This category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Who the hell put the Populism Category into the category Liberalism? Who the hell is trying to connect Liberalism with populism and Conservatism with Elitism?
I see what you are thinking, but it is not that simple. "Liberal" with a capital "l" means the Liberalism that caused the American Revolution (limited gov't, freedom of religion, etc). Republicans and Democrats are both "Liberal" in this sense. However, Republicans are "Classical Liberals" and Democrats are "Radical Liberals" (same as "Social Liberals" or "liberals" with a lowercase "l").
There are several political cultures of which Liberalism is one. Populists do not exist in the others, only within "Liberalism."
I don't know where you got the Elitism = Conservatism thing. Elitism is not under "Classical liberalism," or anything, and it does not belong there. It belongs under "Oligarchy" if anywhere. Check out the political culture category and tell me if you think there is a better place for populism. My point is that yes conservatives can be populists too --never denied that. I'll be reinserting the category. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't GOT that. Some time ago there was editing in several wikipedia articles for forcing those two connections because HE/SHE GOT that, and I was feering repetition of the same politisation. I don't know if Populism can only appear under the Liberalism with capital L/Democracy the first user talks about, but then something like Facist-Nazi populism or conservative and many times anti-democratic Right-wing populism would be impossibilities (even if they have frequently reached power in elections that only democracy/Liberalism with capital L could permite). Anyway I know that who put the category Liberalism didn't meant American Liberalism or Neoliberalism or Social Liberalism speciafically, but this avoids forms of populism who aren't Liberal (socially, economically, politically or otherwise) or even who aren't Democratic (some specialists on Thatcher call her SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE BUT ECONOMICALLY LIBERAL STILL DEMOCRATIC populism "authoritarian populism", and it is very distinguished from more popular democrat referenda-based shapes like Peronism and such. See [1]. I understand what you mean with Liberalism and Populism: popular democratic/popular-will based populisms, but it shortens the scope of the subject a awfull lot. And even if you put the Category Democracy instead it would still ignore populism as master stile to strengthen a regime and manipulate a people in favour of a dictatorship (which it can also be and frequently was). I don't know if there is a better slot to put it into, but I would stick just with political ideologies (or better yet political philosopies and maybe add some category on rethoric, cause populism as stile and political philosophy goes beyond labbels as socialism, liberalism, conservatism, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
