Talk:Republican Party (United States)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Republican Party (United States) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 20, 2014 and March 20, 2021. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
political position 2
[edit]I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [1]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.
- We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the New York Times. There are also articles like this article [2], which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter [3]. Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [1]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- support
- All other country parties do this
- The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right
- Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- No democrats should be labeled as center-right. Maybe in economics, but I assure you not in social policies. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Democrats are not centre right and the common talking point about how they'd be conservatives in Europe or whatever is silly Goonsbee (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think that is the part that trips up a lot of editors seeking to challenge the descriptor on the grounds that "In X country they would be considered this or that". It is an argument completely devoid of context. The article clearly specifies (United States). DN (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove political position. The political position should not be included here just as it is not included in the Democrat article. Americans in general don’t have a true grasp of the left/right spectrum and with only two major parties each contain views from the center to the extreme. To label the Republican Party as right-wing but the Democrat Party not left-wing rings of bias which should always be avoided on a Wikipedia page. The sources cited themselves have been heavily accused of being left leaning to lift-wing making them impartial. I’m certain with just very little research there would also be enough right leaning to right-wing sources to label the Democrat Party as left-wing as well. It’s all about how both sides choose to spin the data. At the most each party should be labeled as ether left or right or both not labeled at all. Straykat99 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- ""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Just because you do not believe that Americans have a grasp on the left-right political spectrum does not mean that it is not there in our two political parties. Also in response to the comment that Democrats are not a left-leaning party, that is not fully true. The Democrats support a capitalist-socialist system. They support capitalism in that they support the free market, but they support socialism in that they support regulations by the government on that market, as well as supporting many social systems set up. They also support the left in their social policies. 174.240.149.73 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- ""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the Democrats are definitely not centre-left. More like centre to centre-right, with the republicans being right-wing to far-right. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Economically yes your correct but if you think that democrats are centre right socially then you need to get info about the u.s. that isn’t from a European TV station. socially democrats are centre to left. 107.115.41.124 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of centre-right parties are socially progressive (such as Macron’s Renaissance, the Save Romania Union, and Fine Gael). That doesn’t make them centre-left. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Republican party is NOT centre-right, as they have ultraconservative social leanings and very right wing economic policy at the moment. This is like saying that the Republican party is the same as the Liberal Party of Australia economically and socially, which it isn't . 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Economically yes your correct but if you think that democrats are centre right socially then you need to get info about the u.s. that isn’t from a European TV station. socially democrats are centre to left. 107.115.41.124 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I think it makes sense to add "right-wing", there are numerous sources stating that the GOP has a far-right faction[1] (as pretty much any American knows), while the given infobox sources for "center-right" all likewise state that the party has center-right factions, not that it is inherently center-right, nor that the party establishment is center-right. I think the most reasonable "political position" would be "right-wing", and below that "center-right to far-right" as "factions", like in these articles. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for comment: Infobox ideologies
[edit]Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Tagging Cortador and Darknipples from previous discussion.
Poll
[edit]- No - Neither is a substantial faction of the Republican Party on the same level as say conservatism, the Christian Right, Trumpism, or even centrism/moderates. Neoconservatism is mainly about foreign policy, and the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus is tiny at just 9 members (out of 435).
- No - While elements of either ideology overlap with the existing conservative faction, neither group has any real organizational prominence within the Republican Party. Existing sources clearly do not place them on the same level as conservatives or social conservatives, and the only explicitly libertarian faction in the House - the Liberty Caucus - has less than 10 members, almost all of whom overlap with other hardline conservative caucuses. Neoconservatism lacks any caucus in either house, or any organizational prominence in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with this view of current trends, nonetheless the history of these factions within the Republican party and their impact still has weight and should remain in some form. DN (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- No American conservatism is defined as a mix of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with each person placing a greater or lesser emphasis on each of the three aspects. Also, neoconservatism is merely a term to refer to a group of people who began as liberal Democrats, became conservative Republicans and now appear to have moved back to the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. For the same reasons stated above - no evidence has been brought forwards as to their relevance.Carlp941 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. (Summoned by bot) For such a long-established party, the 'core' defining ideologies should be what is in the infobox. No evidence is provided that these are 'core' beliefs now or in the past. As others say, this doesn't prohibit coverage of these aspects within the article. Also broadly agree with the other reasons offered above.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism. I'm not sure why the existing voters seem to ignore that there's still a lot of neocons in the GOP. John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Tom Cotton, and Nikki Haley all have neoconservative tendencies and/or supported by neoconservative organizations; even if they do not identify themselves as neoconservatives, given the political causticity of the term. Individuals who are described as neoconservatives absolutely still exist in substantial electoral and official presence in the GOP, regardless of whether or not they are the defining force of the Republican party. I will concede that the libertarian presence in the GOP is almost certainly minimal at this point, however. Not a label anyone of power or popularity uses for themself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, while I agree with DN that each party/faction carries WP:WEIGHT on the topic of the Republican Party, I disagree that their weight should carry to the infobox. That would give them undue weight. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- lien towards: Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism based on my knowledge of the party. However, we don't report what editors think, we need sources to establish (or not) either designation. I see the sources box below is empty. Please fill it and discuss whether those sources are or not reliable, and I will reconsider. I came here because of WP:FRS [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Seems a little odd to not mention the libertarian faction in the info box. (Maybe as a "historical" faction/influence?) The economic policies of the GOP in the modern era has largely been defined by influences like Milton Friedman. I know (as of late) there has been protectionism and so on....but I am thinking of the last 40-50 years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes to libertarianism. Include neoconservative implicitly under conservative banner. Pretty remarkable that many of the editors here are suggesting removing libertarianism from the infobox. It has historically (and even presently) exerted a profound role on the right in the United States to an extent found almost nowhere else. Has no one here heard of Milton Friedman? Friedrich Hayek? Ronald Reagan saying that the heart of conservatism was libertarianism? It is indisputable that libertarianism is notable enough for a lead mention. Let's not let 5 year trends completely rewrite the infobox. This is a classic case of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose to including any ideology. Assigning any ideology to the infobox is problematic because it has significantly changed during the existence of the Party. It is very different right now from something it was even 20 years ago. Right now, this is pretty much just MAGA, Donald Trump's party, Alt-right, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes for neoconservatism, no for libertarianism. Libertarianism opposes police, fundamentally opposes borders, supports right to abortion, supports Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, and other Queer rights. This does not describe any faction of the Republican party. Whereas, the GOP does have a neoconservative faction, it was even the majority faction for a while. A Socialist Trans Girl 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- No doubts, they are not libertarians. But neocons? Yes, but this is thing of the past. MAGA and alt-right are very different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Both would apply during certain periods historically, but they have been less active relative to other groups recently. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Pointless RfC: There's consensus for the ideologies from the article in the infobox, and no evidence has been brought forward that this consensus has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)
- The consensus was about including an ideology section, not about which ideologies are to be included. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus is about including those from the article body in the infobox. Changing the infobox is against that consensus. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have not provided evidence that this consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]There's dozens of articles (including from 2023) within the past five years indicating that libertarians remain a substantial faction of the party. This is the definition of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Isolationism and non-interventionism
[edit]In the lead section, the article says the GOP "supports isolationism and promotes non-interventionism". That seems like a generalization, as there is a pretty substantial hawkish wing of the Republican Party, as the article itself discusses below. I think this should be changed? User136596 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s absolutely a generalization, and a poor one at that. It’s certainly not an even split, like the article currently implies. Toa Nidhiki05 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support removing that sentence, as the Republican Party is a big-tent and there is a divide among its members, particularly Congress--states can't conduct foreign policy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The GOP has shifted greatly towards isolationism and non-interventionism, as evidenced by the holdup of Ukraine aid and Trump and his allies frequent questioning of the NATO alliance. There are many sources as that document this shift. Mitch McConnell publicly called out isolationist Republicans in a NYT op-ed and said he would make fighting them one of his main goals of his remaining time as speaker. So there definitely is a split. BootsED (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- It has shifted, but that also infers it was not always the case, which should probably be taken into consideration. I believe it would be more accurate to say something like "According to _____ the GOP began shifting/shifted to "support isolationism and promotion of non-interventionism" (at such an such time for such and such reasons)..." or something along those lines... Cheers. DN (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we need a moratorium on faction changes?
[edit]Trying to decentralize discussion again. It is exceptionally clear at this point that the "factions" label under the Infobox is causing a substantial amount of dialogue, including frequent edits. Clearly, it's no longer stable. Do we need to just temporarily remove this section while everyone discusses what should belong there - or at the very least, remove the contentious parts? There doesn't seem to be any debate over Centrism as a faction, at minimum, and there seems to be broad agreement about some form of social conservatism and populism being there.
I would personally strongly consider moving "social conservatism" out of factions and into the main ideology. Place it under "Conservatism", perhaps alongside fiscal conservatism or something. It's clearly a core part of party ideology, imo. Toa Nidhiki05 17:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support removing all the factions except conservatism--fiscal and social--, Trumpism (Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024 with plenty of sources for the faction), and centrism in the infobox, and instead just add a link to the factions page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would reject the fiscal conservatism ideology being out in the infobox. Fiscal conservatism is a branch of conservatism, it is not a faction in and of itself. Republicans have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time. The source that is used to back up the claim of fiscal conservatism does not back up the claim of the party being fiscally conservative, but actually states it has moved away from attempts to restrict spending. Likewise, the source that is being used to support the idea of social conservatism actually says the opposite, and how Christian nationalism is taking over the GOP. Currently, the page looks as it did in 2023 when a previous talk page post (now archived) discussed needing to change the list as they were no longer up to date. BootsED (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Christian nationalism is not, in fact, taking over the GOP. What Christian nationalist organizations have power in the party? Are there Christian nationalist caucuses in Congress? Fiscal conservatism, in comparison, is considered to be one of the parts of the "three-legged stool" of conservatism, along with social conservatism. I frankly don't even think social conservatives are a "separate faction", or at least that there's evidence they are separate from the rest of the conservative movement. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think you hit the nail on the head. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are parts of conservatism. What gives them any more right to be included in the infobox as a faction than national conservatism or any other sub-ideology? There are too many to list. That's why the factions section should list broad, overarching factions of the party, not individual ideologies. Fiscal conservatism belongs as a mention that within the conservative faction that some members are fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party writ large is not fiscally conservative. That assertion is simply false. BootsED (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- So the question would be, what's the difference between factions and ideologies? Should we just list the ideologies of "Conservatism" and/or "Centrism" (not "Trumpism", as there's nothing really ideological about loyalty to a figure), link the congressional caucuses (Republican Governance Group/Republican Main Street Partnership, Freedom Caucus, Republican Study Committee) under "factions", and call it a day? Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think you hit the nail on the head. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are parts of conservatism. What gives them any more right to be included in the infobox as a faction than national conservatism or any other sub-ideology? There are too many to list. That's why the factions section should list broad, overarching factions of the party, not individual ideologies. Fiscal conservatism belongs as a mention that within the conservative faction that some members are fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party writ large is not fiscally conservative. That assertion is simply false. BootsED (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- The fiscal and social conservative factions are different, though most Republican politicians are both socially and fiscally conservative.
- The fiscally conservative faction comes mainly from support by the upper class (i.e. richest top 1%), business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and organizations like the Club for Growth. These individuals and organizations mainly focus on fiscal issues. Business advocacy groups generally don't take stances on social issues.
- The socially conservative faction includes the Christian right (i.e. anti-LGBT rights and anti-abortion), gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, opposition to immigration, etc. This can be explained by geographic cleavages such as the urban-rural political divide and Bible Belt.[2] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Christian nationalism is not, in fact, taking over the GOP. What Christian nationalist organizations have power in the party? Are there Christian nationalist caucuses in Congress? Fiscal conservatism, in comparison, is considered to be one of the parts of the "three-legged stool" of conservatism, along with social conservatism. I frankly don't even think social conservatives are a "separate faction", or at least that there's evidence they are separate from the rest of the conservative movement. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would reject the fiscal conservatism ideology being out in the infobox. Fiscal conservatism is a branch of conservatism, it is not a faction in and of itself. Republicans have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time. The source that is used to back up the claim of fiscal conservatism does not back up the claim of the party being fiscally conservative, but actually states it has moved away from attempts to restrict spending. Likewise, the source that is being used to support the idea of social conservatism actually says the opposite, and how Christian nationalism is taking over the GOP. Currently, the page looks as it did in 2023 when a previous talk page post (now archived) discussed needing to change the list as they were no longer up to date. BootsED (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Republican Party | |
---|---|
Ideology | Conservatism[3] |
- Something like this could maybe work, although it does not include social conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wow! That's a very cool way to organize the page! However, I agree that not including social conservatism would be problematic as it is a big part of the Republican identity. This brings us back to the problem of wanting to include all factions/ideologies in the infobox, which would simply be too much. Maybe we need to consider what RS state the largest factions are? Again, this will be problematic as neoconservatism and right-libertarianism are parts of the Republican Party as well. Would they fall under conservatism or not? Questions. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, incorporating the other parts of the party may be challenging. That's the downside with this organizational structure - parts of the party that aren't clearly organized into factional groups, or whose membership is split across groups (libertarian Rs broadly exist in all three groups, for example, neoconservatives institutionally present in both centrist and conservative groups, social cons that are in the conservative and populist wings, etc), won't be as visible. Maybe there's a way to get around that?
- There's also a potential concern of overweighting the House in particular - however, the Senate does not really have factions, and each state party is itself a broad, diverse entity with varying factions. So since this is about the federal party, the House is probably our best vehicle to get at this factional divide. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don's see these various groups as "factions." They are not competing for control of the party and not competing with each other. Many congressmen for example get both anti-tax and pro-religious PACs supporting them.
- It is worth noting that from the beginning the party has had Wall St and Main St wings. While most of their congress people have been Main St., the presidential candidate has always been Wall St., except for Goldwater and Trump. But it's too nuanced to put into an info-box.
- All parties have left and right wings. But they are not really factions unless they organize and compete and there is a clear division between them. TFD (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose because this just shows various U.S. House caucuses below the three main factions--centrists, conservatives (fiscal and social), and Trumpists/right-wing populists. I would just stick to splitting conservatism into fiscal and social, along with centrist and right-wing populism/Trumpism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the House factions are the closest to "factions" you can actually get in this party, really. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Current page status
[edit]After discussion and back-and-forth with several editors, I am quite happy with the current faction status of the page. For those unaware, I have copied them below.
Republican Party | |
---|---|
Ideology | Majority: |
As discussed with Toa Nikha05, fiscal and social conservatism would fall under the Conservatism label, along with all other ideologies that end with "conservatism." Going to the conservatism page also conveniently lists all the sub-factions of conservatism on it, including neoconservatism. With this in mind and noting the undue template on the neoconservative faction section, it might be prudent to remove neoconservatism as a standalone "faction" seeing as it is a sub-faction of the larger conservative one. To be in line with this new organization, the Trumpist faction would be renamed right-wing populism, with Trumpism being noted within the section as a type of "also known as and related to" reference. Libertarianism would be renmamed to right-libertarianism to differentiate it from the libertarianism practiced by the Libertarian Party.
The question remains on what to do with the Christian right. I personally am unsure whether to keep it listed as a separate faction knowing the influence they have on the party. I know other editors have discussed renaming them social conservatives, but this would fall afoul of keeping all sub-conservative factions under the conservative label. Also, even the page for Social conservatism in the United States lists the Christian right as "one of the largest forces of social conservatism." Thoughts? BootsED (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I still strongly believe we shouldn't use "right-libertarianism". The term "libertarian" has a specific meaning in American English, and the "right" bit would genuinely confuse people while arguably being an WP:ENGVAR violation. We could always pipe to just Libertarianism in the United States, while is more applicable anyway.
- As for the Christian right, I would agree with removing it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added in the Christian right for the time being as we discuss it and as it's still listed in the factions section. I also found several high-quality references[a] from the related page that I believe would bolster the case for its inclusion. Frankly, I believe that some mention of the Christian right is warranted due to their influence in the party. Let me know what you think. BootsED (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. DN (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Christen right should be included, though the body text should probably also mention that this is a broad term that includes e.g. Christian nationalists. Cortador (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose an WP:UNDUE mention of "Christian nationalism" - as I've shown in other discussions, it's misleading, not really a thing, and by some definitions could include a majority of Democratic evangelicals as well as Joe Biden. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Christian Nationalism is a pretty loaded term. Do you have some academic sources that examine CN in the GOP? Otherwise I'd oppose adding it at all. Even if we do add it, I'd like it attributed to the author of the source, as I am pretty sure a majority of scholars dont view the GOP as Christian Nationalist. Feel free to prove me wrong here. Carlp941 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's currently included in the body of the text and also mentioned if one heads to the Christian right page. BootsED (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained those, these same polls show sizeable amounts of Democratic voters, and even Joe Biden, might qualify as "Christian nationalists". Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added some more sources that state that how Christian nationalism pronounced on the right among the Republican Party. Joe Biden is not a Christian nationalist. BootsED (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is the claim that "Christian nationalism is the base of the Republican Party" backed up by academic consensus? That seems fairly bold. The source actually says "White Christian Nationalists", which seems incredibly close to an ideology we've all agreed isn't appropriate here. The polling that was demonstrated earlier certainly doesn't show this, at least. And again - the source I showed earlier indicates a majority of Democratic evangelicals agree with "Christian nationalist" viewpoints. Are they a faction there, too? Toa Nidhiki05 03:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- For discussion purposes, here are some citations over the past few years that received coverage in regard to the Republican party's associations, and for the most part, it begins with the Christian right then evolves around Trump's rise in the GOP (also see Oxford Academic).
- 1. Politico 2022 "Christian nationalism, a belief that the United States was founded as a white, Christian nation and that there is no separation between church and state, is gaining steam on the right. Prominent Republican politicians have made the themes critical to their message to voters in the run up to the 2022 midterm elections."
- 2. LA Times 2023 "The strength of Christian nationalist sentiment can be clearly seen in a wide range of issues that Republican elected officials have stressed, including efforts to curtail the rights and visibility of transgender people, but also some less obvious topics, such as immigration."
- 3. PRRI 2023 Partisanship is closely linked to Christian nationalist views. Most Republicans qualify as either Christian nationalism sympathizers (33%) or adherents (21%), while at least three-quarters of both independents (46% skeptics and 29% rejecters) and Democrats (36% skeptics and 47% rejecters) lean toward rejecting Christian nationalism. Republicans (21%) are about four times as likely as Democrats (5%) or independents (6%) to be adherents of Christian nationalism."
- 4. WaPo 2022 "According to political scientists Stella Rouse and Shibley Telhami, most Republicans support declaring the United States a Christian nation. And Christian nationalists are running for office at all levels of government, from local school boards to presumptive presidential candidates. Though the numbers of those who claim Christian nationalist beliefs may decline, Christian nationalism’s influence in public life only continues to grow."
- 5. fivethirtyeight 2022 "In the 1980s and 1990s, as white Christian conservatives forged an alliance with the Republican Party, Christianity itself started to become a partisan symbol. Identifying as a Christian was no longer just about theology, community or family history — to many Americans, the label became uncomfortably tangled with the Christian Right’s political agenda, which was itself becoming increasingly hard to separate from the GOP’s political agenda."
- 6. The conversation 2021 "As scholars of religion Andrew Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry argue in their book “Taking Back America for God,” Christian nationalism is predominant in Trump support."
- 7. Yale News 2022 "Even if Donald Trump is not the GOP candidate in 2024, and I think he’s still the odds-on favorite to be the nominee, it’s very likely that whoever the Republicans nominate will espouse a platform that aligns with white Christian nationalism because it’s popular with the Republican base and those are the folks who vote in Republican presidential primaries." - Philip Gorski
- Cheers. DN (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added some more sources that state that how Christian nationalism pronounced on the right among the Republican Party. Joe Biden is not a Christian nationalist. BootsED (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I explained those, these same polls show sizeable amounts of Democratic voters, and even Joe Biden, might qualify as "Christian nationalists". Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- In regards to right-libertarianism, we could also link it to Libertarian Republican instead of Libertarianism in the United States. I personally believe the latter is too broad as it also mentions left-libertarianism. I would also link centrism to Center-right politics as well. Generally, I prefer to be as specific as possible, but I don't want to confuse readers either. BootsED (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think linking it to libertarian republican is fine! I also dont like right-libertarian for the reasons Toa stated. Carlp941 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to link centrism to center-right, personally. As for Christian right - look at the dates on the sources. They are either old, or refer to old events. I think we need actual current ones that distinguish them from social conservatives, broadly - major social conservative groups now don't tend to segregate by religion (ie. the Alliance Defending Freedom is more than happy to represent conservative Jews or Muslims, for example). Are they actually separate movements or factions? Toa Nidhiki05 05:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I think the current centrism link works well. I also added in some additional sources that are more recent about the Christian right in the Republican Party. I also removed one source that was too specific and focused on the role of religion in the election of 1896. BootsED (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to link centrism to center-right, personally. As for Christian right - look at the dates on the sources. They are either old, or refer to old events. I think we need actual current ones that distinguish them from social conservatives, broadly - major social conservative groups now don't tend to segregate by religion (ie. the Alliance Defending Freedom is more than happy to represent conservative Jews or Muslims, for example). Are they actually separate movements or factions? Toa Nidhiki05 05:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think linking it to libertarian republican is fine! I also dont like right-libertarian for the reasons Toa stated. Carlp941 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added in the Christian right for the time being as we discuss it and as it's still listed in the factions section. I also found several high-quality references[a] from the related page that I believe would bolster the case for its inclusion. Frankly, I believe that some mention of the Christian right is warranted due to their influence in the party. Let me know what you think. BootsED (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^
- Touchberry, Ramsey; Soellner, Mica (November 9, 2022). "Emboldened far-right Freedom Caucus presents hurdles to Kevin McCarthy's run for House speaker". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
- Stone, Peter (October 28, 2022). "Meet the Congressman Who Is Viktor Orbán's Biggest Fanboy". The New Republic. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
A member of the House's far-right Freedom Caucus and co-chair of the Hungarian Caucus, Harris tried to torpedo the resolution during floor debate by attacking a provision that called for setting up a NATO unit to help its members build democratic institutions.
- Carless, Will (January 23, 2022). "Far-right extremists..." USA Today. Retrieved November 14, 2022.
- Wong, Scott; Allen, Jonathan (April 28, 2022). "Trump expected to stump for Illinois congresswoman in primary fight against fellow lawmaker". NBC News. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
Rep. Mary Miller, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus, said Trump has vowed to campaign for her ahead of her primary against GOP Rep. Rodney Davis.
- Edmondson, Catie (June 28, 2022). "In Illinois, MAGA Congresswoman Rallies to Oust Her G.O.P. Colleague". The New York Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
Ms. Miller is a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus who has adopted Mr. Trump's grievance-infused manner of speaking and once spoke approvingly of Adolf Hitler.
- Lee Drutman, ed. (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0190913854.
These far-right Freedom Caucus members had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership, which they felt had forced members into compromising too much with Democrats.
- David Hosansky, ed. (2019). The American Congress. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1544350639.
This set up a difficult battle for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to reach a consensus within his caucus between mainstream Republicans and the forty-member-strong Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right libertarian, isolationist, ...
- Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen, eds. (2019). The American Congress. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 14. ISBN 978-1538125847.
The parties are very polarized: the middle is empty, so that no Democrat is to the right of any Republican and no Republican is to the left of any Democrat. The Freedom Caucus members are located on the far right.
- Homan, Patrick; Lantis, Jeffrey (December 5, 2019). ""We the People?" Historical Foundations of Factionalism". The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy. pp. 57–87. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30171-2_3. ISBN 978-3030301705. S2CID 212991762.
As president, Trump has variously aligned himself with the positions of the far-right Freedom Caucus and with establishment Republican leaders.
- Geyman, John (January 2018). "Crisis in U.S. Health Care: Corporate Power Still Blocks Reform". International Journal of Health Services. 48 (1): 5–27. doi:10.1177/0020731417729654. PMID 28971720. S2CID 206411764.
The far-right Freedom Caucus in the House called for full repeal whatever the consequences, but by then the ACA had become more popular with the public and even drew support...
- ^ Brownstein, Ronald. "Republicans and Democrats increasingly really do occupy different worlds". CNN. Archived from the original on October 24, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
- ^ a b c Smith, Robert C. (2021). "Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and the Future of the Republican Party and Conservatism in America". American Political Thought. 10 (2): 283–289. doi:10.1086/713662. S2CID 233401184. Retrieved September 21, 2022.
- ^ a b Morgan, David (August 21, 2023). "Republican feud over 'root canal' spending cuts raises US government shutdown risk". Reuters. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
- ^ Kapur, Sahil (July 18, 2023). "Centrist Republicans warn far-right tactics could backfire in funding fight". NBC News. Retrieved January 11, 2024.
- ^ Pengelly, Martin; Greve, Joan E. (October 4, 2023). "Republicans Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise launch House speakership bids" – via The Guardian.
- ^ Wasson, Eric; Berman, Russell (November 15, 2012). "GOP Rep. Scalise elected RSC chairman, pledges to pull leadership 'to the right'". Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ a b Arhin, Kofi; Stockemer, Daniel; Normandin, Marie-Soleil (May 29, 2023). "THE REPUBLICAN TRUMP VOTER: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?". World Affairs. 186 (3). doi:10.1177/00438200231176818. ISSN 1940-1582.
In this article, we first illustrate that the Republican Party, or at least the dominant wing, which supports or tolerates Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda have become a proto-typical populist radical right-wing party (PRRP).
- ^ "Inside the House Freedom Caucus' identity crisis". Politico. April 29, 2022.
- ^ Swan, Jonathan (July 28, 2021). "Trump allies blame conservative leader for failed Texas endorsement". Axios.
the Freedom Caucus – a group of ultra-conservative House Republicans who are fervently pro-Trump.
- ^ a b Gannon, Thomas M. (July–September 1981). "The New Christian Right in America as a Social and Political Force". Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions. 26 (52–1). Paris: Éditions de l'EHESS: 69–83. doi:10.3406/assr.1981.2226. ISSN 0335-5985. JSTOR 30125411.
- ^ a b Ben Barka, Mokhtar (December 2012). "The New Christian Right's relations with Israel and with the American Jews: the mid-1970s onward". e-Rea. 10 (1). Aix-en-Provence and Marseille: Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte on behalf of Aix-Marseille University. doi:10.4000/erea.2753. ISSN 1638-1718. S2CID 191364375.
- ^ a b Palmer, Randall; Winner, Lauren F. (2005) [2002]. "Protestants and Homosexuality". Protestantism in America. Columbia Contemporary American Religion Series. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 149–178. ISBN 9780231111317. LCCN 2002023859.
- ^ a b "Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science". Archived from the original on March 3, 2016.
- ^ a b Williams 2010, pp. 1, 2.
- ^ Trollinger, William (October 8, 2019). "Fundamentalism turns 100, a landmark for the Christian Right". The Conversation. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on May 7, 2022. Retrieved July 3, 2022.
The emergent Christian Right attached itself to the Republican Party, which was more aligned with its members' central commitments than the Democrats.
- ^ Attributed to multiple sources.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
- ^ Wilbur, Miller (2012). "Libertarianism". The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. pp. 1006–1007. ISBN 978-1-4129-8876-6.
While right-libertarianism has been equated with libertarianism in general in the United States, left-libertarianism has become a more predominant aspect of politics in western European democracies over the past three decades. ... Since the 1950s, libertarianism in the United States has been associated almost exclusively with right-libertarianism ... As such, right-libertarianism in the United States remains a fruitful discourse with which to articulate conservative claims, even as it lacks political efficacy as a separate ideology. However, even without its own movement, libertarian sensibility informs numerous social movements in the United States, including the U.S. patriot movement, the gun-rights movement, and the incipient Tea Party movement.
- ^ Cohn, Nate (August 17, 2023). "The 6 Kinds of Republican Voters". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on October 12, 2023. Retrieved October 9, 2023.
- ^ Trollinger, William (October 8, 2019). "Fundamentalism turns 100, a landmark for the Christian Right". The Conversation. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on May 7, 2022. Retrieved July 3, 2022.
The emergent Christian Right attached itself to the Republican Party, which was more aligned with its members' central commitments than the Democrats.
Political positions being reinstated once again
[edit]@Carlp941:. Could you remove your recent edit that reinserted the GOP's stated political position in the article? There's presently no consensus in the literature on where to place the GOP.
Shouldn't "far-right" also be included? KlayCax (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I am simply applying the consensus from the discussion "Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?"
- From a general read of the discussion, there is a clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing", (as long as backed up by the relevant sources), but consensus is against the suggestion to include the full range of views held by the various parts of of the party in the infobox, in particular the suggestion of "far-right to centre-left"
- So I don't see a reason to remove the position. I am including the position of "right wing" with a high quality academic and a high quality news source, both written by academics who are experts in political history, that specifically call the GOP a right wing party. I'd ask that any other reference meet this standard. If there is suddenly not consensus about the position of right wing, I guess we can open a poll about the specific position we want. Frankly, I think it's a bit much for three words in an infobox, but I'm open to it. I'd ask that we keep continue to keep my edits up during any discussion, they match the current consensus to the letter.
- I don't disagree that far-right may be a relevant position to include, but I don't think your sources advance that position. None of them (i cant access the uchicago one, btw) say "The GOP is a far right party." They speak of factional infighting, caucus political positions, and positions of power for various far right members. Troubling trends, surely. But for me, I would need to see something from a reliable source that directly calls the GOP a far right party. On that note, would you please post the relevant text from the UChicago article? It is likely worth including that as a reference, Robert C Smith was an expert on racial politics in the US, and from my home state. :) Carlp941 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's also several sources used earlier by Cortador that explicitly say the party's right-wing is a minority. So we have sources calling the party far-right, sources calling it right-wing, and sources saying the right-wing is a minority.
- I think the problem here is straightforward: the consensus reached earlier was based on editor opinions, not on sources. So after it was passed, we had to sift through sources to find some that agreed. That's... not how consensus is supposed to work. And based on the whole body of sources here, I don't think academia agrees, either. I'm not saying to remove what's there right now, but I think we really need to consider if it actually reflects the scholarly consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate you both leaving my edits up.
- I don't think it was necessarily wrong to build consensus that way - given the staunch opposition to even including a political position. One thing at a time is a valid approach, even if in hindsight it was flawed.
- I think you're right about what the problem is here, and I think the solution lies in narrowing what we want to consider as a relevent reliable source. I am very biased here, but I do like my standard of high quality academic or high quality news sources, written by experts in some field of politics and/or history that specifically call the GOP a center right/far right/right wing party. I would prefer the article be about the makeup of the party - its representives, its voters, its leaders. I would prefer to avoid news coverage about factional positioning, and would like sources that are more focused and contemplative about the party. Carlp941 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Manifesto Project Database is the most commonly used in the literature. So I used that, @Carlp941:. @Toa Nidhiki05:. The conclusions it draws are undoubtedly going to be controversial, though.
- (It has historically labeled the Democratic Party a centrist to center-right party while labeling the Republicans - on a platform level - a "far-right" party). Using that for now. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure what else can be done.
- Maybe V-DEM data on political parties? However, it makes similar conclusions. KlayCax (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah no, neither of those ones would fly. Ugh. We legitimately cannot group the Republicans with actual Nazis - that is something we just don’t have a consensus for. And on the Democratic side, that’s also misleading when the Democrats are the entirety of the American left. I also can't get your citation to work - what I loaded up (right/left position for the 2020 election) shows Republicans and Democrats as essentially exact opposites - Democrats past -20 on the bottom left, Republicans past +20 on the top right. When setting social issues as the 1st and economy as the 2nd, the GOP is -5/+10 and the Democrats are around -20 on both - again, unless I'm doing things wrong?
- Keep in mind that American political parties don't function like European ones. Even if we go with "party platform" as the definer, American platforms are... essentially nothing. They aren't binding on candidates and don't generally amount to much overall. That's why I've suggested alternatives. Toa Nidhiki05 11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Liberal Party of Australia can be considered a big-tent of the Right Party where "party platform" means nothing and it is labelled Centre-right to Right-wing since most politicians fall at that range. Republican Party should at least be Right-wing as most of the politicians has links to the Christian right and Trumpism Mhaot (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do think so too, even with the Liberals rightward shift, they are still left of the Republicans. Trump is much more authoritarian, has much more social-conservative views on LGBT, and has a much harsher economic and foreign policy. I would say removing centre-right would be the best idea. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Liberal Party of Australia can be considered a big-tent of the Right Party where "party platform" means nothing and it is labelled Centre-right to Right-wing since most politicians fall at that range. Republican Party should at least be Right-wing as most of the politicians has links to the Christian right and Trumpism Mhaot (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the use of the Manifesto Project Database is great. However, does it use the term far-right? I don't have access to the dataset to check. I feel right-wing populism or Trumpism would be more accurate. BootsED (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- All I was able to find on it was numerical graphs, which is what I was referring to. There's no easy way to export them, either, but all the data seemed to indicate is both parties hold opposite views and occupy opposite positions.
- UPDATE: Yeah, I'm looking at an over-time comparison now. GOP is at -25, Dems are at +28 or so on the right-left scale... no idea what this means, but it doesn't indicate any asymmetry between the parties. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The point of keeping the label to 'right-wing' was to keep it broad and general. Much of the discussion in the past RfC made the point that labels more specific than that are likely to create further edit warring or may have WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issues. The infobox should keep it brief and loose - more specific discussion of the factional elements of the party can take place in the article body. — Czello (music) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the right-wing position. The sources backing it up are pretty clear. Far-right should be reserved for parties such as the NSDAP in Nazi Germany, not the modern Republican Party. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support right-wing, with center-right and far-right factions, which are mentioned in the factions section. The Republican Party is affiliated with the right-wing ECR group, home to parties like Poland's Law and Justice. It's also affiliated with the Asia Pacific Democracy Union, home to parties like Japan's LDP which is a right-wing big-tent, with center-right and far-right factions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those are part of the IDU, which is center-right without qualification. It's a fairly pointless distinction. There is no actual faction of Nazi or fascist Republicans, which is what far-right would essentially mean, and our reliable sources generally agree that the party's right-wing is a minority, placing it as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support right-wing, with center-right and far-right factions, which are mentioned in the factions section. The Republican Party is affiliated with the right-wing ECR group, home to parties like Poland's Law and Justice. It's also affiliated with the Asia Pacific Democracy Union, home to parties like Japan's LDP which is a right-wing big-tent, with center-right and far-right factions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the right-wing position. The sources backing it up are pretty clear. Far-right should be reserved for parties such as the NSDAP in Nazi Germany, not the modern Republican Party. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Managed to get exports of the data from MARPOR. They're in this Google Drive. First is economy/social issues, second is right-left scale. At minimum I think this very clearly does not show that Republicans are far-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't view the second one. I think you only linked to the first? BootsED (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yep, it’s only showing the first. Here’s the other image. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome! This does show that the Republicans are right-wing and not center-right, but also not far right which I wouldn't even consider unless they were around 75. The Democrats are also center-left and under 25 and if the most recent data set was used to show 2024 I wouldn't doubt if Biden's election pushed them back up even more towards the center around 20 or so. BootsED (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, BootsED, how does this show them as right-wing but the Democrats as centrist? The scale looks like they're opposites to me - wouldn't that make Democrats left-wing, then? Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- According to the RILE score from the dataset, the 0 is pure centrism, while if you go up in the positive you're more right-wing and if you go down in the negative you're more left wing. Both parties are below a score of +/-50, so they're definitely not far-right or far-left. I assume the scale would go to +100 to -100 as we have a historical party, the State's Rights Party that is above +50. The table itself is not symmetrical but zoomed in, the y-axis at the top goes above 50 while below it does not. So the difference between the right and the left looks large, but if you look at the y-axis the Democrats are still closer to the center than the Republicans are.
- I downloaded the dataset, and the Republicans as of 2020 are above 25 at 32.969, while the Democrats as of 2020 are just below -25 at -24.662. So obviously, the Republican Party per this dataset is definitely not "far-right" as they are still less than the 1948 segregationist State's Rights Party which was at 52.459; and they are definitely not equivalent to the Nazi Party which Wikipedia also states is "far-right." While it isn't in the dataset you shared, common sense would suggest the Nazi's would be well above +75. It would be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Nazi's are a far-right party and that the Republicans are also a far-right party on both pages.
- In that same vein, it would also be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Green Party of the United States are a left-wing party and that the Democrats are also a left-wing party of the same sort. I believe the dataset you have should also list where the Green Party would fall on a left-right scale, and I would bet that they would be further left-wing than the Democrats at around the same place the Republicans are but on the left at around -30 to -40. Likewise, the Democratic Socialists of America are listed as left-wing to far-left, which if it is in the dataset, would most likely put them at someplace around -50 to -75.
- So 0 to +/-25 would be centrist, +/-25 to +/-75 would be right-wing/left wing, and +/-75 to +/-100 would be far-right/far-left. Scores at the edges would be determined by what reliable sources describe them as. BootsED (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like both parties are on the line, which means both are in the center-right to right/center-left to left range, then. 32 is a lot closer to 25 than 75, after all. There's not really a huge difference between the two. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, BootsED, how does this show them as right-wing but the Democrats as centrist? The scale looks like they're opposites to me - wouldn't that make Democrats left-wing, then? Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome! This does show that the Republicans are right-wing and not center-right, but also not far right which I wouldn't even consider unless they were around 75. The Democrats are also center-left and under 25 and if the most recent data set was used to show 2024 I wouldn't doubt if Biden's election pushed them back up even more towards the center around 20 or so. BootsED (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yep, it’s only showing the first. Here’s the other image. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also Toa, your recent revert to a stable version also makes the error where the sources used for fiscal conservatism and social conservatism don't actually support what is being stated. Namely, the new fusionism source describes how Republicans have moved away from fiscal restraint and the other source describes the emergence of Christian nationalism within the base. I would support restoring what was previously there (so roll forwards?) as centrism, right-libertarianism and right-wing populism are accurate for the other factions. Social and fiscal both fall under Conservatism which is listed as a majority. I am leaning towards simply lumping anything that ends with "conservatism" under the conservatism label to avoid a massive list. BootsED (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, go ahead if you like - you seem to have a better handle on the changes. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't view the second one. I think you only linked to the first? BootsED (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Right-wing" seems like a decent compromise pending some new consensus. The existing sources seemed sufficient to me, but I added another journal article just in case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 could you please remove the first citation for center right? That source is about the LDP, I'd prefer to keep the references trimmed down to those about the Republican Party in particular. Overviews of center right parties broadly are fine too, but that particular article is really just about the LDP in Japan. The rest of the sources are fine, and I am okay leaving center-right to right-wing on as a political position. Carlp941 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can remove it, although I think it's useful here because it's comparing the LDP to other center-right parties. The GOP is in that grouping. But I suppose the other sources are sufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toa, we should keep the current right-wing consensus and not add center-right. We have more recent academic sources specifically stating that the Party is no longer a center-right party. BootsED (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The amount of academic sources appears to be even, from what I can tell, and are equally recent (2019 vs 2020 isn't a major difference in time, really - it's still Trump-era). Is there a compelling reason to ignore what some sources say, but not others? It's not any more contradictory to say the Republican Party is center-right, but has shifted to the right in recent years, than it is to say the inverse of the Democratic Party. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, a difference of one year isn't enough for me to say "all academic sources say the GOP is right wing"
- while the center right of the party is certainly shrinking, it is still enough for academic sources to note it when describing the position of the party.
- lastly, given that we developed the consensus before consulting reliable sources, i am fine with a little flexibility on what the consensus is. Carlp941 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- A more recent academic source specifically states, "the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party." Another source states "its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right." If people want to say center-right, I'd be fine with it as long as it says "Center-right to right wing." Saying simply "center-right" would be inaccurate to the sources, and even to the body of the article itself where it states that right-wing populism is one of the dominant forces of the modern GOP, and that conservatism has lost considerable influence in recent years. BootsED (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Center right to right wing" is exactly what I added, yes.
- Does anyone have a substantive objection to this? I've only seen people supporting the addition so far. Toa Nidhiki05 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Objection is that the moderates are almost non-existent for the GOP today. Even the Liberal Party of Australia, Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party of Canada is listed as Centre-right to Right-wing as those parties is roughly has half being moderates and the other half non-moderates which is not the case of the GOP. Plus there is other IDU Parties that are not doesn't have Centre-right as their position such as Likud in Israel listed as Right-wing and Fidesz in Hungary listed as Right-wing to far-right Mhaot (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mhaot, your objection appears to be based entirely on your personal opinion and other pages rather than reliable sources. It is worth noting, however, that, according to the Washington Post, the centrist/center-right Republican Governance Coalition (42 members) and Main Street Caucus (67 members), as well as the center-right Republican Study Committee (174 members) vastly outnumber the right-wing/far-right Freedom Caucus (~33 members). Other sources previously given in this page indicate the right flank of the party is a minority. So your argument isn't just not grounded in reliable sources, it actually contradicts them.
- If you don't have reliable sources to back up your claims, your claims can and should be disregarded Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even the source from Northeastern mentioned that the Republican Study Committee has moved further from to the right from their original center-right position. As for the article from Washington Post, Republican Study Committee (RSC), it doesn't even mentioned RSC as Center-right but rather its membership crosses all spectrums from moderate to far-right factions for decision. Plus it mentions members can join multiple groups (Even MTG is in the RSC and was in the Freedom Caucus at the same time until she was expelled ). Mhaot (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- A party can be center-right, while being right of where it was before. Nothing you said is a rebuttal or actual substantive critique - it's all your own personal opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can we stick to just right-wing, as the Republican Party is mainly right-wing, with the minority center-right and far-right factions balancing each other? This article has a footnote of sources after the sentence: "Right-wing populism is a dominant political faction of the GOP." There are other factions, but the right-wing populist/Trumpist faction is dominant. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to just stick with right-wing; as sources establish, the far-right doesn't actually balance (see: Washington Post's "Five Houses" analysis). We have a slew of reliable academic sources saying center-right, and comparatively none declaring the party to be fascist or Nazis (although some have called it radical right populist - which we already incorporate with right-wing populism). I see no reason to leave this information out, especially when the only arguments against seem to be personal opinions. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even the source from Northeastern mentioned that the Republican Study Committee has moved further from to the right from their original center-right position. As for the article from Washington Post, Republican Study Committee (RSC), it doesn't even mentioned RSC as Center-right but rather its membership crosses all spectrums from moderate to far-right factions for decision. Plus it mentions members can join multiple groups (Even MTG is in the RSC and was in the Freedom Caucus at the same time until she was expelled ). Mhaot (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Toa, I just checked your edit again and it appears I was mistaken! I definitely do not have any objections to center-right to right-wing. When adding it to the page, putting your sources behind "center-right" and the existing sources behind "right-wing" would probably be helpful, or we could also put it in one big combined note at the end. BootsED (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- All good! I like to put them referencing the exact claim, but if bundling them together would work that can be done as well! Just clarify which ones are for "right wing" and which are for "center-right" so readers know which is which. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Objection is that the moderates are almost non-existent for the GOP today. Even the Liberal Party of Australia, Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party of Canada is listed as Centre-right to Right-wing as those parties is roughly has half being moderates and the other half non-moderates which is not the case of the GOP. Plus there is other IDU Parties that are not doesn't have Centre-right as their position such as Likud in Israel listed as Right-wing and Fidesz in Hungary listed as Right-wing to far-right Mhaot (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- My friend, I put those sources in the article. I would object to just "centre right" as well, much for the same reasons as you. To be clear, I prefer just "right wing" as the political position because I think the newest reliable sources back that claim. I was saying that I don't object to center right being added because there are reliable sources that attest to a center right existing within the party. I was kind of fence riding, to be honest. I just dont have a strong opinion on whether or not center right is added. My only strong opinion is that right wing be included.
- I guess since there isn't consensus to add center right back to the position, I can live with that too. If there were high quality academic sources from 2020 onwards, specifically about the GOP (or the GOP as a major part of the analysis) calling them a "center right" or "center right to right wing" party, then i would think we should add it back. Does that seem reasonable? Carlp941 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Carlp941, when the only argument against inclusion is personal opinion about things, what other pages say - and not anything about the quality of the sources themselves - I think it's vital we include it. And thus far, I haven't seen anyone give an actual reason these academic sources are wrong. I think it's very clear that if we're going to have a section on political position, it has to be "center-right to right-wing" - this is what academic sources clearly support, regardless of someone's personal opinions on the ideal positioning of parties. And moreover, we have recent reliable media sources saying the right-wing are a minority faction - those can't be ignored, either. I think it's abundantly clear academic sources support a "center-right to right-wing" position. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the two sources you have below are good and merit inclusion. @BootsED what do you think? Carlp941 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both sources look good to me! BootsED (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- When can we include, then? Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any objections, so I trust your judgement here. I haven't seen any particularly strong arguments against adding center right with the stronger sources you've provided. Feel free to add it!itself. Carlp941 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- When can we include, then? Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The first sources states: "Republican delegates are grouped at the conservative end of the spectrum" and then just mentions that "center-right Republicans" exist. That is way to weak to support the statement that the GOP is a centre-right to right-wing party. The second source by itself isn't strong enough. Cortador (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's two sources you disagree with, but others disagree, and there's three or four others I included. That's not reason enough to hold up including reliably-sourced, academically-sourced content. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cooperman et al say that the Republicans include both conservatives and center-right, while the Democrats are center-left and liberals. It doesn't say where conservatives and liberals lie in the political spectrum.That's because its use of the terms center-right and center-left are contextually defined. We know they are referring to the ideological geography between liberals and conservatives. TFD (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's two sources you disagree with, but others disagree, and there's three or four others I included. That's not reason enough to hold up including reliably-sourced, academically-sourced content. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both sources look good to me! BootsED (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of reliable sources quote the Republican party as far-right as well. Trump has policies that are routinely compared to Viktor Orban, who is the head of a right to far right party. He is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. If you can find a non-USA source from a country without as much of a political bias (UK, Aus, Germany, France) that have more typical descriptions for centre-right, then you have something. I do agree within an American political spectrum, the Republicans are Centre-right, but had they been in a different country, they'd be considered far-right or right-wing. And I must reaffirm the fact the ECR is considered right-wing by most sources and the Republicans are affiliated with them. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the two sources you have below are good and merit inclusion. @BootsED what do you think? Carlp941 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Several additional sources, from 2021 on: [1][2]
- Carlp941, when the only argument against inclusion is personal opinion about things, what other pages say - and not anything about the quality of the sources themselves - I think it's vital we include it. And thus far, I haven't seen anyone give an actual reason these academic sources are wrong. I think it's very clear that if we're going to have a section on political position, it has to be "center-right to right-wing" - this is what academic sources clearly support, regardless of someone's personal opinions on the ideal positioning of parties. And moreover, we have recent reliable media sources saying the right-wing are a minority faction - those can't be ignored, either. I think it's abundantly clear academic sources support a "center-right to right-wing" position. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- A more recent academic source specifically states, "the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party." Another source states "its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right." If people want to say center-right, I'd be fine with it as long as it says "Center-right to right wing." Saying simply "center-right" would be inaccurate to the sources, and even to the body of the article itself where it states that right-wing populism is one of the dominant forces of the modern GOP, and that conservatism has lost considerable influence in recent years. BootsED (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The amount of academic sources appears to be even, from what I can tell, and are equally recent (2019 vs 2020 isn't a major difference in time, really - it's still Trump-era). Is there a compelling reason to ignore what some sources say, but not others? It's not any more contradictory to say the Republican Party is center-right, but has shifted to the right in recent years, than it is to say the inverse of the Democratic Party. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toa, we should keep the current right-wing consensus and not add center-right. We have more recent academic sources specifically stating that the Party is no longer a center-right party. BootsED (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can remove it, although I think it's useful here because it's comparing the LDP to other center-right parties. The GOP is in that grouping. But I suppose the other sources are sufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cooperman, Rosalyn; Shufeldt, Gregory; Conger, Kimberly (May 2022). "The life of the parties: Party activists and the 2016 presidential election". Party Politics. 28 (3): 3. doi:10.1177/1354068820988635.
The most relevant distinctions within the parties' activist bases are likely to be between the most conservative Republicans and center-right Republicans and between the most liberal Democrats and center-left Democrats. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats no longer exist within either party's activist base.
- ^ Carter, Neil; Keith, Daniel; Vasilopoulou, Sofia; Sindre, Gyda M. (March 8, 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties. p. 140. doi:10.4324/9780429263859.
A primary driver of comparisons between the USA and other Anglosphere centre-right parties appears to be cultural and language affinities.
- Oppose, political positions of the two major USA political parties are way too diverse for a simple label, that's what the ideology section is for. The compromise I'd accept is Right-wing, since that's the broadest accurate term for the party. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- It seems most editors agree that position in the left-right spectrum should be used but disagree on what the specific terms mean. Can anyone tell me what the center of the spectrum is? How are UK conservatives and European Christian Democrats center-right, while U.S. Democrats are center-left, when the Democrats are to the right on all policy issues? And doesn't saying someone is right-wing without qualification mean they are fascist? After all, only extremists describe themselves as right-wing, while social democrats describe themselves as left wing and the U.S. Democratic Party doesn't. It just seems too nuanced and ambiguous to make an unqualified statement in the info-box.
- Perhaps we should launch this as a Wikipedia-wide project where we can classify ideologies along the spectrum and provide a key to explain it to the readers.
- TFD (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TFD, political positions tends prioritise classifying on the local political spectrum. Afterall, most Non-Western Parties that are classified Socially Liberal Center Left is probably more conservative in practice than most Western Center-Right Parties like Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle. Of course, being mainstream don't automatically mean they are Center Left or Center Right by their country standards like Fidesz in Hungary (so that is why I wouldn't call GOP Center-Right at all for the same reasons). Mhaot (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is missing the trees for the forest, if that makes sense. I think trying to define our own spectrum is too big of a task, and introduces the editors' biases at a level I am uncomfortable with. I think we should just follow reliable sources. Carlp941 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the reliable sources do not use the terminology consistently. That's probably because these terms are contextually defined and no one is trying to define the boundaries between center-right, center, center-left etc. in the same way that they identify boundaries between for example liberalism and socialism. TFD (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's how reliable sources describe parties in their countries' political spectrum. Different countries have different political issues and cultures.
- Example: Many non-Western countries (i.e. the Muslim world, many African and Asian countries) have economically left-leaning parties that take socially conservative stances (i.e. LGBT rights and separation of religion and state), but are still considered to be on the left because the population of those countries are often uniformly socially conservative on some issues.
- Republican Party example: The Republican Party has usually been both more pro-business and pro-tariffs (the main exception was Reagan to younger Bush) than the Democratic Party, despite the fact that in most of the Western world, left-leaning parties are more in favor of protectionism. (I wrote the entire section on international trade for the Republican Party.) 2610:20:6B73:240:0:0:0:B096 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The Republican Party has usually been both more pro-business and pro-tariffs (the main exception was Reagan to younger Bush) than the Democratic Party
- This is an old myth promoted by the GOP. Us Americans can go down to Main Street in Anywhere, United States, and see the "pro-business" impact Republicans have had. Small farmers can tell the same story. The GOP supports big, multinational corprorations, and in fact, is likely the party that invented them, after breaking the backs of domestic labor and moving jobs overseas. Every small business in America can tell you that the GOP does not have their best interest in mind. Just ask a farmer.[5] Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- In most countries, political parties avoid U.S. wedge issues such as abortion, capital punishment, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, etc. because they are not traditionally left-right issues. Instead, they have experts decide them or have free votes in parliament. Over time, what was once considered shocking, such as interracial marriage, becomes widely accepted.
- The U.S. is an outlier because since the two parties have similar underlying ideologies, they appeal to wedge issues and negative campaigning for market differentiation. TFD (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Before we go down the politics rabbit hole, in regards to the center-right and right-wing position for the Republican Party, I am in favor of it as Toa has found several high-quality sources that describe the Republican Party as center-right while we have newer sources that describe how the party has moved into being a solidly right-wing party with severely weakened center and moderate aspects. This is what the sources say, not what our own editor's personal opinions and beliefs say. This is the reason I support putting center-right to right-wing for the Republican Party at this time.
Here is what we would put in as the position to refresh everyone's memories:
Center right[1] to right-wing[2]
References
- ^
- Gidron, Norm; Zilbatt, Daniel (2019). "Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies" (PDF). Annual Review of Political Science: 18-19, 27-28. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-090717-092750. Retrieved June 17, 2024.
- Keckler, Charles; Rozell, Mark J. (April 3, 2015). "The Libertarian Right and the Religious Right". Perspectives on Political Science. 44 (2): 92–99. doi:10.1080/10457097.2015.1011476.
To better understand the structure of cooperation and competition between these groups, we construct an anatomy of the American center-right, which identifies them as incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party.
- Donovan, Todd (October 2, 2019). "Authoritarian attitudes and support for radical right populists". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties. 29 (4): 448–464. doi:10.1080/17457289.2019.1666270.
A strict two-party system, such as the United States, does not fit the tripolar logic. If authoritarian attitudes exist in an electorate that effectively has no potential for anything but a choice between one centre-left and one centre-right party, people with such attitudes may find a place in one of the two dominant parties.
- Cooperman, Rosalyn; Shufeldt, Gregory; Conger, Kimberly (May 2022). "The life of the parties: Party activists and the 2016 presidential election". Party Politics. 28 (3): 3. doi:10.1177/1354068820988635.
The most relevant distinctions within the parties' activist bases are likely to be between the most conservative Republicans and center-right Republicans and between the most liberal Democrats and center-left Democrats. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats no longer exist within either party's activist base.
- Carter, Neil; Keith, Daniel; Vasilopoulou, Sofia; Sindre, Gyda M. (March 8, 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties. p. 140. doi:10.4324/9780429263859.
A primary driver of comparisons between the USA and other Anglosphere centre-right parties appears to be cultural and language affinities.
- ^
- McKay, David (2020), Crewe, Ivor; Sanders, David (eds.), "Facilitating Donald Trump: Populism, the Republican Party and Media Manipulation", Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–121, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17997-7_7, ISBN 978-3-030-17997-7, retrieved 2024-06-13,
the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party that was hostile not only to liberal views but also to any perspective that clashed with the core views of an ideologically cohesive conservative cadre of party faithfuls
- Greenberg, David (2021-01-27). "An Intellectual History of Trumpism". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2024-06-13.
The larger ideology that the president-elect represents is a post-Iraq War, post-crash, post-Barack Obama update of what used to be called paleoconservatism: On race and immigration, where the alt-right affinities are most pronounced, its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right.
- Wineinger, Catherine; Nugent, Mary K. (2020-01-02). "Framing Identity Politics: Right-Wing Women as Strategic Party Actors in the UK and US". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 41 (1): 5. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2020.1698214. ISSN 1554-477X.
- Jessoula, Matteo; Natili, Marcello; Pavolini, Emmanuele (8 August 2022). "'Exclusionary welfarism': a new programmatic agenda for populist right-wing parties?". Contemporary Politics. 28 (4): 447–449. doi:10.1080/13569775.2021.2011644. ISSN 1356-9775.
- Arhin, Kofi; Stockemer, Daniel; Normandin, Marie-Soleil (May 29, 2023). "THE REPUBLICAN TRUMP VOTER: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?". World Affairs. 186 (3). doi:10.1177/00438200231176818. ISSN 1940-1582.
In this article, we first illustrate that the Republican Party, or at least the dominant wing, which supports or tolerates Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda have become a proto-typical populist radical right-wing party (PRRP).
- McKay, David (2020), Crewe, Ivor; Sanders, David (eds.), "Facilitating Donald Trump: Populism, the Republican Party and Media Manipulation", Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–121, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17997-7_7, ISBN 978-3-030-17997-7, retrieved 2024-06-13,
BootsED (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Republican Party could have been described as center-right before the Trump era (2016-present). Per the last source (May 29, 2023): "In the United States, we have seen a shift in ideology in the Republican Party over the past 10–15 years. The ideology, which Trump presents, is completely different from that of John McCain or Mitt Romney, the two Republican presidential candidates before him. Under McCain and Romney, conservatism meant upholding conservative values in society, supporting little state intervention, being pro-business, free trade, and interventionalist. Being a Bush, Romney, or McCain Republican did not mean to decry Washington as corrupt, to vilify minorities as scapegoats, and to engage in a protectionist economic agenda. Yet, in the 2020s, xenophobia, anti-elitism, and protectionism are the buzzwords of what it means to be conservative (Lewis 2021)." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- All but one of the sources for center-right come from after 2016 (and the other is from 2015). Your argument isn’t compelling. Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think there are center-right Republicans in the party, but they are such a small minority now (half a dozen?) that it might be undue to say the GOP is still center-right. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources seem to say otherwise though - either the entirety or parts of 3 of the 4 major House GOP factions are center-right, according to sources - on top of the half-dozen or so identifying the party itself as such. Toa Nidhiki05 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can we get actual, quantifiable numbers? Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Five Families from Washington Post maps out the causes fairly definitively.
- Can we get actual, quantifiable numbers? Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources seem to say otherwise though - either the entirety or parts of 3 of the 4 major House GOP factions are center-right, according to sources - on top of the half-dozen or so identifying the party itself as such. Toa Nidhiki05 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think there are center-right Republicans in the party, but they are such a small minority now (half a dozen?) that it might be undue to say the GOP is still center-right. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Problem Solvers (centrist) - 29 members
- Freedom Caucus (right-wing to far-right) - 33 members
- Republican Governance Group (centrist to center-right) - 42 members
- Republican Main Street Caucus (centrist) - 67 members
- Republican Study Committee (center-right to right-wing) - 173 members
- The brunt of the party aligns with the Study Committee, which conveniently fits what the party labeling proposal is (center-right to far-right). Twice as many are aligned with the RMSC as the Freedom Caucus, but the Freedom Caucus outnumbers the Problem Solvers. This, combined with our academic sources, presents a fairly consistent picture imo. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bush supporters used push-polls to circulate the false rumor that McCain fathered a black baby and used Roger Stone (of all people) to intimidate vote counters during the recount. Reagan used the racist stereotype of the welfare queen while George H.W. Bush (who hired Lee Atwater) used Willie Horton. There's this tendency, since Nixon, to see the current U.S. president and his predecessors as great statesmen. TFD (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with center-right versus right-wing? BootsED (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- JohnAdams1800 argued that the reason the description of Republicans as center right is no longer valid is that earlier Republicans among other things did not decry racial minorities. TFD (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- For example, the GOP censures their own members that dared to investigate January 6 riots, that would hardly to be a moderate party
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-censures-liz-cheney-and-adam-kinzinger-for-participation-in-jan-6-investigation Mhaot (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That says nothing about a political position. Can you please argue based off reliable sources, and not your opinion? Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t speak to the above, but are we able to draw inferences from the five families data to show how many support enforcing the rule of law? And can you compare it to the number of GOP who took stands against Nixon’s crimes and asked him to step down? The reason I posit this is because it could show that the GOP has moved from the center to the right. GOP members have appeared to undermine the rule of law as much as possible since 2016, with opposition to federal law enforcement at many different levels, resulting in what is seen as a culture of corruption and impunity. This could undermine your argument, based on a straight reading of factional memberships, and could in fact present an entirely different perspective that portrays the party far to the right of center. I’m showing this as a counterexample to your appeal to caucus membership. So two things: did GOP members during the Nixon admin overwhelmingly support Nixon stepping down and admit, in the majority, that a member of their party committed sanctionable acts? If they did, then it can be shown that when it came to Trump, the opposite was true. Most of the GOP did not support the same views they previously had about Nixon, showing a decline in the respect for the rule of law and a favoritism towards might makes right and unlimited executive power out of sync with the separation and balance of powers; this is a touchstone of the far right. If the GOP were, on the other hand, in the center, we would see support for the rule of law and a overall castigation of GOP members for sanctionable behavior. We see this, for example, in the Democratic Party, who are routinely fodder for comedians because they are often criticized or step down for the most trivial reasons imaginable, while their colleagues on the right rarely do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- It just shows they are more partisan as with the Clinton impeachment. In fact most Republicans supported Nixon for more than two years after the Watergate break-in and only turned once overwhelming evidence was presented. TFD (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t speak to the above, but are we able to draw inferences from the five families data to show how many support enforcing the rule of law? And can you compare it to the number of GOP who took stands against Nixon’s crimes and asked him to step down? The reason I posit this is because it could show that the GOP has moved from the center to the right. GOP members have appeared to undermine the rule of law as much as possible since 2016, with opposition to federal law enforcement at many different levels, resulting in what is seen as a culture of corruption and impunity. This could undermine your argument, based on a straight reading of factional memberships, and could in fact present an entirely different perspective that portrays the party far to the right of center. I’m showing this as a counterexample to your appeal to caucus membership. So two things: did GOP members during the Nixon admin overwhelmingly support Nixon stepping down and admit, in the majority, that a member of their party committed sanctionable acts? If they did, then it can be shown that when it came to Trump, the opposite was true. Most of the GOP did not support the same views they previously had about Nixon, showing a decline in the respect for the rule of law and a favoritism towards might makes right and unlimited executive power out of sync with the separation and balance of powers; this is a touchstone of the far right. If the GOP were, on the other hand, in the center, we would see support for the rule of law and a overall castigation of GOP members for sanctionable behavior. We see this, for example, in the Democratic Party, who are routinely fodder for comedians because they are often criticized or step down for the most trivial reasons imaginable, while their colleagues on the right rarely do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- That says nothing about a political position. Can you please argue based off reliable sources, and not your opinion? Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- JohnAdams1800 argued that the reason the description of Republicans as center right is no longer valid is that earlier Republicans among other things did not decry racial minorities. TFD (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with center-right versus right-wing? BootsED (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- All but one of the sources for center-right come from after 2016 (and the other is from 2015). Your argument isn’t compelling. Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an extra "</ref>" in the education section. It should be removed.
Education
[edit]![](http://178.128.105.246/cars-http-upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Americans_with_a_bachelor%27s_degree_or_higher_by_state.svg/330px-Americans_with_a_bachelor%27s_degree_or_higher_by_state.svg.png)
The Republican Party has steadily increased the percentage of votes it receives from white voters without college degrees since the 1970s, even as the educational attainment of the United States has steadily increased.[1]</ref> 134.215.117.33 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Fixed thanks soibangla (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties
[edit]Can we just do what we do for parties like Five Star Movement, etc. and make both the Republicans and Democrats "big tent" parties? Otherwise, we're just going to have editors go back and forth selectively editing the political position template. Hate to vent but I'm absolutely exhausted from this debate. It's definitely the most accurate description as well. KlayCax (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging @Viriditas:, @Toa Nidhiki05:, @Mhaot:, @The Four Deuces:, @BootsED:, @Carlp941:. Not having a political spectrum in the infobox was the right idea. If not, we should do "big tent" for both, as you could selectively pick various eras in both party's history to argue whatever you wanted. KlayCax (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this makes the parties sound like a circus and completely ignores the sources. Dimadick (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- We're already ignoring many of the sources, @Dimadick:.
- Some assert that the Republican Party is a center-right party.
- Some assert that the Republican Party is a center-right party within the American political spectrum. Yet, when viewed internationally, "right-wing".
- Others assert that it is a predominantly a prototypical "radical right" party or far-right. (Especially since 2016.) KlayCax (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- And because they make contradicting assertions... there's not really a way to do it in a manner that's not WP: OR or violative or WP: NPOV.
- The only other alternative I can think of is "center/center-right to far-right". Yet that's almost as good as useless. Everyone knows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly the more comparably right-wing party.
- Making the infobox useless. KlayCax (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- We're already ignoring many of the sources, @Dimadick:.
- I doubt there will be a consensus to overturn anything. While I did prefer the page without positions, the compromise that has been reached is acceptable and based on reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Several of the sources used for the "center-right to right-wing claim" (which contradicts the RFC conclusion of "right-wing") assert that the Republican Party is now a prototypical far-right party. Not a center-right or right-wing one. Yet that claim is entirely excluded from the infobox. It's obvious that, as several here have mentioned, that the RFC was concluded and then editors attempted to find sources that back up the claim. That's not how it works. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The original addition of a position that triggered the RfC had sources. However, nobody brought them up during the discussion. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Several of the sources used for the "center-right to right-wing claim" (which contradicts the RFC conclusion of "right-wing") assert that the Republican Party is now a prototypical far-right party. Not a center-right or right-wing one. Yet that claim is entirely excluded from the infobox. It's obvious that, as several here have mentioned, that the RFC was concluded and then editors attempted to find sources that back up the claim. That's not how it works. KlayCax (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose.
- I do not think "big tent" accurately describes the GOP. I was giving 5SM as an example of Wikipedia's ability to describe political parties with a broad spectrum of ideologies by following the reliable sources. Big tent is not the most accurate descriptor, and is definitively not the consensus of reliable sources writing on the GOP.
- Please don't use a article talk page to vent. Carlp941 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Big tent" of the political right is accurate. In my opinion. The party houses traditional conservatives, right-wing populists, libertarians, (in the Northeast) centrists, and more all within the same banner. The same applies for the Democrats (within the left-wing to center-right). Reliable sources definitely don't universally label the party a "center-right to right-wing party". Many allege that it's a predominantly right-wing populist party now. KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am willing to discuss this with you but I am also going to ask that you don't vent-edit as well. The sources are high quality academic sources. Please do not smear them with spurious tags about their reliability. Carlp941 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of the current consensus is that the article should have the political position filled in, backed up by reliable sources. Editors put their finger to the wind and decided right wing was the probable outcome. That part was misguided, it definitely seems to have created some sour grapes - but we were flexible, and it seems to have reached an academically backed conclusion of center right to right wing. I don't think this is WP:OR, we arent making any unsupported conclusions - simply noting that some academic sources call the party center right, and some call the party right wing. I dont think making the jump to say "the party is center right to right wing" is a particularly offensive one.
- I think your content objections will need reliable sources. Please post some! Happy to discuss. Carlp941 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the biggest issue is going to maintenance. There's a small but dedicated group of editors and IPs that have a single purpose: to edit political positions to be whatever they personally think is best. I think we have a strong consensus, but there needs to be vigilance in preventing said editors from making their own personal opinions into page reality here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05: Not a personal attack, but you aren't one to be calling out "personal opinions" of other editors. I've read through most of your comments above, and you seem hell-bent on making sure the GOP is not described "right-wing" but something closer to "center-right", and you seem to only associate "far-right" with Nazis and whatnot. The term far-right isn't just reserved for the ultranationalist fascists, but also for hardline conservative, right-wing populist parties, such as you may find in Europe like AfD or RN. Don't claim that far-right = solely Nazism, please. There is clearly a major right-wing to far-right faction in the GOP as of today, under the banner of Trumpism. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I think has been clearly established with reliable academic sources, the "far-right" label simply isn't accurate. And as far as non-academic, reliable media sources go, only part of one party faction (the smallest one in the House) - the freedom caucus - is considered far right, with the remaining factions all being center, center-right, or right-wing. This isn't based on opinion - it's based on reliable sources.Toa Nidhiki05 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toa Nidhiki05, apologies for my long and rambling comment up above, but if you can show how the far-right label fits (or doesn't fit) going back to Nixon, that would be helpful. I think there's a consensus that the party has moved farther to the right since then. I brought this discussion up with one of your allies, User:Jweiss11 some time ago. They provided a very interesting and detailed counterargument, in an attempt to "flip the tables" so to speak, on my own argument. According to them, it is the Democratic Party that has moved to the left, which is why it seems like Republicans have moved to the right. While this would be another data point supporting your position, I continue to maintain that it is somewhat of an alternative reality in many respects. All I'm saying is, you may need to come up at this from different POVs. I think Jweiss is quite good at that, and while I completely disagree with his characterization, he is quite adept at making these arguments, and it's frankly fascinating to consider that two people can have such vastly different views on this subject. For example, I've been trying very hard to wrap my mind around people like Sarah Isgur, but I just can't seem to do it. Instead, I find myself agreeing with divisive and theatrical personalities like Keith Olbermann, and similar, but less divisive arguments made by Rachel Maddow. I keep asking myself, was I born this way, or did I come to these beliefs in other ways? I don't know the answer. It is difficult for me to believe that the GOP is center-right, even with your stats. But I think you should invite people like Jweiss11 to comment because they have a unique take on this that you might enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I'm sensing I may getting drawn into another conversation here that will veer into WP:FORUM territory. You are welcome to take this discussion to my talk page and invite Toa Nidhiki05 and whoever else you would like. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, but I was hoping you could provide at least one reliable source (academic or journalistic) that shows the Democratic Party moving to the left. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I'm sensing I may getting drawn into another conversation here that will veer into WP:FORUM territory. You are welcome to take this discussion to my talk page and invite Toa Nidhiki05 and whoever else you would like. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would support keeping center-right to right-wing. Wikipedia's own page for List of right-wing political parties lists the Republican Party, but not "Category:Far-right political parties in the United States. I would encourage editors to make their arguments based on reliable sources, not personal opinions and arguments. Ideally, peer-reviewed articles and published sources, not news articles and opinion pieces. This is partly why I agreed to put center-right to right-wing for the Republican Party, as Toa presented very high-quality sources that described it as such. I go based on what facts and RS state, not my own personal opinion. We are also talking about the party as a whole, not a small faction or wing of the party. BootsED (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jeremy W. Peters, Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted (2022). What does "losing their party" mean to you, BootsED? Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster... pp. 32-37. Fabrizio charted the rightward shift of the GOP as early as 1992, but solidifying by 2003. While working as the chief pollster for Senator Bob Dole's 1996 presidental campaign, Dole's strategy was "to adopt positions that were far to the right of where he was comfortable". By 2007, the GOP "was getting angrier and more conservative. Self-described conservatives were squeezing moderates out, he found. Only 55 percent of Republicans had described themselves as conservatives when Fabrizio polled in 1997. Now that figure was 71 percent." The book goes on like this for 400 pages, all footnoted showing the GOP losing the center to the far right by the time Obama was elected. Peters notes that by 2009, the moderate, "pragmatic, centrist" tradition of Rockefeller Republicans had come to an end. If a GOP candidate became known as a moderate, it was "disqualifying" at the ballot box. (p. 54). Peters notes many reasons for the shift, and focuses on all the GOP candidates who were attacked by their own party, weeding out the moderates for good. There's a great deal written on this subject beyond just this book. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jeremy W. Peters, Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted (2022). What does "losing their party" mean to you, BootsED? Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toa Nidhiki05, apologies for my long and rambling comment up above, but if you can show how the far-right label fits (or doesn't fit) going back to Nixon, that would be helpful. I think there's a consensus that the party has moved farther to the right since then. I brought this discussion up with one of your allies, User:Jweiss11 some time ago. They provided a very interesting and detailed counterargument, in an attempt to "flip the tables" so to speak, on my own argument. According to them, it is the Democratic Party that has moved to the left, which is why it seems like Republicans have moved to the right. While this would be another data point supporting your position, I continue to maintain that it is somewhat of an alternative reality in many respects. All I'm saying is, you may need to come up at this from different POVs. I think Jweiss is quite good at that, and while I completely disagree with his characterization, he is quite adept at making these arguments, and it's frankly fascinating to consider that two people can have such vastly different views on this subject. For example, I've been trying very hard to wrap my mind around people like Sarah Isgur, but I just can't seem to do it. Instead, I find myself agreeing with divisive and theatrical personalities like Keith Olbermann, and similar, but less divisive arguments made by Rachel Maddow. I keep asking myself, was I born this way, or did I come to these beliefs in other ways? I don't know the answer. It is difficult for me to believe that the GOP is center-right, even with your stats. But I think you should invite people like Jweiss11 to comment because they have a unique take on this that you might enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I think has been clearly established with reliable academic sources, the "far-right" label simply isn't accurate. And as far as non-academic, reliable media sources go, only part of one party faction (the smallest one in the House) - the freedom caucus - is considered far right, with the remaining factions all being center, center-right, or right-wing. This isn't based on opinion - it's based on reliable sources.Toa Nidhiki05 22:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05: Not a personal attack, but you aren't one to be calling out "personal opinions" of other editors. I've read through most of your comments above, and you seem hell-bent on making sure the GOP is not described "right-wing" but something closer to "center-right", and you seem to only associate "far-right" with Nazis and whatnot. The term far-right isn't just reserved for the ultranationalist fascists, but also for hardline conservative, right-wing populist parties, such as you may find in Europe like AfD or RN. Don't claim that far-right = solely Nazism, please. There is clearly a major right-wing to far-right faction in the GOP as of today, under the banner of Trumpism. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the biggest issue is going to maintenance. There's a small but dedicated group of editors and IPs that have a single purpose: to edit political positions to be whatever they personally think is best. I think we have a strong consensus, but there needs to be vigilance in preventing said editors from making their own personal opinions into page reality here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Big tent" of the political right is accurate. In my opinion. The party houses traditional conservatives, right-wing populists, libertarians, (in the Northeast) centrists, and more all within the same banner. The same applies for the Democrats (within the left-wing to center-right). Reliable sources definitely don't universally label the party a "center-right to right-wing party". Many allege that it's a predominantly right-wing populist party now. KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Heather Cox Richardson, To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party (2014). Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toby James, The Trump Administration: The President’s Legacy Within and Beyond America (2022). Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I had not heard of these sources beforehand. This is very helpful. BootsED (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I think a lot of this discussion we are having now also relates to the recent good article nomination for the page that was denied, where it was stated that "I'll be frank, stability here is something beyond your or my control, and I don't think this article will be close to passing that criterion until... well, until either American politics becomes a lot calmer, or until the Republican party ceases to exist." I think the Republican Party's rapid transformation over the past decade means that calling it center-right to right-wing is probably most accurate due to the immense change currently happening within the party, and sources describing it as both. As time goes on, I wouldn't be surprised if in two to four years we will see even more sources explicitly saying that the GOP is no longer "center-right" to such an extent that the center-right position can be removed. I do think some of these sources you have presented, with appropriate quotes and page citations, should be included as sources for the "right-wing" designation. BootsED (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point, but many of these sources note the loss of the center in the party after the 2007–2008 financial crisis, with the 2009 Tea Party movement hastening its end. I'm not sure why people are only catching on now. I've been writing about this here and there for years. One other unanswered question I have is what happens to the center of a party when it is overtaken by populism? From what I can tell, it is vanquished. Both the left and the right have a deep-seated hatred for centrism. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- In a two-party system were both parties have about half of the voters (and thus half of the spectrum), it's fairly hard for actual centrism to gain ground, because both parties are inherently going to occupy either the entire right or the entire left. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well said. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- In a two-party system were both parties have about half of the voters (and thus half of the spectrum), it's fairly hard for actual centrism to gain ground, because both parties are inherently going to occupy either the entire right or the entire left. Toa Nidhiki05 01:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point, but many of these sources note the loss of the center in the party after the 2007–2008 financial crisis, with the 2009 Tea Party movement hastening its end. I'm not sure why people are only catching on now. I've been writing about this here and there for years. One other unanswered question I have is what happens to the center of a party when it is overtaken by populism? From what I can tell, it is vanquished. Both the left and the right have a deep-seated hatred for centrism. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie I very strongly agree with you on this. I think the far-right faction of the Republican Party is overwhelmingly significant, and leaving it out detriments the integrity of this article. Dhantegge (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Proposal - (in line with "big tent")
- Democratic Party - Centre to left-wing
- Republican Party - Centre-right to right-wing
- Optional for the Republicans - centre to right-wing, although @Viriditas has made a good case for the age of the truly centrist Republican coming to an end.
- You''ll have to forgive my New Zealand English spelling there. Some overseas perspective is useful. Arguably the most successful moderate republicans out there, Larry Hogan and Phil Scott, are both moderate liberal conservatives, comparable to the Liberal Party of Australia and the New Zealand National Party (minus the idiosyncratic culture wars present in both). But they're both centre-right, and "moderate" in the American sense is a very low bar. I think I remember people referring to Liz Cheney as moderate (such as here), which to me is utterly farcical. But the point remains that the genuine "centre" of the Republicans has long gone.
- As for the Democrats, you see the label "far-left" occassionally thrown around, but this is pretty ridiculous, and usually just an old anti-Communist trope the right dishes up sometimes. I don't think we even have a consensus on Wikipedia as to what far left politics even are - "The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to be the left of communist parties, while others broaden it to include the left of social democracy."
- TL;DR - There is good evidence to suggest no centrist Republicans genuinely exist anymore, and "far-left" is a stupid contentious label that should be aborted. Dhantegge (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is not good evidence to suggest centrist Republicans do not exist any more. In fact, reliable sources identify three major Republican factions (the Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Governance Group, and Republican Main Street Partnership) as centrist. Reliable sources also indicate the largest Republican faction - the Republican Study Committee - as center-right to right-wing, like the party itself. Only the smallest faction - the Freedom Caucus - is defined as unequivocally right-wing. By most accounts, centrist Republicans dwarf the far-right in size. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05:
centrist Republicans dwarf the far-right in size
... mate, you just know that isn't even true... Trumpists, a right-wing to far-right group, are now the largest faction in the party. The party's political positions should also be taken into account, not just what some committees are classified as. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)- And I would support a proposal of Right-wing for the party, but with a note saying "With center-right and far-right factions". This is most representative of the party today. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- That was also what most during the last RfC supported, Cortador (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- As other editors have mentioned - the last RfC was not based off reliable sources, and the close itself was only for "right-wing" (even if you accept a consensus without sources as binding). It was based off of editor opinions. Reliable sources have since been shown to establish a broader spectrum.
- Moreover - the reliable sources don't, in fact, show the House Freedom Caucus as having a majority. They are the only caucus identified as having far-right members (the article currently sources the far-right as comprising "some" members of the freedom caucus, as well as a few other miscellaneous members), and they are also the smallest one. The vast majority of Republicans belong to the center, center-right, or right-wing. Contemporary and reliable academic sources also clearly identify the party as both center-right and right-wing. Editor opinions do not matter here - sources do. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- The original addition of a position that triggered the RfC had sources. However, nobody brought them up during the discussion. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- That was also what most during the last RfC supported, Cortador (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- And I would support a proposal of Right-wing for the party, but with a note saying "With center-right and far-right factions". This is most representative of the party today. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05:
- This is complete tomfoolery. The Republican party would be best described as Right-wing or Right-wing to far-right due to Trumpism being considered far-right by a majority of sources. In the American political spectrum, it should be centre-right, but if so, then there should be a seperate note added. If I had control over position, I'd place the Republican party as right wing, with factions from the centre-right to far-right. And with the Dems, I'd put them at centre to Centre-left social, centre-right economic, and with factions of the centre-right to left wing (prog caucus/two conservative members of the senate) 59.102.22.11 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is not good evidence to suggest centrist Republicans do not exist any more. In fact, reliable sources identify three major Republican factions (the Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Governance Group, and Republican Main Street Partnership) as centrist. Reliable sources also indicate the largest Republican faction - the Republican Study Committee - as center-right to right-wing, like the party itself. Only the smallest faction - the Freedom Caucus - is defined as unequivocally right-wing. By most accounts, centrist Republicans dwarf the far-right in size. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The AfD is neo-Nazi, while RN is neo-Fascist. Essentially, they developed out of groups founded by former Nazis and Fascists who rejected democratization. They downplay their origins. TFD (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Need to update lead. It ignores the radical party changes.
[edit]The party isn't what it used to be. That's why I added to the lead, based on content in the body. No original research. It's all in the body. Trump isn't even mentioned in the lead, even though he controls everything and is eliminating anyone not loyal to him.
Here's what I added, and what was then deleted:
- The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions.[2][3] Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement and Trumpism, the party is completely dominated by right-wing populism, neo-nationalism, national conservatism, and the far-right Freedom Caucus.
My edit summary:
- "The lead currently focuses on the party's history, with little mention of the party now. It is now controlled by right-wing populists, with Trump as their leader. This is straight from the body.
@Toa Nidhiki05: reverted with this edit summary:
- This is patently incorrect, and contradicted by the article and reliable sourcing. The Freedom Caucus is the smallest grouping of the House Republicans, not the largest.
So there is a disagreement about the Freedom Caucus. Its size was never mentioned, so size is a straw man argument. We can discuss it anyway.
Its article says this in the lead: "The caucus was formed in January 2015 by a group of conservatives and Tea Party movement members, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right." It succeeded bigly!
It happens to control who is the Speaker of the House. Their numbers belie their influence and power, and, as they are Trump loyalists, they will only get more power.
I just noticed another thing that could be altered: change "completely dominated" to "dominated". Let's discuss it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove - No value to the article, looks like POV pushing, and I agree with Toa Nidhiki05's reasoning. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- You do realize the irony of a personal attack and assumption of bad faith like "looks like POV pushing" coming from you, of all people? Deletionism and whitewashing are forms of POV pushing, so don't do it. Step back and reevaluate what's happening here. The need for an updating of the lead was expressed and I tried to do that. The lead totally ignores the modern GOP as it is now, so the article violates WP:LEAD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have an incorrect perspective on the situation. Hopefully this helps you see that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would love to. In what way has this article misinformed me? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have an incorrect perspective on the situation. Hopefully this helps you see that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You do realize the irony of a personal attack and assumption of bad faith like "looks like POV pushing" coming from you, of all people? Deletionism and whitewashing are forms of POV pushing, so don't do it. Step back and reevaluate what's happening here. The need for an updating of the lead was expressed and I tried to do that. The lead totally ignores the modern GOP as it is now, so the article violates WP:LEAD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove - For the reasons above in other discussions. The depiction of factions and party control is utterly out of whack with what reliable sources and academic sources say. And it is true - the Freedom Caucus is the smallest caucus, not the largest, and outnumbered by two moderate caucuses. Simply put: it's not a good change. We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not big deal if we leave out the Freedom Caucus. All of it is straight out of the body of the article where there are many sources. Look at the Right-wing populists section. It's all there, including Right-wing populism, Trumpism, Radical right (United States), National conservatism, and Freedom Caucus. You don't like that I based what I wrote on the existing content? That's odd. Your quibble isn't with me, but the creators of the article and RS. Take it up with them.
- There is nothing in this that is my POV. It's all from the article. It's from RS. The lead does need to be brought up-to-date. Feel free to propose a different version. I'm totally open to other ways of doing this. It just needs to be done.
- You mention "We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party." I don't see it. Trump, MAGA, and Trumpism aren't even named, and they ARE the GOP now. None of the moderate GOP dare oppose them or speak out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove The party division is exaggerated. The party has never been monolithic and nominations have usually been contested. Trump's Republican opponents mostly decided to back his presidency. The rest of it is unsourced and reads like nightly lectures from pro-Biden talk show hosts. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the refs are in the body. They can be included. As I wrote, it's all in the body. Feel free to write an alternate version that covers the topic of the party as it is now. That is largely ignored in the lead, which gives the old version of the party too much weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the party has changed and the lead could better reflect that, but I don't think your changes did that. There is no GOP split, just factional infighting typical of a large political party that is lurching to the right. Remove. Carlp941 (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Carlp941: Thanks for taking this seriously. A newer version is below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Not the place for POV pushing, and patently incorrect anyways. Mitt Romney is still a senator and he's clearly not any of those things. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: Drop the assumptions of bad faith and personal attack. The content is from the body, so the POV pushing is from the article, not from me. You can discuss your objections with the creators of this article, as I copied what they wrote. Your objection is with them and the sources. A newer version is below. BTW, Romney no longer has any influence. Only MAGA get to control anything in the party. The GOP of my youth and my family is no more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- At this point you've accused almost everyone here - none of which agree with your changes - of bad faith. It's time to stop that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, you've got it backwards. You have assumed I was the one acting in bad faith. I never said any of you were acting in bad faith, so strike that. I said you were personally attacking me by saying I was POV pushing. Don't deny it.
- You haven't examined what I wrote and compared it with the content in the body from which I quoted it. That's pretty poor behavior. You should take this seriously and examine before you reply. Now go to the new section and get serious. The quotes are even more exact. Your objections are with the article, not me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- When multiple people told you your edit feels like POV pushing, your response was to lash out at them angrily rather than consider why they think that. Speaks volumes to me, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you still on this thread? The new thread is much better and clearer.
- I understand what you're saying, but there's another thing to factor in. We are not acting in a vacuum here. The accusation of "POV pushing" is not new. It came from a years-long history that they brought to this thread. Some of these people habitually attack me, no matter what or where. Then here, when they arrived out of the blue and immediately attacked me, and then showed clear evidence that they had not fully read what I had written, or actually fact-checked by comparing what I had written with what this article actually says (I was quoting it!), that shows they were just POV pushing against me. Their POV was revealed by the way they initially (and continually) responded. It just shows a shoddy and uncollaborative spirit. The POV was quoted and sourced from the body of the article, not from me.
- When someone writes something, at least see if what they say is true, instead of labeling them a "POV pusher" with no evidence. That is a personal attack. Right? If I started my first response to a thread of yours by ignoring the details of what you wrote and called you a "POV pusher", you'd be pretty pissed off and drag me to ANI. Admit it.
- I realize that your mind is made up, so there is no point in me repeating myself. You will likely not check the new thread to see that every part of it is exact quotes from the body of this article. You will continue to blame me, rather than this article. If you have any interest in maintaining your credibility, you will get specific, go to the next thread, and point out, with exact quotes, where I have gone wrong. What is wrong with what I wrote in the new thread? I challenge you to answer that. I doubt you'll do it, because you have likely not even read what I write there: "The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references." Everything there fulfills our guidelines for a lead. I literally quote from the body, and I reproduce that relevant part of the body, so it's easy to compare.
- (I'll let you in on a secret. There is actually ONE other word (a synonym) that is mine. I challenge you to find it. Tell me in the next thread.)
- Let's end this thread here. Reply there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- When multiple people told you your edit feels like POV pushing, your response was to lash out at them angrily rather than consider why they think that. Speaks volumes to me, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- At this point you've accused almost everyone here - none of which agree with your changes - of bad faith. It's time to stop that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: Drop the assumptions of bad faith and personal attack. The content is from the body, so the POV pushing is from the article, not from me. You can discuss your objections with the creators of this article, as I copied what they wrote. Your objection is with them and the sources. A newer version is below. BTW, Romney no longer has any influence. Only MAGA get to control anything in the party. The GOP of my youth and my family is no more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Grossmann, Matt; Hopkins, David A. "Polarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Johnson-McCray-Ragusa 2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Swartz2022
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
New version for lead, with the refs
[edit]Since the version above was rejected with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by editors who would not bother to check that what I had written was taken directly from the article, I have added the refs and rearranged it a bit so it flows better. There was also objection to the mention of the Freedom Caucus, so that has been left out.
The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references:
- The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions.[1][2] Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement[3][4] and right-wing populism, a dominant political faction of the GOP,[b] the party is characterized by national conservatism,[18] neo-nationalism,[19] and Trumpism,[20][21][22] which have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.[c]
That is QUOTED from the following REPRODUCED content in the section Right-wing populists. That is what is new to the party and not mentioned in the lead. You can compare (which no one did before!) and see that I have quoted EXACTLY and used the EXACT same refs. The first sentence above is found after the rest, but it makes a much better introduction, so I have placed it first above:
- Right-wing populism is a dominant political faction of the GOP.[d] Sometimes referred to as the MAGA or "America First" movement,[3][4] Republican populists have been described as consisting of a range of right-wing ideologies including but not limited to right-wing populism,[26][27][28] national conservatism,[18] neo-nationalism,[29] and Trumpism.[20][21][22] They have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.[e]
- The election of Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions.[1][2]
It would be nice to see someone take this seriously and not automatically, without checking, just start attacking and assuming bad faith again, without any evidence.
I have no objection to suggested improvements, so feel free to propose alternate versions. Just do something, because the existing lead could have been written in 2013. What has happened since then is not covered in the lead. If it's there, it is disguised, and that isn't honest writing. The body is honest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- There was no need to make a new section for this. I still object to the changes. Directly previous discussions have yielded a consensus that neither academia nor reliable sources define a dominant faction. They have rejected defining as far-right as both undue and not supported by reliable academic sourcing. The discussion above, which you evidently abandoned for this one, also showed editors strongly reject your binary pro/anti-Trump definition. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, you fail to examine what is written and see I have quoted exactly, with the refs, from the body. If you disagree, then revise the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- So far you have received only opposition, dominating the discussion is unlikely to be productive here. Why the haste? Give editors time to think and respond, please. SmolBrane (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would love to see a reasoned response, instead of the attacking without examination. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think what you have written is great and I would strongly support it being in the lead. It's objectively true that Trump is the party's central figure, and the lead should definitely state this. And it should obviously state that the party is "centre-right to far-right", because of the House Freedom Caucus, among so much else. It's exhausting having to prove something so obvious and merited by academia. Dhantegge (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would love to see a reasoned response, instead of the attacking without examination. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- So far you have received only opposition, dominating the discussion is unlikely to be productive here. Why the haste? Give editors time to think and respond, please. SmolBrane (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, you fail to examine what is written and see I have quoted exactly, with the refs, from the body. If you disagree, then revise the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- ^ Attributed to multiple sources.[11][12][13][14][15][20]
- ^ Attributed to multiple sources.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
- ^ Attributed to the following sources.[23][24][25][13][14][15][16][17]
- ^ Attributed to multiple sources.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
- ^ Attributed to the following sources.[30][31][25][13][14][15][16][17]
References
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Johnson-McCray-Ragusa 2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Swartz2022
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b "Panel Study of the MAGA Movement". University of Washington. January 6, 2021. Retrieved March 24, 2024.
- ^ a b Gabbatt, Adam; Smith, David (August 19, 2023). "'America First 2.0': Vivek Ramaswamy pitches to be Republicans' next Trump". the Guardian. Retrieved March 24, 2024.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Smith-2021
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Biebricher-2023
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Arhin-2023
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Ward 08-26-22
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Punchbowl Old GOP
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Kight Feb142024
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Aratani, Lauren (26 February 2021). "Republicans unveil two minimum wage bills in response to Democrats' push". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
In keeping with the party's deep division between its dominant Trumpist faction and its more traditionalist party elites, the twin responses seem aimed at appealing on one hand to its corporate-friendly allies and on the other hand to its populist rightwing base. Both have an anti-immigrant element.
- ^ a b Wren, Adam; Montellaro, Zach; Kashinsky, Lisa; Shepard, Steven; Allison, Natalie; Piper, Jessica (2024-02-25). "Hidden in Trump's big South Carolina win: A not-so-small problem for him in November". Politico. Archived from the original on February 25, 2024. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
From top to bottom, the Republican Party is Trump's party. There are no reliable pockets of dissent.
- ^ a b c d Smith, David (2020-08-08). "Trumpism has taken over. But what happens to the Republican party if Trump loses?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
- ^ a b c d Klein, Rick; Parks, MaryAlice (2018-06-13). "Trumpism again dominates Republican Party". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
- ^ a b c d "Trump remains dominant force in GOP following acquittal". AP News. 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
- ^ a b c d Martin, Jonathan (2021-03-01). "Trumpism Grips a Post-Policy G.O.P. as Traditional Conservatism Fades". The New York Times. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
- ^ a b c d The Christian Science Monitor (2020-11-05). "Why Trumpism is here to stay". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
- ^ a b ""National conservatives" are forging a global front against liberalism". The Economist. London. February 15, 2024. Archived from the original on February 20, 2024.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Zhou_12/8/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Ball, Molly (January 23, 2024). "The GOP Wants Pure, Uncut Trumpism". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
- ^ a b Katzenstein, Peter J. (20 March 2019). "Trumpism is US". WZB | Berlin Social Science Center. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
- ^ a b DiSalvo, Daniel (Fall 2022). "Party Factions and American Politics". National Affairs. Archived from the original on March 23, 2023. Retrieved April 11, 2023.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Lowndes_978
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bennhold_11/20/2020
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Gardner, J.A.; Charles, G.U. (2023). Election Law in the American Political System. Aspen Casebook Series. Aspen Publishing. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-5438-2683-8. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
campani
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Norris, Pippa (November 2020). "Measuring populism worldwide". Party Politics. 26 (6): 697–717. doi:10.1177/1354068820927686. ISSN 1354-0688. S2CID 216298689.
- ^ Cassidy, John (February 29, 2016). "Donald Trump is Transforming the G.O.P. Into a Populist, Nativist Party". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
- ^ Zhou, Shaoqing (December 8, 2022). "The origins, characteristics and trends of neo-nationalism in the 21st century". International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology. 6 (1): 18. doi:10.1186/s41257-022-00079-4. PMC 9735003. PMID 36532330.
On a practical level, the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union and Trump's election as the United States president are regarded as typical events of neo-nationalism.
- ^ Lowndes, Joseph (2019). "Populism and race in the United States from George Wallace to Donald Trump". In de la Torre, Carlos (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. London & New York: Routledge. "Trumpism" section, pp. 197–200. ISBN 978-1315226446.
Trump unabashedly employed the language of white supremacy and misogyny, rage and even violence at Trump rallies was like nothing seen in decades.
- ^ Bennhold, Katrin (September 7, 2020). "Trump Emerges as Inspiration for Germany's Far Right". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 20, 2020. Retrieved November 20, 2020.
Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.
[edit]Sources for far-right:
Adolph, R. B. (2021). American Extremism: The far right of the US Republican Party. Atlantisch Perspectief, 45(3), 25–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48638241
Far right kills republican support. (2023/11/14/, 2023 Nov 14). University Wire Gill, K., & editor, a. (2023/09/17/). Texas GOP acquits AG paxton after threats from far-right republicans. San Diego: Newstex. Keilar, B., Berman, J., Sciutto, J., Nick Paton Walsh, J. M., & Phillip, A. (2022/04/27/). Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501957309/BIC?u=vuw&sid=summon&xid=02ead6c4. Accessed 6 July 2024. Lee Drutman, ed. (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0190913854. These far-right Freedom Caucus members had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership, which they felt had forced members into compromising too much with Democrats.
Touchberry, Ramsey; Soellner, Mica (November 9, 2022). "Emboldened far-right Freedom Caucus presents hurdles to Kevin McCarthy's run for House speaker". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
David Hosansky, ed. (2019). The American Congress. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1544350639. This set up a difficult battle for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to reach a consensus within his caucus between mainstream Republicans and the forty-member-strong Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right libertarian, isolationist, ...
Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen, eds. (2019). The American Congress. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 14. ISBN 978-1538125847. The parties are very polarized: the middle is empty, so that no Democrat is to the right of any Republican and no Republican is to the left of any Democrat. The Freedom Caucus members are located on the far right.
Battlefield expands as blasts heard inside russia near ukraine; russia shuts off gas supplies to poland, bulgaria in escalation; tapes say, rep. kevin McCarthy (R-CA) feared far-right republicans would incite violence. aired 7-7:30a ET. New York: CQ Roll Call.
"Charlottesville Violence Highlights Republican Party's History Of Far-Right Factions." All Things Considered, 14 Aug. 2017. Dhantegge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I do agree its important to add the far-right factions. I do think its debatable if its even a center-right party anymore due to how big the far-right factions have become. They have a lot of similiaritys to hard right parties like BJP in India, Liberal Party in Brazil, Fidez in Hungary etc. The only thing is the GOP still contains a lot of moderates so I would say it should be Right-Wing to Far-Right with center-right factions. I think it saying it has the same position as the conservative party of UK or conservative party of Canada is silly. I honestly kind of think the article implying the Democratic Party is center-left while the Liberal Party of Canada is center to center-left to be silly. This implys the Democratic Party has the same position as the Labour Party of UK which is a social democratic party with socialist factions. The Democratic Party should be center to center-left with center-right to Left-Wing factions. TYMR (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sources do not say that the party is far left merely that it has a far right, but that seems to be relative to the party. That is, they are the far right of the Repubican Party, not necessarily far right in an absolute sense.
- The reason for different descriptions for Canada and the U.S. is that Canada has a muliple party system with Liberals in the center, while the U.S. has a two party system with Democrats on the left. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As explained in multiple other discussions above, reliable academic sources do not agree with your claims. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Update the lead on the party's positions once the 2024 RNC Platform comes out.
[edit]See 2024_Republican_National_Convention#Platform, note that the platform was written by Trump's campaign. The platform has been described as "more nationalistic, more protectionist, and less socially conservative" by The New York Times.
Remarks on the first draft: The platform calls for tariffs on imports--I will update the trade section (I wrote it); it calls for deporting millions of illegal immigrants--update the immigration section; it drops opposition to same-sex marriage--update the LGBT issues section; it calls for states to enact abortion policy--update the abortion section; it calls for ending support for electric vehicles--environmentalism section; it calls for protecting Social Security and Medicare; etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It’s practically a far right party. Although center right factions exist. Although I would edit the Democratic Party to include factions that are center right Zman19964 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Putting aside the unsourced above - I oppose major changes to anything based on party platforms. Unlike in Europe, American platforms are practically useless, non-binding, and generally not worth the paper they are written on. Toa Nidhiki05 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating for major changes, but the platform provides updates and more information, particularly for the right-wing populism and Trumpist factions. I'm not changing the lead without consensus, but I do want to change the sections on political positions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- "more nationalistic" Big surpise there. Trumpism is long thought to have incorporated the ideology of neo-nationalism, and its typical political positions (right-wing populism,anti-globalization, nativism, protectionism, opposition to immigration, Islamophobia and Euroscepticism). Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the article, it says this on the platform: "The Party's 2024 platform was opposed to immigration, calling for mass deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States." Isn't immigration & illegal immigration two different things? That statement does not differentiate between the two.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
We should not be making any updates based on the platform until it is adopted by delegates at the RNC. It is not adopted until that moment. Before then it is simply a draft and could (though unlikely) be amended at the convention by the delegates. LoneOmega (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Where’s the mention of the GOP vs. Woodrow Wilson
[edit]This arrival mentions the 1912 split between Ted Roosevelt and Taft, but not that it resulted in the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or about how the GOP gave Wilson a run for his money in 1916, making WW the most narrowly re-elected incumbent in modern times until Bush #2 in 2004! 24.154.117.91 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think that, given the context you said in the topic, that sounds like it’s good to add. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*IMPORTANT* Presidential/Vice Presidential Nominees
[edit]I think we need to note how Donald Trump of Florida and J. D. Vance of Ohio are the presidential/vice presidential nominees of the Republican Party in the info box. It was just revealed on July 15 at the Republican National Convention the presidential and vice presidential nominees (Donald Trump and J.D. Vance). I think it is important to show that because if you look at a lot of American parties that are in the elections’ (e.g. Democratic Party, Libertarian Party) infoboxes, you will see their nominees. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can add a sentence about them--i.e. Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024--and Vance is the new VP nominee in 2024. But we don't need to add them to infoboxes until the election has occurred. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right"
[edit]We're unfortunately back into this discussion.
Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.
Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.
- The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
- Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".
I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?
As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.
I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.
- @Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.
- It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the closer's comment:
'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'
. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)- If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)
- The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.
- A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.
- Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the closer's comment:
- I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Trumpism as a faction?
[edit]Would it make sense to add Trumpism to the factions section of the ideologies box? Trump is obviously the dominating figure of the Republican Party in current times and has created a distinct movement, supported by a large proportion of the party, the magnitude shown in the existence of an independent article about it which describes it. Mainstream media sources are increasingly referring to it,[1] such as the Washington Post recently suggesting that "Trumpism has outgrown Trump" and that "even Donald Trump can’t shift the movement of Trumpism"[2] as it becomes more of a significant ideology than simply the positions of Trump himself. Therefore, given the shift in the party towards the right with Trump's and ideas in the past few years and the fact that Trumpism isn's fully described by other terms (hence it's existence), wouldn't it make sense to include it, as it describes the trend in the party's majority currently, given he's the idolised presidential candidate? I do seem to recall that this was previously in the ideologies box so if there's already a consensus on why this isn't there then I'm really sorry, but it seems to me that it would make sense to add it. Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Jacobs, Sherelle (2024-07-15). "Like it or not, Trumpism is the future of the Right across the declining West". The Telegraph.
- ^ Bump, Philip (2024-07-15). "Even Donald Trump can't shift the movement of Trumpism". Washington Post.
- Yes. The faction that is currently labelled "right-wing populists" was originally called "far-right Republicans" and "Trumpists" at one point as well. If you check footnote C, you can also see that there are a lot of sources describing Trumpism not only as a faction of the GOP, but as the dominant faction of the GOP.
- Considering that Trump has shaped the party for almost a decade now, that seems appropriate. Cortador (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I previously supported this position but settled on simply stating right-wing populism after a lot of debate on the matter. Trumpism is mentioned in the right-wing populism section itself. BootsED (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that we have a plethora of sources specifically taking about Trumpism. If we try to supplant that with populism, we go against what sources call this part of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- We've already had this discussion before, and I'm fairly sure you participated in this. Right-wing populism is the broader, more accurate ideological system this falls into, and it's backed up by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then someone should add those supposed sources because as of now, there's plenty of sources for Trumpism being that faction. Cortador (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- But Trumpism is much more defined than right-wing populism. I support that in the ideologies part of the infobox as well, but Trumpism, an established movement now, is more extreme and is characterised by various features which "right-wing populism" doesn’t describe, and therefore right-wing populism just seems so vague for no reason, especially when Trump has such a command over the party (and country to an extent) now with his definitive thought. Look at the Communist Party of Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh Thought is listed. This could simply be listed as Marxism-Leninism as it's a derivative of that, but it's being more specific for a prominent movement, and I think that Trumpism should be added as the same. Sizewell (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ho Chi MInh thought was adopted twenty years after Ho died and was officially declared the ideology of the Communist Party. Although I don't have a crystal ball, I know that in twenty five years time we will not see textbooks on the ideas of Donald Trump or anyone using them to develop policy positions.
- Trumpism is more like caesarism, a movement built around an individual that dissipates when the leader leaves the scene. TFD (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it's not a directly comparable example but the point still stands. Trumpism is more like caesarism, but the leader is on the scene and is dominating Republican Party politics in this generation. Right-wing populism is unnecessarily vague. Sizewell (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really vague at all, and the term "populism" is far more used both by opponents and proponents than "Trumpism". There are no Trumpist caucuses or organizations, no Trumpist platform, and frankly nothing really there of substance at all outside of Trump. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it's not a directly comparable example but the point still stands. Trumpism is more like caesarism, but the leader is on the scene and is dominating Republican Party politics in this generation. Right-wing populism is unnecessarily vague. Sizewell (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- We've already had this discussion before, and I'm fairly sure you participated in this. Right-wing populism is the broader, more accurate ideological system this falls into, and it's backed up by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that we have a plethora of sources specifically taking about Trumpism. If we try to supplant that with populism, we go against what sources call this part of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I previously supported this position but settled on simply stating right-wing populism after a lot of debate on the matter. Trumpism is mentioned in the right-wing populism section itself. BootsED (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, stick to right-wing populism, with Trumpism as a subset of it. The ideology is right-wing populism, which is the faction. Donald Trump is better for referring to the history of the party, specifically the "Trump Era" (2016-present). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Akagan23 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I want to edit the page to include the party's stance on Israel and Ukraine in the top section.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the Republican Party neoliberal economically? I have sources that it isn't anymore.
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking for a consensus in the lead for the claim that the Republican Party "has a neoliberal outlook." Neoliberalism supports immigration and free trade, which Trump (nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024) ardently opposes. This is not about my personal views, but the divergences between Reagan to Bush (Sr. and Jr.) to Trump with respect to neoliberalism.
From the article on neoliberalism: A central feature of neoliberalism is the support of free trade.
Neoliberalism overlaps, but is not the same as fiscal conservatism. Trump ended U.S. involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership[1] and TTIP[2] proposed free trade agreements, started a trade war with China,[3] and is promising a 10% tariff on all imports to the United States and 60% tariffs on China (along with removing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China).[4]
Neoliberalism also supports immigration, which Trump clearly does not. The cover of the book begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (and the lifting of immigration restrictions between East & West Germany), contrasting with Trump staring at the Trump Wall.[5]
Sources: JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're talking about Trump, not the Republican Party. Do you have sources establishing that a majority of elected Republicans oppose free trade and immigration of any type? Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2017 Pew Research poll.[6]
- Statistics: No free trade agreement (see table) was signed into law during Biden's presidency thus far. Three were signed during Obama's presidency and nine signed during Bush Jr.'s presidency. Just 1 was signed during Trump--USMCA renewing NAFTA. Obama was negotiating the TPP and TTIP, which Trump withdrew from. Both parties have turned against free trade after Trump was elected.[7]
- From the section on immigration. These are during Biden's presidency.[8][9] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems clear that Trump and the Republican party are in no way mutually exclusive. DN (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you define neoliberalism and compare it with Trump's policies, that's OR. You would need sources to say that the Republicans have abandoned neoliberalism.
- Neoliberalism is not btw about free trade and immigration. Its "free trade" agreements determine what countries can trade and Trump did not cancel NAFTA, he just renegotiated it. And NAFTA never allowed free movement of people, merely free movement of capital.
- The main fault lines in U.S. politics remain cultural issues that don't affect the neoliberal order such as abortion, Jan 6 and transgender issues. The immigration debate is about which side is tougher on illegal immigration, not about the numbers of immigrants the U.S. should accept. TFD (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the Rust Belt in 2016.[10] I added the sources on immigration above.
- There are many strong divides in American politics--urban-rural political divide; the diploma (college vs. non-college) divide; the racial divide; regional divides (Northeast vs. the South; Left Coast and Great Lakes region vs. Interior West and Great Plains, etc.); religious divides; etc. See link: https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/build-a-voter JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your source does not say that Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the rust best. Instead it said that people in the Rust Belt voted against the Democrats in order to punish them for the destruction of their part of the country. TFD (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Position
[edit]The position says Centre-right to right-wing. But only a faction of the party is centre-right and the main position is right-wing. So I think we should change the position and instead add factions where the centre-right belongs and we should also add the far-right faction. Who agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Biased language
[edit]This page repeatedly (word search counted 99 iterations) refers to its subject, purportedly the Republican Party as "GOP" instead of its actual name. If the acronym indeed stands for "grand old party", which we have no reason to doubt, the term "grand" is a value judgment. It's the same thing as if a page on Joe Biden referred to him as "Brandon" instead of his name. 192.34.130.226 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article only uses the term GOP about 30 times. The other 70 times are from sources and further reading recommendations, showing that "GOP" is simply a term that sources use frequently to refer to the article subject. Cortador (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "GOP" is the party's most common nickname. It's not a value judgement, it's what the party is frequently called by media outlets and whatnot. I don't really see an issue with it being used interchangeably with "Republican" or "Republican Party", really. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Cooperman source for GOP centre-right position
[edit]@Toa Nidhiki05 The source you restored says nothing about centre-right Republicans except that they exist, and makes no statement about the position of the party. You claim that there is a consensus to include the source specifically; please point to it. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See the earlier discussions like #Political positions being reinstated once again. But more specifically - it's referring the gulf in both parties. Center-right and conservatives as the main factions on one side, and center-left and liberals on the other. It's clearly referring to the compositions and positions of both parties. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 I'm not going to go to all the discussion to make your point for you.Please point to where there is consensus to include this source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources were presented and agreed upon in prior discussions on this page, fairly recently. There's a consensus to include them. I can tag the others involved in said discussions if you'd like, but it's really not hard to find them here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 There was consensus that the inclusion - centre-right as a position - was sufficiently sourced. There was no consensus to include the Cooperman source specifically, or that the sourcing hinges on that source. If there was, please point to where there is consensus to include this source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources were presented and agreed upon in prior discussions on this page, fairly recently. There's a consensus to include them. I can tag the others involved in said discussions if you'd like, but it's really not hard to find them here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 I'm not going to go to all the discussion to make your point for you.Please point to where there is consensus to include this source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Centre-right and far-right faction
[edit]Since only a faction of the Republican Party is far-right and the main position of the party is just Right-wing, can we change the position. Also, can we add the far-right faction Richie1509 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- ^ Trump, Donald J. (25 January 2017). "Withdrawal of the United States From the Trans- Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement". Federal Register.
- ^ Erlanger, Steven (26 July 2018). "Europe Averts a Trade War With Trump. But Can It Trust Him?". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 July 2018.
- ^ Swanson, Ana (July 5, 2018). "Trump's Trade War With China Is Officially Underway". The New York Times. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
- ^ Picciotto, Rebecca (2024-02-04). "Trump floats 'more than' 60% tariffs on Chinese imports". CNBC. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
- ^ Gerstle, Gary (2022). The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0197519646.
- ^ "Support for free trade agreements rebounds modestly, but wide partisan differences remain". Pew Research. April 25, 2017. Archived from the original on April 11, 2023. Retrieved August 14, 2023.
- ^ Hayashi, Yuka (December 28, 2023). "Biden Struggles to Push Trade Deals with Allies as Election Approaches". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ Hackman, Michelle; Zitner, Aaron (February 2, 2024). "Why Both Parties Have Shifted Right on Immigration—and Still Can't Agree". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ "Immigration reform stalled decade after Gang of 8′s big push". AP News. April 3, 2023. Archived from the original on April 3, 2023. Retrieved April 3, 2023.
- ^ Michael McQuarrie (November 8, 2017). "The revolt of the Rust Belt: place and politics in the age of anger". The British Journal of Sociology. 68 (S1): S120–S152. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12328. PMID 29114874. S2CID 26010609.
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Top-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- B-Class Libertarianism articles
- Mid-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Top-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- Selected anniversaries (March 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (March 2021)