Talk:Republican Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-Class)
Flag of the United States.svg
United States portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Vote-1-.svg
Politics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Political parties (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Society.svg
Politics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Political parties on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Crystal 128 kuser.png This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2008! Society.svg
Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5


Contents

[edit] Centre-right

What criteria are we using to describe the Republicans as centre-right? They're the most right-wing major party in the western world - not exactly Sweden's Moderate Party (who are also described on Wikipedia as being "centre-right", implying the words simply means you're not a fascist) or the old Progresive Conservative Party from Canada - and advocate social positions, for example, that would be flatly rejected by the electorate of any W. European/N. American country (not) the United States. That they've taken "centrist" positions in the past doesn't alter this fact: taking said positions is typically a precondition of ruling over a large populace democratically, and the Republicans are nonetheless fueled ideologically, if not always pragmatically, by a strand of radical individualism particular to the United States. The flying monkey circus of the GOP are far right, no one with their sanity would class the GOP's efforts to ban abortion undermine science as centre right.

In any case, if the Republicans are to be defined as centre-right, we should obviously seize using these descriptors altogether, since that automically places David Cameron on the communist-left or something and thusly invalidates the entire process of forming definitions based on gauging the international climate.

This has been discussed many times before. What justification have you for calling it the most right-wing major party in the world? Is it more right-wing than The People of Freedom or the National Alliance of Italy? What about the popularity of the right-wing populist movements? And what of the Alliance for the Future of Austria and Freedom Party of Austria in Austria; the National Front (France) of France; the Progress Party (Norway) of Norway; the Vlaams Belang of Belgium; the Dutch Party for Freedom; or the German National Democratic Party of Germany? And that's just in Europe. Perhaps you should review your sources before making such statements. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic party is center-right overall. Overall, the Republican party is between mainstream conservative and the far right. Anyone who lives in any country outside the USA understands this. The political compass is a good source that has been referenced by many people. It is certainly a reference this conversation can build off of: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008. --Surcer (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Politicalcompass.org is merely one guy's opinion. It is not an "org" despite paying the extra dollar on the domain. This should not be cited in wikipeida as a neutral source nor be the basis a conversation can build off of. Please research your sources more carefully. Chudogg (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon you're just kidding, the National Front has never been in exercise, and of course the BZO is often seen as far-right. The main right-wing party in France is the UMP. Wich (it surely bother me to tell this) is on the left of your Republican Party, but surely right-wing. To tell Republican Party is "Center Right" is outrageously POV. I totally agree with Surcer, in every Europe the Republican Party is seen as close to far-right. Arnsy (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not for the lfe of me understand how this party is listed as centre-right. The democratic party is centre-right. If you look at the positions of this party, this is the most conservative party in North America, and as someone said earlier, anyone outside the US would realize that. JCole416 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of the books referenced by this article describe the Republican Party as politically right-wing, The Right Nation and Turning Right in the Sixties. I have edited the article to appropriately reflect these sources.Sjrsimac (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I did not delete the term "center-right" from the article. There are elements of the Republican Party that could be classified as center right, and that should be acknowledged in the introduction. In the same vein, there are members of the Republican Party who have expressed more right-wing views. In similar fashion to the Democratic Party of the United States, the two principal political parties must "cover more ground" when only two parties are present.Sjrsimac (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
While I do not have access to your books, the second seems to be about the change from the traditionally more liberal republican party to the more conservative party that we see today. I will try and get a hold of these books and see what they have to say. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That is acceptable. In the meantime, I recommend that the labels of "center-right" and "right" be listed in the article as disputed terms.
That is fine, I usually insist that the terms should be used in the long run and not based on short-term shifts like the recent months (though with the wins in New Jersey and Virginia even that argument is starting to lose steam). Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this conversation is that "right" is a relative term. Let's take a quote from our very own wikipedia article on right-wing, shall we?
"In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right generally imply support for preserving traditional social orders with hierarchal or private control of wealth."
With this definition, there is vanishingly little about the Republican party that can't be described as "right wing". For an organization to be center-right, they would have to be center of someone else who is even more enthusiastic about that perspective.
You definitely can't call the Republican party "the most right-wing party in the free world" simply because the world is constantly spawning far-right nutcase parties that want to push an extremist agenda. Usually, however, they stay small and non-influential. It may just be that countries where the far-right parties would flourish wind up with oligarchies or theocracies instead of a party system. Certainly the neo-con movement was an attempt to push the US towards (but not necessarily into) oligarchy.
If you take the Republican party as a matter of individual members or positiions, the party spans from extreme right to center left. It's a continuum, not a location, and it's relative. Certainly the leadership of the Republican party is center-right compared to Rush Limbaugh, but I don't think we can call Rush a reasonable perspective to view Republicans from. From a populist perspective, the entire government is right wing (Democrats, too, by action if not words) because they have an extremely difficult time staying out of the pockets of the corporate interests.
The truth of the matter is that, for Americans and much of Europe, the American Republican Party is the poster child of right wing politics. They are the most influential of right wing organizations, and are the yard stick by which other right wing organizations are measured. They are, in fact, the Essence of Rightness. It's very difficult to claim that the Republicans are slightly center of themselves. Robert Rapplean (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Okay, here is the problem with claiming that the Republican Party is swerving right. The Party itself is NOT swinging anywhere but to the left (as a general direction, not as a current position). The party base, however, isn't swinging back, they just aren't going to put up with the lies and corruption anymore. And, I hate to say this, but that is not an ideological shift, that is people trying to hold their representatives accountable for what they are doing, as opposed to what they said they were gonna do, and the platform they ran on. The problem that conservatives have with "moderates" is, for the most part, they all ran on a "conservative" platform. Claimed to only support conservative ideals and such. Then, they went to Congress and did whatever they damn well pleased. That's not the Party being intolerant of moderates, that's the Party being intolerant of liars.
As for the Democratic Party, the Party itself is not shifting, however, I would like to see someone try to prove to me that the leadership of the Party (i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.) has not shifted dramatically in the last few years. If you could build that case, then you should go to law school and you could make millions. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be explained how they have shifted. But that is really not germane to the topic at hand. I think the Republican party's ideology should be listed as center-right and right-wing. Take a look at the party's representation in the Senate. You have two moderates (the Maine senators), several moderate conservatives (Murkowski, Voinovoch, Lugar, Hutchinson, Graham, McCain, LeMieux, Gregg) and the remaining 30 hard-core conservatives. In the House there are around 40 members of the Mainstreet Partnership, a group thats relatively moderate on social issues and conservative on economic ones, and the Republican Study Committee which comprises 100 hard-core conservatives. So it seems more than fair to have the party be labeled as center-right and right, despite the numbers being tilted fairly heavily in the direction of just the right wing of the party. For my other reasons for why this party should be labeled right as well as center-right see the below section on "center-right?" because I feel it unnecessary to repeat myself.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Official Color Red?

I remember back in the 1970's, 80's and even the early 90's. All the political maps I have seen were blue for Republicans and red for Democrats. Why has the media(?) changed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.41.34 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because during one particular election some stations showed the Republicans in red and the Dems in blue, and some guy wrote an article about the huge swaths of red on the map. It was rather unfortunate and confusing. I associate red with socialism, Democrats, and anti-Americanism. I associate blue with conservatives and America, and Republicans. It always confuses me when I hear "red state" and the speaker means the Republicans as I expect just the opposite.

It is not the official color. I'm pretty sure neither party has an official color.Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The 2000 election was when the colors "switched". Some believe the GOP became associated with red (the color of "power") when the change in power of Senate came about, giving Dems the "old [British Empire] power" color (Dems controlled Senate for decades before the '90s GOP revolution). Of course, it's all speculation. It could've simply been one intern in a TV network control room in NYC who decided it for the remainder of time... we may never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.183.239 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither party has an official color. Every time I hear people talk about red and blue states, they associate red with republican and blue with democrat. I honestly think the whole "official color" part should be taken out as neither party has stated an official color. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was one intern in a TV network control room. According to the Red states and blue states article, "On election night that year there was no coordinated effort in the media to code Democratic states blue and Republican states red; the association gradually emerged." Proud Ho (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I don't think an intern would even have the decision-making power to decide the color assignments. I'd imagine the color assignments being a decision between the anchorman and the higher ups in the graphics department. Proud Ho (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Up until 2000, there was a lot of variation, but in general, the in-power party was portrayed with blue and the out-of-power party was portrayed with red. So when Clinton was President (1996, 2000 elections), the GOP challenger (Dole, Bush 2) was red on all of the maps and the Democrat candidate (Clinton, Gore) was blue. In 1984, 1988, and 1992, the Republicans were the incumbent party (Reagan and Bush I) and so the Republican side was blue and the Democrat side was red. But after 2000 when red states and blue states got so much attention, the media just stuck with that designation. --B (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No-one seems to agree on what the former colour allocation scheme was with some saying the colours alternated between incumbent and challenger every four years. And different media outlets used different colours, so past references to "Lake Reagan" or the Fords yelling "Go blue!" may not be indicative of universal usage. However since 2000 focused attention on maps of political divides the colour scheme froze on the ones used. I think the Democrats now use a slogan like "turn it blue" for some of their campaigns but don't know if any Republican campaign actually talks about turning a blue state red. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite all this talk, the current color associations remain in usage in society and media. Pundits and politicians use the jargon as well as blogs, magazines, television shows and regular people. However, it should not be labeled as "official" and then right next to it have in parenthesis as "(unofficial)," its simply pointless and needlessly contradictory. It should be labeled "associated color" instead perhaps. Until the time where it becomes an anachronism to use, I believe the color associations should remain in place. Also, take a look at their website and tell me what color is used the most. Answer: red.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism

I noticed that under ideologies there is no mention of libertarianism. I have always known the Party to have a Libertarian wing. (Ron Paul for example). I personally think that Libertarianism should be added, what do you guys think?

Dunnsworth (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, it's really a separate party. Libertarians tend to vote Republican because the libertarian party has no realistic chance of winning any elections. So basically, there are many libertarians that come into the Republican party because they prefer it to the Democratic party. I guess this could be mentioned, but I don't think libertarianism should be taken as part of the Republican party.

I've added the term "classical liberalism", which in my view is quite accurate. I wouldn't mind adding "libertarianism" too - think of policy issues such as free trade, low taxes, strict constructionism, support for second amendment rights, school choice, the right to work, social security privatisation, private health savings accounts, and so forth. The Republican Liberty Caucus is still an important force. Maybe the term "libertarian conservatism" would describe it even better: Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal can certainly be described as libertarian conservatives, and the GOP is still an implicit coalition of libertarian conservatives and social conservatives, which many refer to as "fusionism". EmergentOrder (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't think either classical liberal or libertarian conservative would be correct. "Free trade, low taxes, strict constructionism, support for second amendment rights, school choice, the right to work, social security privatisation, private health savings accounts, and so forth" are all policies that conservatives also share.Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think libertarianism should be added because, while the points people have made are valid in the areas where conservatives and libertarians agree, there are numerous points where they diverge such as: marriage privatization(Basically same-sex marriage), an end to the war on drugs and legalization of anywhere from several to all drugs, pro-choice, pro-assisted suicide, non-interventionism. These positions are entirely antithetical to the Republican Party. I believe classical liberalism or perhaps right-libertarianism maybe be appropriate, but not solely "libertarianism."--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of this article in dispute

See this edit as one example of POV-pushing. The national debt had stabilized by the year 2000, but since then, under Republican control, the national debt has exploded. Cheney's quote is "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut." How can one conclude anything but that in the 21st century, the Republican Party favors increasing the national debt (which is nothing but an accumulated sum of all years' national deficits) in favor of tax cuts? --Art Smart (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One might conclude that. However, the article cannot. Another reliable source must conclude it; to do so ourselves would be original research and synthesis of sources. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No synthesis involved. Facts are facts. According to Treasury Department, the national debt as of 01/22/2001 was $5,728,195,796,181.57. As of 07/31/2008, it was $9,585,479,639,200.33. That's a 67% increase in the 7.5 years of Republican budget control. I propose adding the treasurydirect.gov reference to my previous edit. Does that work? --Art Smart (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're saying that the national debt has risen 67% during the 7.5 years of Republican control, of course. Saying anything else is not supported directly by the source. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine. That works for me. --Art Smart (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What you added is not factually accurate, much less neutral. The way you added it makes the nonsensical claim that one of the definitions of the Republican party is a 67% increase in the national debt. That is not correct. The fact can be added somewhere else in the article; section 2.2 seems the most apropos, although it would probably need a bit more information about the general trend of increased national debt. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The Republican Party, at least so far in the 21st century, is defined by tax cuts and preemptive wars regardless of their impacts upon the national debt. That's all I was trying to say until you wanted it reduced to a 67% increase in the national debt so far this century. Please clarify your point. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither party cares about the national debt. You can see this by virtue of the Democrats having a majority in both houses yet the deficit is still increasing. This doesn't belong here, but Politics of the United States. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Without 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats are stymied by the Republicans. Several Democratic attempts at dealing with war funding failed due to Republicans winning cloture votes in the Senate. And what about the Cheney quote? He's the one who has pulled Republican puppet strings all these years, from Bush on down. You won't find a Democratic leader who says "deficits don't matter." --Art Smart (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's the Republican's fault that they won't the babysit the Democrats when they're fiscally irresponsible? Both parties are responsible for the deficit. Clinton increased the debt, Pelosi passed unbalanced budgets. Either put it on both pages or neither. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Always assuming good faith, I'm confident you honestly believe what you are saying. Please back it up with neutral reliable sources, and edit the articles accordingly. If I or others find fault with the neutrality and/or reliability of your sources, we'll take appropriate action. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Clinton but actually Lightspectra, Clinton decreased the national debt, do some research.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this so please be kind, but if you are going to discuss the size of the national debt over time shouldn’t it be measured in the terms of percentage of GDP, or another measure that translates more accurately over time. --Cferguson62 (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also new, but... this discussion really needs to make clear what the term control means. I could argue that Republicans in control of congress balanced the deficit in the 90's. Since Democrats have gotten control of congress in this century, the deficit has grown at a faster rate than before. I'm just playing devil's advocate, but each individual trying to claim a party has complete control over government when they don't is being intellectually dishonest. -- matt

[edit] Center verses Center-Right

The fact that, in the historical past, the Republicans had a large centrist wing and implemented centrist policies at times is pretty clear. The bald statement that it used to be solely and exclusively "center-left" is silly. Similarly, even though there is a strong center-right (Giuliani, Thompson) and right-wing (Hunter, Tancredo) current in dominance in the Republican Party there is still a centrist wing and a centrist current still present.

Thus: 'Center, Center-right' would be the best way to describe it. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Future trends sections has no sense. can somebody delete it? A realiagnment to favour the GOP is just impossible.Eros of Fire (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand what the section is about. It's about what types of people will constitute the GOP in the future (with is an open question with no easy answer). 24.32.204.89 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither party in the global spectrum is more than center-(something). Even Tancredo (on the right) and Pelosi (left) would be centrists in many other democratic countries, not to mention the marginally democratic. The furthest right the American republicans could be is 'center right' without being US centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.139.77 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And that would be according to whom? Soxwon (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you never lived outside the USA... Arnsy (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And what do you base your conclusion of the Republican party's positioning on? Soxwon (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, I would say the Republicans our more Centrist than Democrats at present, as most "friendly" nation are in control by IDU member parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.212.89 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious? The Republican party more centrist than the Democrats? In most countries its pretty centrist to support a government-run healthcare system and large welfare system and yet the Democratic platform calls for neither and the Republicans are against these things to the point of decrying fascism and communism and demonizing people using religious connotations. People amaze me....--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The solution to this problem is pretty simple. Get some reliable sources to support things. Our opinions don't count for anything and a lot of this material presently smacks of opinion or original research.

[edit] "center right" ?

I recommend rewording this to read "In the U.S. political spectrum, the party's platform is considered more conservative than the other major US political party, the Democratic Party." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there is some contention about the GOP being "center right" with regards to the social and fiscal policy. IMHO, the party has banked pretty far right; I'm pretty sure there are reliable sources that indicate such, but I haven't any to cite right now. I suggest we do some digging to see what sources say, and go from there. I further suggest we should keep the contested tags in place until this is squared away. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a continued discussion of this above. This should be based on a larger picture rather than snapshots (For instance, I would argue that your position is incorrect with the election of moderates in the recent elections). Soxwon (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the frame of reference has a significant impact. I have my own opinions on the appropriate of a "center" label with regards to the GOP, however the real issue is what reliable sources say. I didn't see or read the discussion above, but I'll go back and check it out. However, it sounds like the real issues surround how to define the social/fiscal category. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice discussion. I believe that whatever we decide, we should share with the Democratic Party Page. Many editors have a long standing consensus that they are a "Center-Left" party. It is unfair to have the Democrats labelled center left and the Republicans labeled as "right wing." Perhaps a statement to the effect of "To the right of the political spectrum" would be more appropriate. Boromir123 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not unfair if it's consistent with what the bulk of reliable sources say. From what I keep reading, in a variety of sources, Centrist Republicans seem to be very much marginalized within the party.--Father Goose (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with your statement, Father Goose. Within the party, centrists/moderates/progressives are not being marginalized, but lauded. Case in point, Dede Scozzafava, John McCain, etc. Outside the party, meaning the base, is where the bulk of the backlash is coming from. Case in point, again, Dede Scozzafava and Doug Hoffman. The party leaders (meaning people that are actually in a position of power inside the party, i.e., Steele, McConnel, Boehner, not Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are not in the habit of marginalizing one of their own for centrist/moderate/progressive actions and ideas, but the supporters of said party do have that habit. The distinction is small, but very important. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. The party has been reduced to its base in its representation. There have been dozens if not hundreds of news articles pointing to the shift to the right of the party. Just this month party insiders have been distributing a memo inside the National Committee with 10 points that all Party candidates should agree to or not receive support.[1] The examples you mentioned, John McCain and Dede Scozzafava, McCain made an obviously rightward shift during the campaign to appeal to the base while maintaining the maverick rhetoric. Scozzafava on the other hand kept her positions and was essentially forced out of the campaign because party insiders(everyone but the party leaders in elected positions), Party backers and donors, the Party base, and former and current elected politicians all supported Hoffman. In my state Sen. Graham has been censured by several county party chairs for even TALKING to John Kerry about climate change legislation and Graham is no moderate. Arlen Specter was forced from the party because of a challenge from the right and Lincoln Chafee was weakened because of one. There was talk in the party of censuring or threatening to retain committee posts for the two moderate Maine senators if they voted with the Democrats on healthcare. Olympia Snowe herself said of being a moderate in the party "you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe."[2] Charlie Crist,Bob Bennet of Utah and John McCain are all being seriously challenged from the right in primaries as well and none of them are even moderates. Roy Blunt and Rob Portman are also being challenged from the right. Carly Fiorina and Mike Castle (moderates) are all also being challenged from the right and Mark Kirk of Illinois has positioned himself away from his moderate record. I believe its more than safe to say that centrists ARE being marginalizing moderates. The Republican National Committee is supporting the people it thinks most likely to win a general election while its elected officials, base, supporters, donors, activists and others are supporting the hard-right candidates. All of the people I've mentioned save for the two senators from Maine are not moderate but could be considered moderate conservatives. I think its safe to say the only liberal or progressive Republicans are in heavily blue areas like the northeast and even then are only locally elected and are few and far between. Republican centrists are a dying breed, if not already dead.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to go with Sparrowhawk64 on this one -- there are plenty of sources that indicate the hard right turn taken by the GOP in the last 8 years. With regards to the "it isn't fair" comment above -- Wikipedia isn't a tit-for-tat battleground in which the two parties are direct foils (a false dichotomy). It is certainly conceivable (and, IMHO, factual) that one party is slightly left of center whilst the other is far to the right; I find it worrisome when we become more concerned with political "fair"ness than with just stating what reliable sources state about a subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Republicans moved further to the center under Bush. Whether it was the massive growth of the federal government, deficit spending, soft stance on illegal immigration, bailouts of companies that were too big to fail, etc. Parties typically follow it's leaders, that's why the Democrats have taken a "hard left turn." When you look at Pelosi, Reid, and Obama's policies and voting records, you'll realize they're some of the biggest liberals in America, two of them may be full-blown leftists. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Bush may have moderated his economic policies to get elected under "compassionate conservatism" or could just be attributed to poor economic and fiscal decisions; and being from a border state has a softer stance on immigration. He, like Obama, moderated since he represented the whole of the country but the rest of the party remained staunchly conservative during his terms. On the matter of Pelosi she may be on the left, but she represents San Francisco; that however doesn't mean she can get whatever she wants through (i.e. single-payer and same-sex marriage). These arguments are beside the point, we're talking about the current state of the party and there is sufficient evidence to support a relatively fast, hard and recent rightward shift. I'm curious about this supposed "hard left turn" as most news articles of late have been about how difficult it is for the Democratic leadership to keep its members together on even its most basic platform policies such as abortion (see Stupak Amendment). The Democrats aren't "hard left" seeing as how they don't even support single-payer health coverage like center-right parties in every other developed country. I hate to tell you but the federal government grew tremendously under Reagan as well and people regard him as THE great Republican. The point is, the Democrats are center and center-left and the Republicans are center-right and right-wing, such is the nature of American politics.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Okay, here is the problem with claiming that the Republican Party is swerving right. The Party itself is NOT swinging anywhere but to the left (as a general direction, not as a current position). The party base, however, isn't swinging back, they just aren't going to put up with the lies and corruption anymore. And, I hate to say this, but that is not an ideological shift, that is people trying to hold their representatives accountable for what they are doing, as opposed to what they said they were gonna do, and the platform they ran on. The problem that conservatives have with "moderates" is, for the most part, they all ran on a "conservative" platform. Claimed to only support conservative ideals and such. Then, they went to Congress and did whatever they damn well pleased. That's not the Party being intolerant of moderates, that's the Party being intolerant of liars.
As for the Democratic Party, the Party itself is not shifting, however, I would like to see someone try to prove to me that the leadership of the Party (i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.) has not shifted dramatically in the last few years. If you could build that case, then you should go to law school and you could make millions.
What? McCain is not a moderate? Which McCain are you talking about? Even the liberal pundits call him a moderate. As for Blunt (specifically, since I'm from his district), he is not exactly a moderate, but he does do a lot of earmarks. For instance, there are four YMCA's in this area that are called the "Roy Blunt YMCA of [insert area name here]." And he runs on an anti-big spending platform. That's why he has opposition, because he's a liar, and someone wants him out of a position where his lies hurt other people. That is not an ideological shift, unless you consider a dislike of a lying employee an ideological difference between some groups and others. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the claims I made were disputed. Even supposed "moderates" like McCain are being challenged (During the campaign he reversed all his moderate decisions like immigration reform, gay adoption, etc so please explain to me how hes a moderate. Actually don't, all of this is beside the point.) in what seems to be a grassroots shift in the GOP to the right. I could also site the tea party protests as a hard move to the right. All you have to do is look at some of the pictures taken of those rallies and see that lots of the rallies (although not all conservatives or Republicans) are bordering on lunacy and racism. This groundswell has and will push the party further to the right. This is reactionary politics in its finest. I understand that people want to hold their officials to what they elected them for and thats all well and good but its simply ignoring reality to state anything than the obvious fact that the party has shifted right in response to the landslide of last year. The party reorganized itself after a similarly huge loss in 1964 and after their numerous losses to FDR. By the way liberal pundits said McCain was a moderate before the general election. You're right on one thing, Obama has shifted, he moved to the center in the primary and general election (e.g. anti-marriage equality, anti-single payer). Conservatives are embracing the derogatory term of "right-wingers" and politicians are throwing around their credibility as "true conservatives." Another reason to cite the rightward shift is the huge surge in viewership of FOX News and its programs. Barry Goldwater said in 1987 that the Republican Party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks," I'd hate to know what he'd say now.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, you sound like an angry liberal, so I won't push you too hard on what you said. However, I will push you on one thing because it was the most ignorant part of your statement: "All you have to do is look at some of the pictures taken of those rallies and see that lots of the rallies (although not all conservatives or Republicans) are bordering on lunacy and racism." You must know how easy it is to manipulate a picture (I'm not talking about Photoshop, although that wouldn't surprise me), to make the context appear to be something that it is not. And, I hate to break this to you, but I looked at hundreds of pictures, simply because I could not fathom the reason why people would hold up racist signs, and then I had a realization: Despite what deep-thinkers like Janeane Garfalo think, it is not racist to disagree with a black man. It is not racist to dislike a man's stances and policies, simply because he is black. Is there some racists in the tea party crowd? Undoubtedly. I saw a few, and I talked to a few. However, they were in the extreme minority, and the three that I talked to at the tea party I went to left early (probably on the realization that we didn't care what color Obama was, just disagreed with his policy decisions). Am I going to pretend that there aren't people inside the Republican establishment that are racist? Absolutely not. However, for people, such as yourself, to assert that a crowd is racist simply because of the signs that some hold up, or the color of the man they disagree with, is not only ignorant, but out of line. And I hate to say this, but last year was not a landslide. The final score was 53-46 on the percentage side. The electoral side was simply well-played political maneuvering by Obama and his campaign. (I despise the electoral college, by the way. And yes, that includes Bush's victory over Gore in 2000.) And while Obama ran as a centrist, he left that behind as soon as the election was over. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said the majority of the rallies were racist, you're twisting my words, I said lots were bordering on racism. And I sincerely believe you could go to any rally that happened across the country and find people with racist signs and I'm sure they are in the minority in most cases. I entirely agree that people can disagree with him and not be racist. My point was that these rallies show an at least partially grassroots motivated surge to the right in the Republican Party. There is, however, no need to devolve to personal attacks in calling me an angry liberal and ignorant. Also, I meant landslide in context of the majorities of state legislatures, governorships, senate seats, and house seats the Democrats won. This entire debate is immaterial and really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I was using the rallies as an example of the rightward shift of the party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I never said that you said a majority of rallies were racist. I said that there are things that are not racism, assuming those were the "borderline racist" things you were describing.
Second, I'm not disagreeing that there is a grassroots surge pushing the party to the right. However, I am disputing the basis of your statement, that the starting point for the party is "center-right." I realize that some politicos are too ground in theory to understand this, but the Republicans have been sitting somewhere between center/center-left for the last, oh...at least twelve years. And, of course, now I'm going to get a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong, and evil for even thinking something like that, but I don't really care. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can see where you are coming from in saying that the party is center-left because of government spending increases and increasing the size of government but, using that logic, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Nixon, and Ford all increased government spending, national debt, and the size of the federal government and would be center-left. The last three Republicans, and, in fact Clinton and Carter, deregulated the financial industry among others. Its social policy however, has continually shifted right ever since the Nixon-Goldwater-Ford era, who all supported abortion rights and the ERA (except Goldwater). This is due to the rise of the religious right, which in recent years has become basically one in the same with the economic right. I would say the party was at one time centrist based, all the way from Roosevelt to Ford and had a strong centrist/center-left wing. This however is no more as the only true moderates left in the party are a handful of people from deeply blue states with negligible influence. The Rockefeller wing has largely vanished from the party. Go to Gallups website and look at their polls to see that 73% of Republicans are either very conservative or just conservative, whereas 40% of Democrats are liberal, 38% are moderate, and 22% are conservative.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that our disagreement is one of definitions. When I say "Republican Party," I mean the actual elected members of the Party, as well as the people employed by, and the leadership of, the Party itself. I'm not talking about the base. I will admit that the base is waking up and SHOUTING their move to the right, however, I don't see the official Party members and leadership being quite so obvious about it. The members are moving to the right, however, if you don't immediately assume a "center-right" starting point (which is not where they started from), you can see that that does not mean that the party is entering the fringe of the right-wing area.
As for Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, Nixon and Ford expanding the government, I only disagree on Reagan. All the others I agree with you on. Yes, Reagan raised spending, but he did it in the military and national defense areas, not in welfare, and social programs, which is decidedly not a liberal/progressive agenda item. All the others...actually, I disagree with you on Clinton, as well. Realistically, Clinton and the Republican Congress (I say that because Congress controls the purse strings, not the President) severely reduced spending. But yes, the Bush duo, Nixon and Ford all allowed Congress to dramatically increase spending and the size of government. So, maybe I was wrong about the last 12 years...maybe it was off-and-on for the last 40 years. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider the people who vote for the politicians just as much, if not more so, the Republican Party. Anyway, on Reagan, all I can do is urge you to do some in depth research, possibly read "Tear Down This Myth." I have been told these pages are not a "link depository" so I'll refrain from posting numerous ones. I would however also argue that Republican officials have shifted right (I already made mention of the "purity" memo inside the RNC) and there are of course other examples, such as the entirely polarized current congress where one Republican voted for health reform, or Joe Wilsons outburst, or numerous elected officials refusing to state whether or not our President is legally the President. And on the matter of Clinton, many in progressive circles and blogs blame Clinton for not reversing Reagan's deregulations and even removing more regulations.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we try to maintain focus on the page itself, which needs considerable work. As far as the right/center right question goes, all that matters is what is stated in reliable sources. Our work should focus on finding such sources and describing them accurately. Locke9k (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A few updates to certain polls...new section needed for separation

Specifically, the pie chart in the Voter Base section. If you do the math, it shows 43% of people registered Democrat in 2004. While I will not question the accuracy of that chart, a recent poll shows that self-labeled Democrats is at 37.5%, while 32.1% claim Republican, instead of 32.1%. The biggest difference is Independents, which jumped from 25% to 30%. Updates are needed. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek Article

2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek ArticleNewsweek Article as per Republican activist Grover Norquist.

2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek ArticleNewsweek Article: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/tags/Absurdly+Premature+2012+Watch/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.68.163 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Future Trends

Alright, I was hopeful that the section could become some sort of long term vision for the party done by academic scholars. However, in its present form the entire damn thing is nothing but partisan bickering over the prospects of the party that are updated as the situation changes. That's not the job of an encyclopedia and is a clear violation of WP:BALL and WP:NOTNEWS to some degree. Soxwon (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides on the issue, but you need to revert and discuss, not revert and revert. If you have a problem with the section, then please ask for consensus here. Last I checked, your account doesn't have some special privalage of "Final Say" on what goes in and out of an article. Please wait for consensus before deleting an entire section, especially one that has been in the article for a while.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Soxwon. The section is a violation of policy, and should be removed (or, in this case, it should stay removed). J DIGGITY SPEAKS 19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed this section to "Trends" and have removed the prognostication as best I could. It can hopefully do a lot better as a section describing present trends as documented in reliable sources. Locke9k (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laissez-Faire? Since when?

Considering all the crap that the Republicans have done in the name of "saving the economy," can we really leave laissez-faire on there? Regardless of what they say, we should judge based on their actions, not on their words. In other words, I suggest we remove it for lack of evidence that it still applies. Disagreement? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your POV is clear.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
POV? What POV? I'm merely pointing out that the Republicans (namely Bush, whom I voted for twice) have interfered in the markets numerous times in the last couple of years, and advocated even more interference. I'm not saying this in a, "Oh, I can really make those Republicans look bad if I remove laissez-faire from their article on Wikipedia!" What I'm saying is, given their recent track record, I wonder if the laissez-faire tag is still applicable. (Oh, and thanks for trying to paint me in the POV light. Like that's not something that disagreeing people do regularly.)
By the way, what happened to no personal attacks? Instead of making some sort of coherent argument (like Soxwon did), you immediately attack me? You might want to read all the rules before you go tossing them around. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I would, they are by and large more free market than their opponents (they are usually the ones associated with smaller government). Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What does it matter if they say they are more of something than their opponents? Based on what I've seen recently, they are all for the opposite of laissez-faire when they are in power, but when the Liberal/Progressive big spenders grab the power, suddenly they are not only opposed, but offended that someone would think of interfering with the markets! Of course they are opposed to something that the Democrats are wanting to do. Hell, even some of the Democrats were against TARP and the first stimulus (by that, I mean the one back in '08, where people got checks). Again, what I'm saying is that things change, and the Republicans are no longer laissez-faire about the markets. Small government and free markets are not mutually inclusive. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"Based on what I've seen recently"
That's the problem, recent can change in the blink of an eye. You need something more longstanding other than what has happened in the past few months. Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can agree with that. While I am not convinced of them being laissez-faire, I can see your point. I'll leave it alone for now. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning the statement "sanctity of the American Constitution"

The United States Constitution is defended by many groups in piecemeal fashion. The American Civil Liberties Union is known for defending particular rights, while the National Rife Association is known for defending another set of rights. There are also constitutional issues that remain unresolved, notably the legality of abortion. It is baseless to claim that the Republican Party has a monopoly on the enterprise of defending the "sanctity of the American Constitution" when a variety of interest groups exist all along the political spectrum that defend particular principles or even particular interpretations. With this in mind, I am removing the statement "sanctity of the American Constitution" from the article.Sjrsimac (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this statement should be removed given that no source is provided for the claim. It is dubious for the reasons stated by Sjrsimac, and smacks of opinion and original research.Locke9k (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It's nice to restore sanity. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Centre right?

When did this party become centre-right? When did the Democrats become Centre-left? Someone should state that the American public define them as a centre-party, while Europe defines the Republican and Democratic parties as right wing. --TIAYN (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the Republican Party is American, the article is US-centric and is correct in stating that the GOP is center-right in the American political spectrum, while the Democratic Party is center-left. It's true that both parties are further right on social and fiscal policies than European parties, but relative to each other, the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats and vice versa. In the 19th century, to a certain extent, the parties' ideologies were reversed; Democrats were pro-state's-rights and strongly socially conservative, while Republicans were abolitionists and progressive. In short, the election of FDR in 1932 is seen as the most prominent realigning election, but up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed there were a significant contingent of conservative Democratic politicians, primarily in the South. Ever since Nixon's Southern strategy, the Republicans have been solidly conservative, socially and fiscally. See realigning election: United States, particularly realigning election: Possible modern realigning elections in the United States for more information. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] End "center right/center left" discussion!

STOP! This "discussion" has gone on too long and NO ONE has clarified or concluded anything about either party's alignment. Obviously there is no consensus. But it seems silly to have an article about a political party and not describe it's alignment. My view is remove the "discuss" tags and leave it as is. Foreignshore (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

ADD: The name calling and trash talk here is unacceptable (see the first entry, for example: the "flying monkey circus" ... etc.) This is an encyclopedia. There are other places to sling insults like this. LEAVE IT OFF WIKIPEDIA or I will remove it myself. Foreignshore (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

[edit] Deleonism and/or Leninism Democratic Party: Call Democratic Party either!

When did social democracy become communism? --TIAYN (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)"