order confronts our Modern Western society...the challenge of the increase in material 'drive' which Industrialism and Democracy entail ...confronts our own society in our day in an unprecedentedly high degree., in the twentieth century, the problem of 'world-order' and 'material drive', which found no solution in the medieval city-state cosmos, have presented themselves again—and this time more intensely than ever—on the newly-achieved scale of the Great Society. "
This is written by probably the foremost promulgator of all the arguements that were presented to all the founding "actors" of the United Nations to induce them to participate (trust me, I know the language). And if wish to read his material, I'll present it chapter and verse. Rob Smith 01:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not familiar with Toynbee. Could you paraphrase what it has to do with this? JazzMan 10:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Toynbee was the Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and Chatham House, the editor of Survey of International Affairs, and other works. Toynbee lays out all the reasons of what, how, and why the United Nations came into existence. His works have all the arguments that were made to every nation, language, and culture, as to why they should participate in the international organization of the United Nations. It is the central theme of his life work, really beginning even before WWII when the League Treaty was still in effect.
Toynbee began his Study of History in 1927 and completed it in 1963. He's not only an eyewitness of all the events, beginning with in his own words, when "1914 seized my generation by the throat," down through the failed League, Spanish Civil War, Appeasement, Chamberlain, Hitler, the Commintern, Japan, Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, Stalin, etc. etc. etc., with all the historical background material relating to six surviving, of 23 civilizations (in his accounting, however he allows for other variations) that have appeared on planet earth since the dawn of history.
Toynbee made all the arguments to all founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Familiarize yourself with some of the background material, then we can discuss the the stuff from your 101 text book from a US government funded college campus you wish to insert. Rob Smith 11:51, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism. I also find it interesting that now you are asking me to familiarize myself with some random reference you give me, when I asked you to familiarize yourself with any source piked from a large body of study and you have not.

Also, you are presuming to know something about my education again, which I asked you not to do. Please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [15] I go to a private school, with minimum government funding, at most, and certainly no government determination of the curriculum. I am attending this school thanks to the generosity of alumni and by significantly increasing my own debt. Please do not suggest that I am mooching off the efforts of the hard-working American taxpayer.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 17:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Toynbee is not an observer of others, Toynbee expresses the reasons why a UN was needed. To use the short hand you like, Toynbee was an insider. Toynbee is the granddaddy of em all in expounding the intellectual arguments and reasons that others responded to when they signed up to join the UN. Rob Smith 18:05, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Uh... ok. I never said he was an observer of others, or that he wasn't an insider. In fact, I've admitted to not even knowing who the man was. Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism.
I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 19:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I'll be happy to enter into a modus vivendi with you. Rob Smith 20:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
About the UN, or about the whole definition? JazzMan 22:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Does this definition state how the liberal organization, the United Nations, and others self described as liberals, actively opposed the removal the realist, Saddam Hussein? IOW, the liberal UN & liberals opposed human rights, opposed democracy, and supported a realist. Rob Smith 22:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Sooooooo... what happened to the modus vivendi?

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 23:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I gave you chance to explain how libs & lib orgs support realism; you dodged the question. Let's do the modus vivendi. Rob Smith 23:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I "dodged" your loaded question because you brought up a modus vivendi then changed the subject, and I was trying to change it back.
Which part are you talking about, specifically, when you say you are willing to end the discussion? I've been willing to agree to disagree on the liberalness of the UN, and I have said six times (I counted) that I'm willing to drop this part of the definition if that's the only thing holding it up. JazzMan 00:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, let's see some proposed text. Rob Smith 00:12, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Man, I hope you're joking. Here's the text:
In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power. They believe that there is a complex interdependence between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues.
The opposite of a liberal is a realist.
JazzMan 00:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Just don't see where any of it applies; especially in light of of liberal support of realism. Rob Smith 00:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, with all due respect: what the hell? You are trying to say that the UN disproves my definition, because it's a liberal organization that acts like a realist. That is a complete logical fallacy -- it either is liberal, or it is realist. Pick one. If it follows my definition it's a liberal, and if it doesn't it's a realist. You simply can't use it as an example to disprove my definition. (And at any rate, your argument shows a poor understanding of liberalism; "supporting" realism doesn't necessarily negate liberalism.) Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree about the UN anyway. Why do you keep bringing up other issues? JazzMan 10:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Either a liberal or a realist? Where did this come from? Talk about a logical fallacy. You'd do better to argue its either a carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore--that would have more standing in fact, logic, reason, or evidence. Rob Smith 17:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Fine, what is it then? JazzMan 17:14, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Its a conglomeration of some sort. It supposedly has lofty ideals, but an abysmal record, particularly since its very founding. It has fundamental flaws in who it allows as members. And most troubling aspect of all is the pure tripe and disinformation it indocrtinates child with in the American public school system regarding (a) it purpose, (b) how it functions, (c) its history. Rob Smith 17:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, if you refuse to label it, then it doesn't really hurt my definition, right? I took the UN out of the definition, just for you. JazzMan 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
The UN is a community of diplomats living in close proximity to one another. It almost a Sharashka of sorts, to use a Russian word. [16][17] I see Ed Poor recently referred to it a "parliament", but it is not a parliament. By parliament we mean law making body. It is not a law making body, and has no legislative powers. You will note the American representative is an Ambassador, and not a Legislator; to be otherwise would be inviolation of the Separation of Powers doctrine, as any school child can discern.
It's just a location were various soveign governments get together and debate, discuss, and sometimes actually conclude various multilateral international agreements. But unlike a parliamentary system, those agreements are only binding upon the participatory powers, and not other non-signatories to an agreement. Use of force is a separate issue, and I can discuss that separately. Rob Smith 17:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
So can we put my definition of liberal into the page, since I took the UN part out, and the UN "isn't liberal"? Is there something wrong with my definition, now that the UN is gone? (We can debate the fact that what you just described is very, very, liberal at a later time. Right now I'd rather finish this discussion before starting another.) JazzMan 17:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


Given the record recently (in the post-Soviet era) of child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein, how does this definition of "liberal", in "international politics", making any sense whatsoever? It only confuses an already confused situation. Rob Smith 17:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Given whose record, the UN's? I said I'll debate that elsewhere with you. I'm more worried about the definition of liberal right now (which, again, no longer includes the UN, for this very reason). Liberalism does not have a record of "child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein," unless you are applying the definition of liberal to the UN, which you said I could not do. JazzMan 18:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
You lost me. You brought forward an idea the "liberal" either didn't have, or made no sense in whatever "international politics" is (an idea undefined); then you proposed a defintion that made little or no sense. Now you appear to be grasping about for some idea or concept to fit the word "liberal" together with some notion of conduct of international affairs between states or other entities, or perhaps some worldview taught on college campuses about what liberalism is or how liberalism functions or is applied in the conduct of international affairs between states and other entities.
I don't see the point in stringing meaningless words and phrases together to allege some kind of ideological construct behind them. Rob Smith 18:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I've explained before what international politics is. I might have filled out the red link a week ago, but this discussion has greatly slown down my productivity. International politics is the study of political interactions between entities ("actors") on an international level. Just as politics on a city level are vastly different from those on the state level, politics on the intranational level are vastly different than those on the international level.
Please tell me why my definition makes no sense. I've been trying to clarify it for you for days now. I've answered all of your questions about it, but you still seem to have some massive misunderstands of the concept. JazzMan 20:50, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


You've said many times, "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics" and it "makes no sense on the international level." I agree with this. You and your textbooks are attempting to systemize the study of international relations, absent the historical context. That's fine, but this page here, as you've been told several times by me & Ed, probably isn't the place to do it. Rob Smith 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Where should I do it then? JazzMan 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Something might be able to be done with liberal democracy, however this definition you're using goes beyond that. It attempts to refer to UN participatory states such as North Korea, the CCP, and Saddam as participants and beneficiaries of these "liberal" institutions. Frankly I'm not sure, it seems like trying to drive a square peg in a round hole. If the subject is international realtions and international affairs (which you refer to as international politics), I'd suggest focusing upon that subject, and if the term "liberal" comes up in some meaningful context, it might apply or be used. (But I get the impression your focus or interest is more upon trying to give a convoluted meaning to this term moreso than writing upon those subjects).
Yes, the study of international relations can be systematized, but it still needs historical context to give it any real meaning, and to gain any understanding of it. I was just reading a Congressional Research Service report, Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy, and noticed that "actor" was used several times, for example, “Since 1945, the United States has conducted its foreign relations in the context of a world that practiced what can be called Classic Diplomacy. It was a world in which government-to-government relations were the principal activity....a world, in short, in which nations were more sovereign and independent actors than today’s environment allows them to be on the cusp of the 21st century.”2
I do not deny this language is gaining currency, and it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy. So we're just faced with the everyday common problem of having our words convey precise meaning. "Liberalism", for example, appears to be in some sort of disarray and crisis for a period going on several decades now. It simply would be easier to find other more descriptive words to use, than to use ambigious terminology no one agrees on.
Finding acceptable, agreeable solutions, this at its core should be the diplomats mission. Trying to force an issue is "realism", as I've come to understand it the way you have explained. Rob Smith 00:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
My goal isn't to force this "convoluted" meaning, and I did fully intent to write more articles which utilized the meaning. However, I didn't want to put tons of effort into writing those articles before I found out whether or not the foundation for them was going to be there. So, instead of writing about IR/IA/IP and leaving redlinks to the fundamentals, I wanted to build from the ground up.
As for systemization, this seems to be the difference of opinion between social scientists (i.e. political scientists) and historians, which I mentioned above (way, way, way above :p). I find it most useful to define the term "liberal" then look for the liberalness of modern institutions (if that makes sense). Certainly, even if liberalism is in "disarray" (which I'm not sure I agree with), there are principals of liberalism in most if not all international institutions. (It's also not accurate to say that "nobody" agrees on the definition; it is used identically in every work I've ever found in international politics). So instead of saying that no liberal institutions exist, we explain, using a common definition, the "liberal" and "realist" actions of any actor.
To draw an analogy to American politics, there are very few "liberals", "conservatives" and "libertarians" in America, if we use the complete definition of each of those words. However, there are many people with liberal, conservative and libertarian traits. This isn't to say that everyone is moderate, just that humans are too complex to ever fit a perfect definition. In order to function at all in a discussion of American politics (and the analogical international politics) we have to define the "perfect" value, then discuss if and how an actor deviates. JazzMan 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
To recycle what I said years ago, the term "liberal" was hijacked. True liberals, such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Boris Yeltsin managed to get on with thier lives without dying for a cause or trying to rehabilitate the term. Rob Smith 17:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree that the (American politics) term "liberal" has changed since its first use. As a historian, I'm sure you know much more about the history of the word than I do. However I'm not very sure what you imply by the comment. If you are trying to say that I don't need to rehabilitate a term to discuss international politics then you are correct -- I am trying to add a new term. If you are trying to say liberalism doesn't mean what it used to you are also correct -- and that is also why I'm trying to add this new definition.
The bottom line is that this conversation greatly lowers my productivity, and I need a straight answer from you about whether you are ever going to allow this definition or not. JazzMan 17:57, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
IMO, it confuses both readers of this page, and students of IP. I'd suggest getting other texts to see what language they use; it's just a theoretical definition, and an ideological one at that. I'll check the CRS cite I made above and see what kind of language the use. It is extrememly current (dated August 23) and is written for Congressional Representatives, House & Senate,and Congressional staffers. This is the actual text and language they use to analyize information and discuss issues. Rob Smith 18:18, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Well, it didn't seem to confuse students in my class, but it's your opinion that counts since you are the one who can edit the page. I'll see if I can find other sources, but I'm rather limited (my school is pretty secluded, and I don't have a car). In the mean time, I think if you picked up an IP text you would find it enlightening. JazzMan 19:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

CRS Report

Ok, here's some extracts from the CRS Report :

"U.S. Diplomacy — Need for Change

"Many foreign affairs experts believe that the international system is undergoing a momentous transition affecting its very nature. For indicators of this change, they point to the end of the bipolar world of the Cold War, the changing nature of the nation state on which the existing international system is based, the rise of new national power relationships, as well as the growth in the number and the role of nonstate participants (ed. note: or "actor") in the international arena. These experts also note the impact that the changes in worldwide communications, due to advances in technology, have had on international relations. For the United States to continue to lead in this world, they argue, it will have to make adjustments to how it operates and relates within the changing system and the new, intense political aspirations causing these changes.6 Even before the United States entered the 21st Century, however, foreign affairs officials and experts were calling for reforms of the foreign affairs infrastructure, foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs, as well as the need to address the changing roles between the Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) in foreign affairs. According to then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright in 1999,

The past decade has witnessed a transformation of the world political situation...Challenges such as transnational law enforcement, global terrorism, democracy building, protection of the environment, refugee issues, and access to global markets and energy sources now compete with traditional security and political issues for policymakers’ attention. These changes demand that we reexamine the nature and basic structure of our overseas presence.7

"The Foreign Affairs Institutional Infrastructure.

"In the 1990s, several organizations and think tanks voiced concerns about the inadequacy of the U.S. diplomatic infrastructure. The Department of State’s own report said that the United States overseas presence “is near a state of crisis” and “perilously close to the point of system failure.”8 Experts called for the enhancement of the security of U.S. posts and missions abroad, the right-sizing of these posts based upon U.S. interests in a particular country and a continual readjustment as policy needs changed, the improvement of training opportunities in terms of foreign language skills and jobrelated training, and the modernization of communications/information technology at the State Department and its posts and missions abroad. ....

Comment : So, this is just to give some flavour of the text. Now, while it discusses need for reform, better training, etc., and uses terms like "actor" to refer to things "non-state entities" throughout the text, one big concern is the need for reform and better trained people in the post-Soviet era. Nowhere, throguout this 32 page document, does it use the term "liberal", or "realist." My guess is dropping such nonsense is part of reform & better training. Rob Smith 21:08, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so Congressmen don't use the terms. I wouldn't really expect them to. If I were going to write a report about alternative fuels I wouldn't start using terms like "integrated gasification combined cycle" or "cellulosic ethanol", I would say "coal-derived fuels" and "E85". Unless my audience is other chemical engineers I also wouldn't go into the various catalysts, enzymes, reactors, separators etc. needed to do produce each of these fuels. Similarly, "liberal" and "realist" are useful to the political theorist, but only get in the way of a policy maker's work. JazzMan 21:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"

BTW, using your definition, " The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization," we're having a discussion of liberal pedophilia at Talk:Main_Page#Amnesty_International "...abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region...". Rob Smith 13:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I think this was posed to me, but that does not seem like the type of discussion I want to be engaged in. JazzMan 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Are you sure you all aren't Liberals engaging in a massive parody of yourselves? Because thats the way it feels with some of the cringeworthy things you come out with Johnjoe 13:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Well either the UN is "a liberal organization" or its not, and either a pedophile is a pedophile, or its not. Add to that, either pedophile Peacekeepers are the solution to all conflicts or they are not.
Put another way, either liberal solutions are the answer to our problems or they are not. Rob Smith 13:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
But the definition of liberal used in American politics and the definition of liberal used in international politics are not the same. They are different concepts. It is common for different disciplines to have separate meanings for the same word.--Porthos 14:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Thank you Porthos. That's what I've been saying since day 1. JazzMan 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
That is exactly what I've been saying to since day one: this definition is classical liberalism and related to Wilsonian democracy, and you can't draw a straight line to modern "liberalism.' You're the one insisting pedophiles who work for this institution are focused on international law. Rob Smith 16:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Am I? I don't remember mentioning pedophiles anywhere. I do remember mentioning something about not judging a group by some of its members though. I have also addressed your classical liberalism qualm up above, where this discussion is taking place. I've answered it, but you probably didn't read my answer. Please stop reaching for an excuse to find something wrong with my definition. I won't gloat if you change your mind and agree with me; I will thank you and carry on making useful edits to the encyclopedia. JazzMan 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Let's not label the UN as "liberal". I'd prefer to reserve the general use of liberal for American politics. US liberals might support aspects of UN policy, but that doesn't make the UN "liberal". It just means that bad people like bad policy.

The UN deserves much criticism, and some of its anti-Americanism may coincide with US liberalism. But the UN is a nothing more than a parliament of the world's nations. Each nation gets one votes, even the itty-bitty ones with postage stamp area and a handful of people. Feh! I'm going to bed.... --Ed Poor Talk 00:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Ed, a more thorough discussion of the liberalness or not liberalness of the UN (and what we mean by liberalness) can be found in the above two sections. Beware, the reading's a doozy! JazzMan 10:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • You ask way too much of Ed! He would be driven to hanging himself before completing two paragraphs of that! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:48, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Meh. Good thing the same can't be said for Rob or me, or CP would be getting some very negative headlines!! (Don't think WP's ever had a suicidal editor). JazzMan 16:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


Jazzman: the point you've been driving at on the realism v liberalism has always been understood, how liberalism stands for everything true, noble and good, and realism is the domain of killers and Satanists (like Bismarck, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam, and GW Bush), I direct your attention to some primary source research I am heavily involved in which anaylizes the founders of this brave new world, the aspirations of the dictators and progenators of these noble "liberal institutions" :

"As these three men sat down to confer, two of them, Stalin and Churchill, were realists with their eyes fixed on definite objectives in the interest of their respective governments. They wanted specific and realizable things. Roosevelt deceived himself into believing that the mere meeting of himself and Stalin was "half his battle" as he told [his son] Elliott, and that, for the rest, he wanted to create a condition of mutual trust and understanding . Specific agreements about the postwar world could wait, trusting to mutual good will to provide the desired solutions ."
"Major General Deane, who was at all the conferences as the head of the U.S. Military Mission, wrote :
'Stalin appeared to know just what he wanted at the conference . This was also true of Churchill, but not of Roosevelt . . . His apparent indecision was probably the result of our obscure foreign policy ."'(Italics added) 74
"General Deane points out that Roosevelt was thinking of winning the war but that Stalin and Churchill were thinking of their relative positions when the war was won. Stalin got everything he wanted - everything without any exceptions . Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his vain policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill . Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see . He got, of course, the United Nations." (pgs. 353-354) Rob Smith 11:36, 5 September 2007 (EDT)


The first bullet is: "denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

I have concerns about backing up the validity of this statement...some citation would make it much more credible. I understand that this may be public belief, but without a trustworthy poll or a trustworthy article which proves that, It shouldn't be included. I'd tag this for POV and soapboxing.