Talk:Limousine liberal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV: Names listed in See Also

I don't think it's appropriate to list names of two prominent U.S. Democrats under See Also for this article. Clearly, this is a derogatory term, and explicitly applying it to two well-known modern day politicians would seem to violate Neutral Point of View. I've removed those references for now, if this needs further discussion, that's fine. ClarusWorks 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks to me like the NPOV issue was settled. I removed the flag. --Treekids (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Procaccino's usage

I don't think the first paragraph explains Mario Procaccino's usage particularly accurately. It was not so much a matter of "expresses a deep concern for the poor, yet does not spend any considerable portion of his or her wealth to help poor people" (plenty of Lindsay's backers made big donations to charity, and I don't think Procaccino would have denied that) or even "would like to help the poor, but is oblivious to the costs of doing so." It was more a matter of saying that Lindsay's "silk stocking" supporters were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs intended to benefit the poor, and that all ill consequences would be borne by the lower-middle to middle-middle class. (I say this as someone who was around NYC at the time of the election.) I'm inclined to edit this accordingly, but was wondering first if someone has a solid citation for the current claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. --Lee Hunter 11:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the part on "Lexus liberals" should be removed. Why are there so many variations on a term to describe well-to-do liberals? Limo liberal, liberal elite, latte liberal...perhaps instead of coming up with more words to describe the same exact thing, a term to desrcibe the opposite(apathetic or hippocritical wealthy conservatives) should be added to this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.15.178 (talk • contribs) 18 Sept 2005.

I'm apathetic as to whether "Lexus liberals" belongs, although I'd be astounded if we could keep it out, so this article seems as good place as any to have it. "Limousine liberal" itself is clearly appropriate, though, because it defined very well the view central to the "revolt of the outer boroughs" that played such an important role in New York politics from the late 1960s through the 1970s, and still reverberates today. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether you like a term or not, if it is common use it should be mentioned. --Treekids (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

Weasel Words

This sentence

"...in many countries outside the United States, "liberalism" refers to right-of-center politics, and particularly to support for laissez faire capitalism, or libertarianism."

This is implying that liberals in the U.S. are somehow anti-capitalism. It should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.141.239.249 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006.

U.S. liberals are certainly capitalist, but are certainly not in favor of laissez faire capitalism.
And I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with weasel words. "Weasel words" means to lack of specificity, especially as to agency: e.g. "some people say", "according to critics". - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limousine Maoists?

Could someone please provide a citation about claims of Maoists in Peruvian state agencies? I have my doubts. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)