Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

Political position

Why don't the American political parties have "political position" as a category in their info boxes? Like where it would say "center-left"? Almost all wiki pages about political parties in other countries have this category. 150.108.240.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been discussed before. Everyone has a different opinion on where various ideologies fit into the political spectrum. The articles already state party ideology in the info-box. There is no need to add where Wikipedia editors place these ideologies in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to these discussions? I am having trouble finding them and I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. American political parties should not get special treatment simply because a lot of editors have opinions on it - but my mind is open. Carlp941 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

nevermind - found em. I still don't buy the arguments posed, I find them quite off base. Plenty of big tent parties that have a similar character to the Democrats and Republicans have their political positions labeled.

but I can accept that there is no consensus for change for now. I found the attempts at change to be poorly thought out as well. I think people can get "center left" from the ideologies for the democrats and can get "right wing" from the GOP ideologies. Carlp941 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you name any other parties that have no control over membership or who their members nominate for office? In some states, such as Vermont, the party has no membership at all. Can you name any other parties that don't have members? Also, neither party has a statement of ideology. Also, primary elections run by government is fairly uncommon. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitor. Unique party structures do not do away with a political position. Did the European Greens temporarily surrender their ideology by having open primaries for the 2013 European parliament elections? Did the French Socialists suddenly become non ideological because they started to hold open primaries in 2012? Of course not. Every political party has a unique context - they are still ideological and have a place on the political spectrum. Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

political position 2

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Democrats are centre-left and it needs to be stated just like the Republicans being centre-right/right-wing. 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) 07:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an editorial discussion, Admins have no extra authority over the rest of us regular users when discussing editorial issues. Zaathras (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum.

Also, is center left part of the center or the left, or is it midway between the two or does it just combine the two? TFD (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Center-left is defined here on Wikipedia. The entire first paragraph in the lead explains it without mentioning the word 'right', and the definition is supported with citations later in the article. Ray522 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your link begins, "Centre-left politics is the range of left-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre." That's a clear reference "to other positions in the political spectrum."

Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My definition does not matter; that would be asking me to do original research. However, center-left is a compound word which requires understanding both parts of the word and that it is referencing a spectrum that is used in comparison. If the goalpost is now defining something on a spectrum without referencing other things on the spectrum, and the individual words that constitute the compound word, you will most likely never find a satisfactory answer. Ray522 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously we could not discuss article content without using editorial judgement. TFD (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the political position was similar to the one used for the Republican Party, whereas that one says "Right-wing" with a citation noting center-right and far-right factions, maybe the political position for the Democrats could be Center-left with a citation noting center and left-wing factions? CY223 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and note the far left factions too (everyone knows about the Republican party’s far right factions because it’s a very loud faction. but do to how quiet they are and the fact it’s not as big the Democratic far left goes under the rug.) 2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

At that point your note is essentially "Republicans encompass all portions of the right and Democrats encompass all portions of the left", making it utterly pointless. It's almost like both are big-tent parties of the entire right and left. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If it’s pointless for American parties then what’s up with the UKs conservative and labour parties having political positions? They are also coalitions it’s almost like giving some of the european tent parties official positions makes it only fair you do the same of the American ones. or is America exempt from the rule again? Like it always is? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:D09E:8BBF:7C30:15D4 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think American politics and European politics can be painted with the same broad brushstrokes, then you really don't know much about the topic. area. Zaathras (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The decision to include position in the political spectrum in the info-box has to stand on its own merits. TFD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. The majority of the Democratic Party is centre-left, and has some centrist and leftist factions. Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by center left? TFD (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism and moderate progressivism. Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Credmaster 20 The Democrats are quite big-tent as we have the New Democrats which most non-Americans would consider centre-right and they are one of the biggest factions of the party (I mean both Clintons and Biden were or are considered New Democrats at some point) and since there is such a divide between the New Democrat faction which controls the party's leadership and their more centre-left voter base. I would say the Democratic Party as it is big-tent. ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Washington DC mayor 'note', in the infobox

It's been pointed out that the Washington DC mayor's wikinote, should not be included with the state governors and/or territorial governors in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I removed it because the Mayor of Washington, DC is not considered a governor, as DC is the federal capital and not a state however it is considered a territory, albeit with different rules treatment than other US territories. Furthermore, I believe granting statehood to DC brings up a constitutional issue and can be controversial. Best to leave the Mayor of DC out of the list of governors of US states. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ideologies in Wikibox

The page currently has Democratic socialism as an ideology of the party, which I personally disagree with but I understand that Wikipedia:No original research exists for a reason and that the term is much more frequently used in American discourse than Social democracy, which had previously been included in the wikibox previously.

However, the sources cited for the former ideology largely use the term Progressivism to describe the left flank of the Democratic Party and never mention either "social democracy" or "democratic socialism."

The other source from the New Yorker uses both of the latter terms, claiming that while Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," he would be more reasonably described as a "social democrat." This could be used as evidence for the party having a social democratic faction around Bernie Sanders but more sources should probably be necessary for such a high-profile page.

So, either there needs to be citations to multiple sources that actually characterize the party as having a significant 'democratic socialist' faction, as having a significant 'social democratic' faction or of both.

Alternatively, the labels "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" could be removed from the ideology section of the page entirely because "progressivism" already covers, both in many sources and by self-identification, most of the party members/politicians that could be classified as either or both of the former two categories.

Thoughts? Enderdragonpig (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the infobox back to "social democracy" for the time being while this is discussed. I do not support "democratic socialism" being in the infobox and would agree with stripping social democracy as a whole. Neither are terms commonly associated with the Democratic Party, while progressivism is. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic distinction is arbitrary and depends on the writer. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin for example were Social Democrats, while Tony Blair is a democatic socialist.

My concern is that these are not ideologies of the Democratic Party and the party itself has three factions: progressives, blue dogs and New Liberals. Their main proponents are Sanders, Manchin and HIllary Clinton respectively. But Sanders is not actually influential in the progressive caucus. Something like four out of eighty (and probably less) backed him when he ran for president. TFD (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Blue Dog/conservative Democrats don't even count as a faction any more, frankly. There's all of 10 of them in the house, or all of 5%, compared to 46% that are part of the CPC and 46% that are New Democrats. There are more Democrats in the Forethought Caucus than in the Blue Dog Coalition. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the effects of Democratic Party ideology: - High Taxes - High cost of living - Increased crime - Higher numbers of homeless people - Open border These are just a few, but they merit mention TopShelf99 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are biased opinions of the opposition, not fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable and independent sources, including reputable polls, journalism articles, or studies that say that? Please provide such sources to make such claims. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel relations

The Democratic Party is much less supportive towards Israel than the Republicans. דולב חולב (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say this, and if so can you provide links or citations? Also which parts of the Democratic Party--its voters, elected officials at the national level, President Joe Biden, etc. are much less supportive per your sources? Are your sources polls, journalism on the actions of elected officials, views by the Israeli government, etc.?

Note that the Democratic National Committee's main roles are fundraising and political organization (i.e. hosting the Democratic National Convention), not public policy or directly influencing elected officials. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

International affiliation

But why aren’t you adding the Progressive Alliance as an international affiliation? דולב חולב (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Zaathras (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

At this point this question should just be added to the infobox and all discussions preemptively closed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed. But on the Democratic Party page, it says we can't use the PA's page as a source to include it in the infobox but the IDU's page is used as a source on the Republican Party's page. I feel like they should have the same standards. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. GOP is a signatory to the International Democracy Union's founding. Apples and oranges. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's according to the IDU's website, just like according to the PA's website, the Democratic Party is a founding member. However, we're allowed to use the IDU's website as a source but not allowed to use the PA's site as a source. I'm not being sarcastic. I have autism and have comprehension issues so I'm sorry for being confused. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between a simple listing on a website (Progressive Alliance) vs. a contemporary document noting the RNC chair's signature at their 1993 founding (IDU), bud. If you have a problem with a listing at the other article, the place to raise it is at Talk:Republican Party (United States), not here. Zaathras (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I did raise it there, too. But nobody responded. But now it makes sense, the way you explained it. Thank you. 😊 GamerKlim9716 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We've been over this repeatedly. The Democratic Party as an organization never joined the Progressive Alliance. One Democratic officeholder (not a national party official) attended their convention, and that's repeatedly been used as an excuse to show the Democrats as an organization as members of the P.A.

Conservative ideology in the Infobox?

See section Democratic Party (United States)#Conservatives

• See also: Conservative Democrat and Blue Dog Coalition

A conservative Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party with more conservative views than most Democrats. Until the 2010s, the Democratic Party had a large conservative element, mostly from the South and Border regions. Their numbers declined sharply as the Republican Party built up its Southern base.

After the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Blue Dog Coalition was formed as a caucus of conservatives and centrists willing to broker compromises with the Republican leadership. The Blue Dog Coalition has at times acted as a unified voting bloc, giving its members some ability to influence legislation.

References

The longstanding version omits this and it seems there is no consensus supporting mention of this ideology in the infobox. While I would agree conservatism in the democratic party is well documented historically, I also agree with Toa that it seems misleading to keep it in the infobox, especially in 2024. It's coverage in the article does not appear substantial enough to warrant it's inclusion there at this time IMO. DN (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I support removing all of the factions from the Infobox as with all other political parties. That’s why articles have “Factions” (or similarly titled) sections. Listing factions is potentially misleading, and the Infobox is meant to be a brief summary.— Autospark (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see Conservative Democrat section "2000–present"... "The Blue Dog Coalition was reduced to eight members, the lowest number in its history. In 2023, Joe Manchin, described as the most conservative Democratic senator in the nation, announced he would not seek re-election in 2024 United States Senate election in West Virginia|2024...DN (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Support removing that section from the Factions section, and instead incorporating it into the history of the party and/or in the initial paragraphs about the history of the party's factions. I agree the Conservative Democrat faction has largely died out, but it's worth mentioning that the Democrat Party used to have a prominent conservative faction in the article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark (the "factions" section should be removed from the "ideology" infobox parameter), while I oppose removing references to conservatism in the "factions" section of the article, if that is what User:JohnAdams1800 is talking about. The only ideology in the infobox should be "liberalism", with a links both to liberalism (not social liberalism) and, between brackets, liberalism in the United States (or modern liberalism in the United States). --Checco (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose both this, and any bracketed links with "American" in them. Keep the current three factions, and link "Liberalism" to Modern liberalism in the United States without an WP:ENGVAR-violating and utterly unnecessary bracket. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Political position

I believe that 'centre to centre-left' is a fair and unbiased position. There are many sources which mention both centrist and centre-left ideologies in the Democratic Party. Any other position is very rare to be supported by a party member. Andrijator (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your definition of centre-left? (And don't just say it lies somewhere between center and left.) TFD (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Centre-left politics support government intervention to a state in which there is still a mixed-market economy, however with social welfare programs. The strongness of those programs varies in different ideologies, e.g. social liberalism and social democracy. Andrijator (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

All major parties in Western democracies support this. The Democrats however are less supportive than right-wing parties in other countries. TFD (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. The previous RfCs on this topic haven't been particularly persuasive, especially when put into context of similar discussions of other political parties. The US isn't "special" in this regard. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. actually is special. It has two parties, neither of which have a statement of ideology or enforces ideological conformity. IOW you cannot be expelled from either party for any reason and you cannot be stopped from running under their banner. Furthermore, state governments are involved in the nomination process by running "primary elections." Can you name any other country in the world that has this system? TFD (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

how does that make it special? Lots of countries have unique political systems. Lots of parties don't state an overriding ideology and have factions. That's why we rely on secondary RS Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue with the US is that its media is incredibly insular so they make their own definitions of the political spectrum Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Every country has its own political spectrum. There is no "global political spectrum". There's maybe regional ones - like, say, in Europe, or to some degree the US and Canada - but there's no global spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that other regions have different political spectrums with the centre being at the top of the bell curve, but there is a global one regarding ideology Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The position on the spectrum parameter is there to make cross country comparisons easy for the reader Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, WP:OR and my impression, but on the worldwide political spectrum, the democrats are centre-left to centre-right, and the republicans are right wing to far-right Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not, in fact, center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They certainly are from a European perspective. Economically they are centre-right. Socially idk, I’d say centre Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Not even from a European perspective, but why is Europe even relevant here? Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The European spectrum seems to be used as the ‘global spectrum’ on Wikipedia when looking at other regions’ political pages. Neo-liberalism is centre-right in Europe, which the democrats champion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of this, but even if it was, they aren't a center-right party, and this article isn't about a European party. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not the U.S. specifically. Second, although Americans use the terms left and right, liberal and conservative, in a different way when describing their politics, academic literature in the U.S. uses internationally understood definitions, even when describing U.S. politics. So for example U.S. conservatism is normally categorized as a sub-branch of liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s good academics use internationally recognised definitions, I didn’t know that. Surely that makes it easy to put something in the political spectrum parameter? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

See for example,"Liberalism and Modernity" in The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times (John Schwarzmantel NYU Press, 1998), p. 68: "Liberalism,in its broadest sense, was a philosophy or set of ideas that gave primacy to the idea of individual freedom, the freedom of the individual as the supreme social unit, untrammelled by interference from the state, other individuals or society as a whole." Conservatism is described as either "to deny modernity and return to a premodern society" or a "criticism of modernity and its features." (p. 64) Premodern means before 1500.

So there's a book from a U.S. academic publisher using the same terminology as people outside the U.S. The debate in the U.S. is not about whether or not to accept liberal principles, but how they should be applied. The term conservative entered usage when FDR used the term to defame his opponents.

TFD (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree if it weren't for Trumpism which is illiberal, it seems liberal principles are wholly accepted among academics but not the population. I was under the impression conservative meant conserving/preserving tradition and generational commons to preserve perspective which make up an ethnic identity/nationality, so it's about managing change rather than opposing it. Trump is a regressive, not a conservative Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Bigotry is very useful for lots of people, it props up their ego, there needs to be an alternative for individualist and egoist societies rather than just imposing liberalism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Position

Opening a new discussion on the political position of the Democratic Party. I am aware this has been discussed at length before. Maybe opinions have changed. I am opening this discussion as a consensus was reached on the Republican Party page to add a position! What are the communities thoughts? Can we reach a consensus now? Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was never a consensus to add anything on the other page. It seems like someone just added it. Regardless, I oppose changing consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been no new reasons presented to use this field and new discussion basically covers the same old points. Terms for the relative placement of political parties in the political spectrum are subjective, inconsistent and contextually defined. TFD (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The Political polarization in the United States over recent years may be indicative of increasingly contrasting political positions held by the two parties.

DN (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a political position (i.e. center, center-left, left-wing, or far-left) for the Democratic Party (United States). The party is a big tent, and its elected members hold a wide range of views--from the Blue Dog Coalition to the the squad. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I support adding whatever the consensus of reliable sources say the Democrats' political position is. I find the reasons for excluding one to be spurious.

The main arguments I see against it are particularly weak. I'll put what I see as the arguments in italics, and my reasoning against them in plaintext.

1. US political system is unique - US parties don't have a typical membership or primary system. This is a non sequitor. Every political system is unique. There is no political system that exists that transcends positioning on the ideological spectrum. We place political parties all over the world with different political systems, ranging from European-style democracy to puppet parties under dictatorships. To change my mind on this - I would need to see a reliable source that says the US political system is so unique that our political parties defy the left-right spectrum.
2. US political parties are big tent parties with many factions. Another non-sequitor. There are big tent parties everywhere - and we nearly universally apply left-right labels to them on Wikipedia. The Justicialist Party, a party with a massive tent spanning the center right to center left - has the label center left. Bangladesh Awami League, labelled center, with a note about its labelling. The Brazilian Democratic Movement, labelled center to center right. Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), labelled right wing. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, labelled center to center right - despite being an explicitly catch-all party. ANO 2011, labelled center. The only exception I can find is the Five Star Movement, and that is because reliable sources label it as syncretic - not merely because it has many factions. I cannot find reliable sources that say either major US party is syncretic.
3. The ideological spectrum is context dependent and prone to bias. Okay? Isn't this what reliable sources are for, to account for bias?

So I'd like to ask those that oppose the change a basic question. Shouldn't we at least be seeking out what reliable sources say about the political position of these parties? Let's see what they say, and try to follow them? Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some political parties are formed for reasons other than ideology. some hold their members through patronage. Your party comes to power and you get government housing and a job. Or, a group of fascists, conservatives, liberals and communists set up a separatist party, believing they can sort out left-right politics once they achieve independence. The fact that some Wikipedia editors think they can map these parties along the left-right spectrum isn't helpful. TFD (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The more we have been in this discussion, frankly the more confused I have gotten. I am not trying to cast aspersions or anything - I am genuinely confused. Is your argument that no parties should recieve a position on the left-right spectrum? Carlp941 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The field makes little sense for any party because position in the political spectrum is merely a judgment on where the stated ideologies fit into the system. So for example saying that a party is communist explains their ideology. Whether or not we then call the party left-wing, radical-left, revolutionary left, far left, etc. has nothing to do with how we perceive the party, but how we perceive its ideology. So there are countless arguments about this in articles about hundreds of different parties.

U.S. parties present a special problem because they have no stated ideologies or party discipline. If you show up at any mainstream party in Europe wearing an SS uniform for example, you will be denied membership. But both Dems and Reps would let you in. You could even run in a primary to become nominated. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on this topic at the GOP article.[[1]] As the US has just two major parties I think it makes sense to add "left-wing" here if "right-wing" is added to the other article. Alternatively, it should be kept out of both articles. Springee (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is by all means not a left-wing party. There is not a single big socialist politician in the party. Odideum (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would have to disagree here partially. The Democratic Party does have some notable "socialist" politicians such as Bernie Sanders and AOC, however we need to be careful here. What these two advocate is more along the lines of European social democracy, which even itself is considered a socialist movement, however the least radical kind. The two openly identify as democratic socialists, and not social democrats, and I am unaware if they know what they are actually advocating for or if there is a more radical side to there beliefs hence why they identify in that way. Either way there are "big socialist politicians" within the party. Completely Random Guy (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about an American political party, not a European one. Whether they would be socialists in Europe is fairly irrelevant; Sanders and the 8-10 DSA-affiliated Democrats in Congress are definitely, unequivocally considered socialists in the United States, and define themselves as such. That being said, 8-10 isn't an especially large number - but it's as large or larger than, say, the Blue Dog caucus (which itself has trended left in recent years). Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Bernie Sander is aware of his own beliefs. The problem understanding socialism is that some see it as a basket of policies rather than a belief system. When local utilities in the UK fell into disrepair by the end of the war, Labour nationalized and rebuilt them with public money at a time when private capital was unavailable. It was a specific policy developed to solve a specific problem. It doesn't mean that nationalization of local utilities is part of socialist doctrine.

In any case, there is no socialist caucus within Congress, just a handful of self-described "democratic socialists." They caucus with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. TFD (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support adding a position, whatever is determined by the sources. — Czello ^(music) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Social liberalism" and American English

This article is in American English. The article is for an American political party. Adding a disclaimer of "American" on political ideologies is nonsensical. Anyone reading this article understands this is American - a piped link is more than sufficient, especially putting WP:ENGVAR into consideration. Toa Nidhiki05 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the info-box? Based on the source used, it refers to Modern liberalism in the United States, which is seen as half-way between Social liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, while the term social liberalism generally refers in the U.S. to being liberal on social issues. Perhaps a better term could be found. TFD (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re absolutely correct. The correct term in American English would be “Liberalism”, and piping it the Modern liberalism in the United States article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Majority" Ideology

As a result of CPC being a dominant faction of the democratic party, shouldn't Progressivism be in the Majority section when it comes to ideology? The New democrats and CPC also has about the same number of seats in the house of representatives so both should be represented Guotaian (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a bad point. The caucus is undeniably the largest in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I take this point back because the CPC and the new democrats both are 'liberals' but the new democrats are third way while the CPC are progressives so progressivism should remain a faction Guotaian (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

But I think we should remove social democracy because progressivism is basically social democracy Guotaian (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because currently the New Democrat Coalition has slightly more seats than the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) currently, at 98 to 96. The two factions are basically evenly balanced, with 23 representatives in both caucuses. Also, the 2019 Pew Research poll found 47% of members identify as liberal/very liberal, 38% as moderate, and 14% as conservative/very conservative.

The Blue Dog Coalition has 10 members, and is the most centrist faction of the Democratic Party. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that progressivism is an ideology? I have seen it described as such in far right sources, but not in reliable sources. As I understand it, the term is used to group people of different ideologies working toward common goals. So the current CPC has mostly liberal members along with some democratic socialists. TFD (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought the centrists were the majority in the Democratic Party? Thus the reason why progressives like Sanders or Warren, haven't won their party's presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The largest faction of Democrats in the House is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is left-wing and progressive. The second-largest group is the New Democratic Coalition, which consists of basically everyone else - centrists, liberals, establishment, etc. They're both about the same size. There's also the moderate Blue Dog Caucus, which has about 10 members. Toa Nidhiki05 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

Add international affiliation in infobox (Progessive Alliance) GoonerNGA (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussed and rejected earlier at Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)#International_affiliation. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)