Talk:Republican Party (United States)

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2008!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

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.

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)

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)

Neutrality Dispute Under Modern Political Ideology and Political Positions

Describing the Republican Party's modern political ideology with terms such as Fascism, Homophobia, and Irrationality and the party's fiscal position as Delusional is indisputably a partisan attack on the Republican Party by attempting to paint them with controverial words that incite fear and anger as well as words that simply hurt the party's reputation on a non-political basis.

Agreed. Doing that kind of thing hurts wikipedia and it's reputation for neutrality. Please avoid using such violent terms such as Fascism, Homophobia and Irrationality unless you can back it up with, for example, a list of the party's core issues compared to a list of the core issues of Fascist ideology and prove that it matches those issues more closely then other political ideologies like conservatism (And I don't mean American 'whatever the republican party says' conservative, I mean conservative in the European sense, since fascist is a European idea). Irrationality, interestingly, cannot be backed up period. And Homophobia's also a hard one to prove. As is Delusional. So, don't bother with those.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.148.18 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 

I just requested and indefinite semi-protection for this article because of this type of bias; maybe it would stop or slow down people that choose to incite this. Burningview (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Social and economic ideology (Center-Right?)

Am I the only one surprised by the fact that this article shows that the Republican Party has a center-right ideology both on social and economic issues? If the "neocons" are center-right, who would be the right wingers? Just watch some comments of Sarah Palin about inmigration, sexuality, religion, guns, hunting, etc. and you guys won´t see any other politician so extreme as her. I would change that center-right issue, but I just want to know your opinions.--Natxohm (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Natxohm. By world standards the Democratic party is a center-right party -- they can't even agree on a single payer health care system! (I will accordingly post on that page next.) The Republican Party is more like the far-right parties of Europe. While I am not sure "fascism" is yet a fair description I would certainly classify them as "right-wing populist," another term used to describe parties such as the National Front in France and British National Party.Amyzex (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to suggest adding National Conservatism to the list of ideologies currently influencing Republican policy. My understanding of National Conservatism is that it is a political ideology stressing the importance of "traditional values embedded in the family as the center of social experience." (I paraphrased this from the wikipedia National Conservatism article.) There exists a conflict within conservative political parties between economic conservatives and social conservatives regarding which issues should be at the forefront of political campaigns, and in the current and the most recent national elections it seems as though social issues have been Republicans' primary focus. Even issues such as immigration (both legal and illegal) that may be viewed in economic terms are viewed instead in terms of shared national culture and the preservation of traditional social identities. Furthermore, National Conservatism, as it focuses primarily on social issues, allows for a broad range of economic policies ranging from classic free-market economics to interventionist measures. This broad range of ideas is echoed in current Republican policy, as evidenced by the various opinions of that party's representatives regarding the bailout plan. The more I watch the news, the more I honestly believe that the term "National Conservatism" encompasses the school of thought currently dominant in the Republican Party, and regardless of any personal feelings regarding the term, this article should reflect that in the interests of accuracy and objectivity. --Apjohns54 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin does not represent the entire GOP; she's a bit more conservative than the rest of her party. For right-wing, see the Constitution Party.

Also, "national conservatism" implies a support of tariffs and immigration quotas (not just border security). This does not describe a very large portion of the GOP. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is in fact quite moderate: Her stance towards marihuana is quite liberal, and as Alaska governor she vetoed legislation that would ban any benefits to same-sex couples. In the 2006 gubernatorial race, she was endorsed by many high-ranking Libertarian Party members. EmergentOrder (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Sarah Palin is moderate (even Fox news has not said such a thing) is nearly as peculiar as the idea that the Republican Party is Center-Right. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but there can be no suggestion that either Palin or her party is moderate in any way. 67.68.19.120 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way the Republican Party can be consdered center-right on social issues. They're firmly to the right, no center about it, socially. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The two mainstream US political parties are too broad to have firmly pinned ideologies. It is not unreasonable to say that the Republican Party is in general and on average center-right, just as it's not unreasonable to say that the Democrats are center-left. Some Republicans are not center-right; some Democrats are not center-left, but in general the terms are fair characterizations of the parties as wholes. I could just as easily make the argument that the Republican Party is centrist as I could that they are right or even far-right, as apposed to center-right. Center-right is the best choice for this article. 97.77.52.112 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This would have been true 20 years ago. There can be no doubt of the Republican Party's new stance any more. It is a very right wing party. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As compared to what? To make that call is POV. Soxwon (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe consensus should be written after Political position, seeing as how everyone seems to disagree. Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This all seems a bit silly. Are we really discussing if the republican party is center or center right? After the 2008 elections, it seems painfully obvious that they are nothing but a conservative party. Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Chris Shays, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords and Susan Collins have all been called RINOs, defeated in primaries or forced to switch parties. Snowe even said in a NY Times op-ed that being a moderate in the GOP is like being on survivor and trying to stay on the island; she said its like they don't want you there. The GOP is a very right wing party, look at how its members in congress vote on On the Issues. While there are numerous Democratic moderates and even conservative ones, there are about 10 GOP moderates in Congress now. Look at it's national leaders, all far right conservatives. And about their diversity mentioned in the article; someone please explain that to me with a poll. Also, how is the "Republican coalition" is "diverse". Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele make up just about all of their diversity and they might as well be old white guys. Their coalition isn't diverse; find me one nationally elected republican who supports same-sex marriage or abortion rights. People here say this article's neutrality is in jeopardy, well...it is. Its far too biased towards the GOP in ignoring the reality on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhawk64 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Classifying it as right-wing is not up to your interpretation. Even still, your sweeping generalizations fail to impress, can't by your logic the Democratic party be called left-wing for having representatives such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, John Edwards? Besides, simply snapping a picture of the Republicans while they're down and saying that the conservative representation is what the republicans are isn't accurate. Soxwon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GOP

The article states that GOP stands for "Grand Old Pary". This is a very very common mistake. As per the GOP website, GOP originally stood for "Gallant Old Party". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.93.44 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mormons

In the ideology section, it states "Evangelicals are not the only religious conservative faction in the Party, though: there are also the Mormons, who emphasize traditional family values"

This strikes me as a Mormon slight, as many Mormons are evangelical. Protestants and Catholics are not the only evangelicals.

The term 'Evangelical' is used in political and religious analysis to refer to a particular self-identified group of conservative protestant American churches. It is not to say that no other sect or ideological group evangelizes, no more than the term 'Baptist' means no other sect or denomination baptizes. This usage is rather common and understood.--Primal Chaos (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaking the difference between evangelism and evangelicalism. Evangelism is the act of spreading the "good news", while evangelicalism is a theological trend in, primarily, Protestant denominations. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Free market

The Republicans for the past 30 years have supported a high national debt, high government spending, and supply-side economics as opposed to a laissez-faire free market. If "economic conservatism" means reduced government spending and meddling (including meddling by handing out pro-business subsidies) in the economy then this article should't say that GOP's fiscal policy is "economic conservatism." SteveSims (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good question, what should the article say about Republican Party stances when they say one thing and do another?Readin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From a non-POV standpoint, the article should describe both what the party says (platform as well as statements by leading members) and what it does (how most Republicans vote as well as how leaders vote). Probably the best neutral language is to leave out "the party supports ..." and replace it with "the party platform says ..." and "this and that leader say ...." SkyDot (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, they cut spending and balanced the budget after they took Congress in 1994 (Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America), so it's not quite accurate to claim they have "supported a high national debt, high government spending". Even now in 2008, federal debt as a percentage of GDP is down to 38%, below every single year throughout the Nineties and way below the 49% in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled Congress. EmergentOrder (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

Refers to Bush's policy towards some dictatorships; dunno whether it is particularly urgent to change as the gist of the statement still stands.. but there have been significant changes recently; maybe a couple of words to indicate this? heh.. just thought I'd mention it.. 86.160.211.0 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) RJ UK

Is this a joke?

"They support the idea of individuals being economically responsible for their own actions and decisions. They favor a free-market, policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism."

How can a party that supports mercantalism, managed trade, business subsidies, regulations, fiat money, deficit spending, welfare (social and corporate), etc. possibly be considered economically liberal? Josh (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The spin doctors say so. This is a weakness of wikipedia, where whoever edits last wins. SkyDot (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the Bush Administration does not represent the entire Republican Party. In fact one of the major reasons Bush has grown unpopular with Republicans is because of the things you mentioned above. I wouldn't consider Bush a fiscal conservative at all, just a big government spending drunken monkey hiding behind the name "compassionate conservative", ruining the party with his unconservative policies. His administration's economic habits do not represent the entire party's.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have the GOP's stated positions on one hand (i.e. the lip service to free markets and economic liberalism) and then on the other, you have actual policy, which turns out to be the opposite. I think this distinction can be reflected in the article, and something like the above captures the gist of this gap between what is stated and actual policy (and reasons why the Bush administration has become unpopular with free-market advocates in the GOP). Twalls (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This actually completely wrong. This idea is not a Democrat/Republican compare and contrast. This is a Conservative/Liberal/Neo-Conservative/Libertarian compare and contrast. The Republican party as a whole, and by as a whole I mean the Dwight Eisenhower Republican party, is Conservative. You have Neo-Conservatives that call themselves conservatives but are more liberal than moderate Democrats. Some Republicans, like Ron Paul, are Libertarians, which is what this part of the article refers to. The Republican party as a whole does not believe in economic self-responsibility. They also don't believe in small, state's-rights government. Why? Most Republicans are pro-life. They made that choice for those that are supposed to be "self-responsible." Not only that, they practice "Reganomics" or "Trickle-Down" economics. This leaves no room for self-responsibility when the bourgeoisie that receives the most benefit from trickle-down makes all the economic decisions and controls the economic climate and future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.202.98 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Republican I find it interesting that most of the comments seem to be from non-Republicans. Just to be clear, currently the definition of "Republican", as it is accepted by the general population, reflects the ideals of the "Southern" Republicans. Ask someone on the street to describe a Republican and they will most likely describe a rich, white, church-goer who works for a large corporation and would like nothing lore than to over-turn Roe v. Wade. This is largely due to the current administration and completely unfair. By the way, many of us are in agreement that Mr. Bush is a complete bozo (although it may have taken us a while to get there). I would like to address Economic Liberalism, which refers to, in its most basic sense, the ability to acheive a financial goal and then have dominion over those finances. Yes, I am sure that there are many "wealthy" Republicans (as there are Democrats). However, the number of working class party members is far greater, and these people, myself included, understand that, in most cases, working toward a financial goal often leads to "wealth". Economic Liberalism is simply the belief in one's right to succeed without a yoke of caveats attached to the paths to, and fruits of, their success. What the Democrats seem to want to acheive with their economic policies, is to penalize those who have acheived these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While vocal and certainly present, I find this particular brand of Objectivist Libertarian thought to have little or no influence on Republican policy decisions, and am hard pressed to find a time when they created party policy.--Primal Chaos (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The tax cuts of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush nod in this direction as one motivation for their passing, if not the only. TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question worth answering...

I have always thought of this question. What is up with the mascots for the political parties? Like, how did political parties base their parties on animals? Anyway, just a question to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupethemonkeyboy (talk • contribs)

The DNC is a donkey because Jacksonian Democrats were called stubborn as asses. The GOP is an elephant because they never forgot about the War of 1812 or something like that. Elephants never forget anything. What I'd like to know is why the Republicn Page is locked and the Democrat Page isn't. Some immature little quasi-socialist Democrats on here, or what? Chenzo23 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard that they got their mascots from the political jokes and cartoons that the press was printing. I think its pretty funny that they would take up the animals as their mascvots when the animals were ment to make fun of the 2 partys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.52.69 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Defanging attempts at insults by adopting them as a point of pride is a very American thing to do. "Yankee Doodle" started out as an insulting term to make fun of American hicks. We adopted it and sang a patriotic song - the very song that was supposed to make fun of us - about Yankee Doodle. Then we wrote new patriotic songs about Yankee Doodle. Another famous example is the homosexual community deciding to stop treating "queer" as an insult and start using it themselves. Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads did a similar thing. Another example, though less successful in my opinion, was the name adopted by the "Know Nothing" party. But in general it is a very effective strategy. How can you offend someone who takes pride in your attempts to be offend him? Readin (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Why is Dr. Ron Paul nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.188.149 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because Paul is barely upholds the principles of the Republican Party. He is very liberal compared to true Republicans. Guanako512 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarian," but not remotely "liberal." The man describes himself as "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion;" supported DOMA and criticized a Supreme Court ruling overturning anti-sodomy laws in Texas; delivered a long speech about Christmas, how the Democrats wanted to destroy it, and how the founding fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of a state church but supported a "robustly Christian nation." (An idea disproven, by the way, by the fact that the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If the founding fathers had meant "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national church," they'd have said that instead).

He may seem like a classical liberal because of his positions on economic matters, but on social issues even he doesn't dare criticize the religious right's dominance of the Party. His only substantive difference with them is on foreign policy. Otherwise, he's a Republican through and through, who only sounds different because he emphasizes different parts of the Republican message. The reason he isn't mentioned isn't because he's a liberal, it's because he's so insignificant in party politics that he simply doesn't rate mentioning. 147.9.201.154 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What type of "liberal" do you mean? To me, he seems as conservative as you might say Barry Goldwater. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the point. Barry Goldwater was not a conservative; he was the last major person in either political party to adhere to classical liberalism, i.e. the belief in small government all around and self-determination for people on an individual basis - in economic matters and in social matters. Goldwater was strongly pro-choice and strongly pro-gay rights, going so far as to state "Everybody knows you don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight." He also made a name for himself in the 1980s fiercely opposing the religious right and repeatedly warning against religious institutions intruding into government.

Ron Paul has been nothing of the sort. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military; and quite the opposite of opposing religion in politics, he is also delighted to use it as a wedge issue when convenient (as the rambling speech about a fictional "liberal attack on Christmas" demonstrates). If you can imagine Goldwater doing any of that crap, you're on drugs. On domestic policy, Ron Paul is indeed a Republican and a "conservative" in the modern sense - on economics, small government to no government at all, on social issues, big government guided by conservative religious ideology. It's a difference in emphasis, but not in substance. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Someone needs to add an l to the "nationa debt" In this line: "Yet, libertarians are increasingly dissatisfied with the party's social policy and support for corporate welfare and nationa debt," under the "Future trends" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.168.88 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Social Conservatism

The Republican Party is the more socially conservative "(from an American Christian point of view)" - social conservatism isn't limited to Christianity. You'll find social conservatives who believe in modesty, restraint, etc, etc, in pretty much every culture on the planet.

Is there a point of view in which a "social conservative" from some view OTHER culture or faith than that of an American Christian would differ in their definition of what is socially conservative...? Would a socially conservative Hindu believe in, say, casual sex? Or would a socially conservative Islamist condone his children experimenting with marijuana in college? Social conservatism is not the purview of Christians, per se, although the faith and the philosophy do have a lot in common...

Just a thought.

I see your point. I have removed the parenthetical as unnecessary. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of social conservatism in America is a hardcore antagonism towards other religions. Catholics, Jews and Mormons are tolerated (though not well in many cases), but Muslims, Hindus, eastern spritualist religions, all of these faiths that have an insignificant number of voters and contributors are mercilessly targeted as un-American. So the "from an American Christian point of view" thing does make sense IMO. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

One, hi and welcome to Wikipedia, in order to make strong statements like that, you are going to need to have some good sources. Soxwon (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Southern Conservatives

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the ideology section that southern conservatives are historically for free trade, the free market,small government, and are traditionally fiscal conservatives. e.g. some of the causes of the American Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.231.252 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the south was historically for the democratic party all the way until the 60's. It only recently became largely conservative. See: Solid South. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your kidding right? The Solid South was one of the most Conservative portions of the country.

Look at that article he gave you. But keep in mind that the Republican party was more liberal prior to that, and the Democratic party was more conservative. Latics (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental policies

A considerable percentage ... and doubt scientific studies that demonstrate the impact human activity has on climate change, instead ... Someone please show a reference to any of these "scientific studies that demonstrate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.233.253 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I completely disagree with this assertion. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, has gone on record in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, and some of the strongest climate change legislation at the state level has come from Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger. Even the Bush EPA has slowly but surely been moving in this direction recently. I don't think it is anywhere near a "considerable" percentage anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.146.14 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox?

I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Democrat version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox? For example if we were to add that category, George W. Bush would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when John McCain's name would be there instead. Tell me your suggestions. --Shaunnol (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Race

The sentence reading "The majority of black Americans switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, however, when the New Deal offered them governmental support for civil rights" is misleading. The Democratic Party was ambivalent about civil rights through the 1950s. Historians and political scientists agree that economic policy, not civil rights, spurred blacks to begin voting Democratic during the New Deal. As Nancy Weiss' notes in the introduction to her Farewell to the Party of Lincoln, "It was Franklin Roosevelt's ability to provide jobs, not his embrace of civil rights, that made him a hero to black Americans." Lynnmo (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy in the History Section

I reverted the edit that said this:

In the 21st century the Republican Party is defined by social conservatism, an aggressive foreign policy attempting to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy, a more powerful executive branch, tax cuts regardless of the national debt, and deregulation and subsidization of industry.

For the first sentence, it is grammatically assumed that they are "attempting" to fight global terrorism (since that's what a platform is), so that word is unnecessary. And I suppose that you wouldn't be fond of saying, on the Democratic Party's page, that "the Democratic party wants to increase spending regardless of the national debt"; neither party seems very considered with the national debt, as with most parties in the world (see: Japan), so I don't see why that should be in the article. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly. The latter I removed as unnecessary because it casts a negative point of view on the stance (the reader should make that decision) without actually making note of anything. I think something should be changed about the foreign policy stance, but attempting doesn't seem like the right way to do it. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to add that the party was founded in a schoolhouse in Ripon, WI in 1854, not in Jackson, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouimet (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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 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

John McCain

I believe John McCain's specific policies are mentioned too often for an article about thte Republican Party. It seems the article has got "caught up" in the recent election exceitement. What John McCain believes is relevant on his page, but not here. TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one become a member of the Republican Party?

I read in this article that the Republican Party currently has 55 million registered members. I was surprized by that high number. In my country (the Netherlands), 45-70% of eligble voters vote, many of these are proclaimed adherents of one party or another. But relatively few of them are a member of a party. To become a member, you have to apply for membership and pay your membership dues. In return, you get to vote the members of the board, and have a say at who will be put forward as candidates in elections. Mostly people that are more than average interested in politics become members.

That has nothing to do with your right to vote. Voting costs you no money, and little time (one election in 4 years for every level of government).

So, I have two questions, that I would like to see answered in this article:

• How does become a member of the Republican Party (or another party)?
• How can the high number of party members be explained?

Johan Lont (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article gets it wrong when it states that the GOP has 17 million less registered members. This should be changed to 17 million less registered voters, which would align with what is actually stated in the source for the fact. I do not have rights to edit the article, so I would call out for someone else to do so.

Kongstad (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Johan, when you register to vote in the US, you can declare a party affiliation, if your chosen party is organized in your state. I think the initial 55 million number reflects the total number of registered Republicans, not members who make the effort to send in money to the Republican National Committee or their state party. The article is now phrased correctly, Kongstad. Thanks for your question, Johan, it's a good one. Twalls (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate minority

Technically, the Republicans do not hold a minority of seats. The current Senate is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. This is not holding a minority of seats. However, Senate rules mandate that Independents must caucus with either Democrats or Republicans. Since the two Independents have chosen to caucus with the Democrats they have a majority for administrative purposes. It cannot however be said in accuracy that the Democrats have the majority of seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.38.253 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you say, it is technically correct to say that the Republicans hold a minority of seats. In fact, it would technically be correct to state that the Republicans and the Democrats each hold a minority of seats.

I agree however, that saying "the Republicans hold a minority of seats" suggests that the other party holds the majority, and a little more information would be welcome. However, it is difficult to change the sentence such as to make it informative and concise and easy to read at the same time. Perhaps the following text would be a good alternative:

Republicans currently fill a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, hold a minority of state governorships, and control a minority of state legislatures. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a majority in the United States Senate.

What do you think? (Note: I will not follow this discussion, because of other activities) Johan Lont (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In this same vein, I made this edit a few days ago. Perhaps similar wording can be incorporated here. seresin ( ¡? )  22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a case of judicial activism

'most republicans'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.95.19 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Most Constitutional Originalists believe Roe v. Wade is judicial activism, which are typically a subset of conservatives, which are typically a subset of Republicans. But you're right, that's a bit of a loose sentence. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same thing when it says "Most Republicans are skeptical of global warming." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad? I'd really love to see Posner or Bork or one of these originalists show me where corporate personhood is in the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets do a anti-Stealth Socialism section!

Pres. W Bush, John McCain, and Sara Palin are against stealth socialism. There are many issues where the stealth socialism appears. Barack Obama doing the redistribution of wealth via the rich getting poorer. Federal health care very Canadian in nature and they're socialist. Barack Obama is a stealth socialist in that he's a far left emulating moderate democrat, because of his IQ lvl allows him too. The reason why socialism won't work is Australia is #1 GDP and Hong Kong is the richest city in China. Afghanistan doesn't need as many troops as Pakistan and Iraq, because the war is already being largely won. Barack has the most ear marks between the two candidates. His father was a part of the Kenya socialist union and his connection with terrorist Professor Bill Ayers which teaches socialism. He's lying about reducing taxes, when overall hes raising them and it's only good for democrat negative ads. I believe Barack doesn't like nuclear energy, because he doesn't want to fund Yucca Mountain waste storage. The Congress having the 2nd highest corporate taxes on earth and the highest is Ireland and they're Labor party. Acorn is socialist in that it only does voter fraud on perpose. It has like 50 felons in the organization when the FBI investigated. Democrat party doing race baiting to hide their superiors (Nancy Polisy, Barack Obama, Harry Raid stealth socialism. Renegadeviking13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the subject of the article, i.e. the Republican Party? Is "anti-Stealth Socialism" part of the official party platform? I've never heard of the term before. If you believe this issue has relevance with respect to the 2008 presidential elections, and can come up with something that is not original research, has a neutral point of view, and can be supported with verifiable and reliable sources, you might want to take it up in one of the candidate articles.DCmacnut<> 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Primal Chaos (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral. Brazil, Europe, and Canada have a socialist system and smart people know if it. It's a concept of doing things, and republicans like me think that market socialism is completely alien concept, because we've been capitalist for 200 years. Why is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh screaming socialism. This is not original research.

Stealth Socialism Resources

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1K4whIv4M0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALTTCC6DcYU

seanhannityfox.blogspot.com/2008/05/socialist-usa-media-cover-up-stoopid.html

forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=977471

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtfrpFK6iPY

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100108/content/01125106.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48T5Y020080930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3742/Default.aspx

blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/06/gingrich-warns-fellow-republicans-of-possible-disaster/

forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=975051 (photo of Obama with socialist leader)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/palin_14 (to avoid a Great Depression II)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4 (video saying using socialism to avoid a Great Depression II)

Renegadeviking15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, Wikipedia does not even have a article about Stealth socialism, and despite of all the YouTube videos and other resources you listed, I am not convinced that it is a valid concept to describe political realities.

On a side note, many countries have been undemocratic for 200 years, and democracy is a completely alien concept in those countries. That, by itself, does not prove that democracy is a bad concept for those countries (nor does it prove that it is a good concept). But that too, is of no relevance to the subject of this article.

I had rather you could give an answer to the question I posed above: "How does one become a member of the Republican Party?", which nobody seems to be able or willing to answer. Johan Lont (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you can type in "Barack Obama Socialist" into google and find some fascinating facts or even type it into Google Video. We're mirroring the UK and their Labor Party vs. Conservative general elections. Labor party doubles as a liberal politics party to balance the political spectrum. Stealth socialism key is The Democrat Party want to use Stealth Labor Party Politics until after the election when we'll hear how much more socialist the democrat party is. That's past the election though.

[1] Barack denying his redistribution of the wealth is socialist ideology is one stealth tactic to stay competitive in the 2008 election. Stealth socialism is hidden in the word 'nationalization'. Both words mean the same thing. The nationalization of health care is directly cloning Canada's, but a stealth socialism politician wants to use the word 'nationalization' as a "stealth word" instead to win the election knowing damn well the public is against the word socialism. You can sweet talk the American people into it with the words like nationalization. Redistribution of the wealth from the rich to the middle class is considered socialist. Much like how China has no corporate taxes for poorer people in China. In the US, Barack's plan of having no taxes on people earning less then 28,000 a year including illegal aliens is emulating China. The fact that Bill Clinton wasn't as opposed to the military as Barack Obama is says socialism. Not using the most highly advanced military in the world is pretty damn weird for a moderate democrat, but not unusual for a stealth socialist politician. Don't you find that between November 2007 - October 2008, that Barack Obama lies more than John McCain on many topics in that he quote "may not take military option off the table", his "tax cut comments" have double meaning [in that he spends more than McCain, close to a Trillion dollars in new spending], To answer your question on how to become a republican; the congressman absolutely must support Reaganomics and are against The Third Way politics. Being pro-military is highly recommended, but you can avoid it like Ron Paul has seceeded. Due to Ron's higher IQ, he can avoid being impeached much like Barack Obama can avoid obvious Stealth Socialism detection. Republicans against the military or Iraqi war is highly weird. Finally, all Republicans have faith in capitalism w/o Treasurer funding large banks long term and right now it's a 3 year deal. Republicans strongly oppose a post-three year US treasury stake in US financial companies. Republicans are against UN politics, because UN politics don't get things done as quickly, because Russia and China always oppose many ideologies in G8 summits. Renegadeviking2:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to suggest something like "stealth socialism" as a reasonable topic for debate in an atmosphere where objectivity is valued, you might want to come up with sources in support of your claims that are a little more reliable than people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh.--Apjohns54 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I got Newt Grinwich and Rudy Giuliani saying that stuff. I have Rudy on Meet The Press and Newt at his website. I'll find a Youutbe video quick. There is lots of references. [2][3]Here is a 7 hr Obama biography and it mentions socialism many times. #1 New York Times Best seller done by Dr. Jarmony Corsei himself. He's a part of the Constitutional Party, but it's also right-wing and doesn't mention Constitutional Party at all in his audio. 61 MB download.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NCIW2DB7

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K2W3KO1Y

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ECBEV7HQ

Renegadeviking2:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that mainstream politicians are a lot better than pundits as sources, but you have to keep in mind that both Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich are Republican politicians, and would thus have an easily-identified ideological bias. It's a common theme in political discourse in this country that people speaking from one side of the spectrum will condemn those on the other side as being in possession of political positions more radical than they actually are. It's true whether somebody is on the left or right; some on the right are quick to denounce measures put forth by left-leaning Democrats as "Socialist", and some on the left have attempted to characterize the measures of Republican administrations as "Fascist" (This has been especially true during the Bush years). I'd still hold off on constructing such a section until a purely objective account can be obtained, maybe look into the characterizations put out by some non-partisan think tanks? I've read a lot of Marx, and I've studied a lot of the historical examples of Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism, and in my personal opinion, Barack Obama is nowhere near being a socialist- much of his platform seems similar to FDR's New Deal, which met with a lot of opposition from leftists because they felt like he was rescuing capitalism, which many now agree he in fact did.--Apjohns54 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d125d9dbM2U Hehe. I was right all along. Renegadeviking10:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If by right you mean that Palin doesn't have a clue about what socialism is. Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian capitalism or Hong Kong capitalism. Of course she knows socialism is...Washington DC is the closest thing to socialist city. We've been experimenting with capitalism in D.C. and GOP knows it doesn't work at all (except for the coffee shops) You can't have DC voting, because employees all are educated with liberal education and it the registered voters can't be 95% democrat. I always imagined the GOP becoming a [liberal party] [1. We're turning into Oz of America anyways. [4] [5] [6] That's my 2 cents.

Renegadeviking10:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln and the Republican Party

The statement in the History section that the Republican Party "rejected" Lincoln in the 1864 election and instead nominated John Fremont seems to be erroneous. Most Republicans, along with some Northern Democrats, backed Lincoln in forming the National Union Party. If you look at the list of RNC chairmen for 1864-1868, you will see that this includes the chairs of the National Union party. Therefore the Republican Party would seem to consider the National Union Party to be contiguous with itself. Furthermore, those Republicans that split with Lincoln did NOT continue under the Republican Party moniker, but formed a "Radical Democracy Party". It was this party that nominated Fremont in 1864. Fremont himself stopped running in September 1864, after reaching a political deal with Lincoln. Therefore, this shadowy "Republican Party" that rejected Lincoln for the 1864 election in effect did not exist. I would urge that a correction be made. Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Made the correction. Konchevnik81 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthropogenic

the word anthropogenic which appears in the article should be linked to the corresponding wikipedia article Astupidog (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party removing my Socialism section

The democrats are removing my true information, because they're socialist. This has got to stop. Please keep them from removing my true information.

Saved information here

On October 20, Sara Palin/McCain campaign officially called the Obama campaign socialist with their redistrobution of wealth/nationalized healthcare. [7]. This is a response of Joe The Plumber asking a simple question and getting pinned down by the press who wants socialism apparently. One of the earliest published books mentioning socialism used by a major party in recent times was The Obama Nation. Market Capitalism is very dangerious according to Sara Palin and John McCain. It's not really capitalism at all, but there isn't any other term for it at the moment. Maybe Democrats are trying to copy Australian economy. President Bush hosting International summit to do prevent socialist-capitalism hybrid economy in 2009 [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're still wrong. Second of all, just because the Republican party or individual Republican politicians say it doesn't make it an objective truth. Third, I highly doubt you're going to find anyone as susceptible to purely conservative punditry as you that will back up your outrageous claims. I have explained to you the actual ideological equivalent to Obama's platform, and you're still wasting everyone's time with misinformation and completely ridiculous claims. The one who needs to stop is you. If you actually understood a single bit of what socialism really is, you wouldn't be classifying a pro-capitalist, American-mainstream political party as "socialist." Your sources are wrong, your thinking is wrong, you are wrong. I honestly have no idea how else to say it. If you waste peoples' time, your submissions will continue to be deleted. Come up with something verifiable with objective sources (NOT the Republican Party itself, or conservative commentators), and you'll have better luck. Anybody else want to contribute here?

On a side note, if you're going to make an addition to an article, I would suggest you use at least something CLOSE to proper grammar to do so. Thanks!--Apjohns54 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say including such inexact and awkward wording does not help the article or add any useful information to it. Renegadeviking contributions are not expressed in a measured or coherent way and amount to pure polemics. People tend to get caught up in the news of the day and insist on including their take or POV here. There is also the perceived persecution ("Democratic Party removing my Socialism section"), which sometimes adds to certain users' urgency to add material to an article.

Many people have many different ideas of what socialism is; some would say a 3% increase in top tax rates amounts to socialism, or perhaps any welfare, health or voucher program; others would say any instance of a large and inefficient state bureaucracy; some would point to forced collectivization and mass starvation under 20th century communism as prime examples of socialism in practice. Others would still name all of these, or in fact any usurpation of individual rights by a collective or government. Many economists cite government spending as percentage of GDP as a measure of how socialist a country is. And there is any one of several theoretical definitions of socialism.

I do not, but one could say Obama's platform is socialistic, or tends that way; but then again one could arguably make the same charge of John McCain, who seems comfortable with the status quo (the bailout of financial markets, as well as his campaign promise of government purchase of private mortgages). Twalls (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on this. I should have mentioned that my classifying Obama's positions as non-socialist stem from the traditionally accepted theoretical definition rather than historical examples- public ownership of the vast majority of the means of production, coupled with a wide variety of extensive social welfare programs and comparatively higher rates of progressive taxation than are commonplace in American political-economic policy. When I argued against the "socialist" classification of Obama's platform it was this purely theoretical definition I had in mind and had not considered the various subjective interpretations, so thank you for bringing that up.

I still feel that per the commonly accepted academic definition of socialism, Barack Obama nowhere near fits the profile. Some aspects of his policy can be construed as social-democratic (at least by influence, if not practice), but even they are few and far between. It's pretty widely acknowledged that the United States, rather than being a purely free-market system, is instead a mixed economy, which allows for a limited amount of state intervention. Like Communism, there is no example, past or present, of pure reconciliation of the system's implementation with its original intentions in free-market capitalism. Therefore, in our mixed system, the label "socialist" has become a mere pejorative in American political discourse, rather than a label to denote an actually-implemented form of government, or the advocacy thereof.

It's my central premise that Obama's platform is not socialistic due to the distinct lack of support for broad-spectrum nationalization. While he supports the partial nationalizations of aspects of the financial sector, most mainstream politicians from both parties are more or less in line with his view. His support for a single-payer universal health care system cannot be viewed as nationalization, as he hasn't to my knowledge advocated the elimination or nationalization of existing health care corporations. If he advocated such measures, thus making the government the sole provider of health care, than the term nationalization would be far more accurate. As far as I know, his advocacy of nationalization is isolated to the financial sector.

Without the advocacy of broad-spectrum nationalization, he cannot be anywhere near an actual socialist. While extensive welfare programs are a characteristic of socialist systems, the absence of predominantly publicly-owned industry eliminates the validity of this label. Barack Obama is no doubt a supporter of New Deal programs and of the welfare state, but these alone cannot conclusively classify him as a socialist, or even a mainstream social democrat.--Apjohns54 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow. Three days go past and I get some democrats talking on the GOP site! How quant. I want to say that your messiah/genius is fucked up! Lieing and stealth is his career. What I mean is when McCain says redisrotution of wealth; that's socialism/labuor party. Now, I know when this is like public domain; you guys can bullshit me all you want. The fact remains, Obama is Labour Party or Democrat socialist of America. Socialism is a dirty word, but hells bells, he's one of them so let the s words fly. You're crazy weirdo wikipedians. Bill screams commumist than socialism...priceless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rR2OwaY1c No doubt, stealth is Obama. Stealth Socialist with a British or Australian agenda that is. PS. I hate your communist Fairness Doctorine too. That's so you can put socialists on our republican radio stations, the last place on earth for conservative opinion. You're no better than Josphoh Stalin! What makes us conservatives think you're insane is you won't even admit Obama party is Labour Party right here right now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3tCO4aKntA Renegadeviking

RV, I think you're confused about what Wikipedia is. This is the discussion page for the article on the Republican Party. It's not a "GOP site" where Republicans hang out and talk to each other about how horrible Obama is. It's where Wikipedia editors, regardless of their personal political opinions, discuss how to improve the Republican Party article. Obama is pretty irrelevant to that (and progressive taxation, at rates we had in the 1990s, is not socialism regardless of how many times you say it). Also, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before you get yourself into trouble. —KCinDC (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry having Obama a most far left socialist politician in the senate doesn't calculate to your parson politics that is supposed to be neutral to people with IQ of 70! Socialism doesn't wrok on American capitalism, because look at what happened already? For all I know you could be European!

Check out the why McCain wants nuclear. For nuclear revival to work, you must vote GOP, because one of the primary concerns for nuclear power is where to store the waste. Thatr17;d be Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada. Completion date: 2020. Yucca will hold waste for the next 100 years, because it is the largest government project of all time. Barack Obama refuses to fund Yucca Mountain and wants to shut it down, because he is a socialist with an agenda. Sorry, but itr17;s true that energy wattage will go up 50% by 2030, and nuclear power plants which account for 20% of the nations energy will be retired and he need more nuclear power plants just to tread water here (replace the ones that exist) .

I just caught the first half of CNBCr17;s Nuclear Option, and it mentioned that the South Texas nuclear site wants to double in size and is one of largest two nuclear reactor site. There has been plans to expand it to twice itr17;s size so another 27 megawatts which is about 2 million homes. . There are 20 cities who want to be the first to build a nuclear power plant in 30 yrs or face blackouts. Most of our plants have been in operation for 30 yrs and have a full life of only 60 yrs with technology being developed to bring them in operation longer. Wer17;ll need increase in nuclear power, because power demands grow. Nuclear absolutely needs to be a part of the equation. McCain is the only presidential candidate to empraise nuclear power in this country. The workload for electricity is growing dramatically in the Southeast. This has generated a lot of interest in nuclear power in the US. One nuclear power plant built means the elimination of 11 million tons of CO2 over a coal plant. Nuclear power plants would be to the equalization of $15 a barrel of gas compared to $120 a gas barrel would normally cost. 96% of the spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into nuclear energy, and the 4% is nuclear waste.

Why is nuclear good? Well, gas plants omit CO2 and prices are incredibly high, coal has all the issues of fossil fuel appliance costs associated with itself, wind and solar are certainly a part of the equation, but can not support sustained power generation. We need a nuclear Renaissance just to stay at 20% nuclear in the United States. It generations lots of income for schools and government in small towns.

So we need nuclear energy so that is a good reason to vote John McCain, the only man who can build new power plants for us. Democrats are so slow at it, that wer17;ll have blackouts. And remember now, we have technology (invented by France) to reuse 96% of the spent nuclear fuel.

PS I added socialism comment to the main article

(All the above from CNBC's Nuclear Option airing earlier today! Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

If you want to suggest how to improve this article (what talk pages are for) on the US Republican Party, you can do so. If you feel an important aspect of the current GOP platform is being ignored in this article, such as nuclear energy, you may say so. However, your comments, unwillingness to engage in actual dialogue, and expletives and insults, particularly the one that was just removed, are just disruptive. Accusing the "Democratic Party" of removing such edits reveals a temperament that's not ready for prime-time editing. That edit to the main article about "Democratic Party socialism" was not removed for any reason having to do with the Democratic Party. It was removed because it was simply a poor edit and out of place in an encyclopedia article. Just to make an analogy, it's like going to an article on the Target store chain and writing "For more on Wal-Mart's dirty bathrooms, please check out the talk page" Twalls (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[9] Leaked audio that where Barack Obama actually admits he is a socialist/labour party politician. Boohoo. I guess I'm still right. Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Partial Government Ownership of the financial industry?

There's a portion in the introduction of the article that mentions that the republican party supports partial government ownership of the financial industry. While that is necessarily true (because of what happened in the past six weeks), is that appropriate in an introduction? Also, do they support it like they support the other major parts of the GOP? Because I think Congress had to sort of support it.

I'm curious if we're talking about this or not.... 74.68.158.239 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bush administration, Bush appointees, and the Congressional leadership of both Democrats and Republicans supported it; however, several individual members voted against it, and the official 2008 platform [10] includes a plank clearly opposed to any such transfers from taxpayers to financial institutions:

"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

Clearly, party platforms often diverge from actual policies parties pursue; it's wholly appropriate to note this in this article, properly cited, of course. Twalls (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it is appropriate to not in the article, but I too question whether it should be in the introduction. It is to narrowly focused for the broad strokes of the intro. -Neitherday (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Education

The graphs about which party has more four-year degrees is misleading. It shows of democrats/republicans, what percent have degrees when what really should be shown is of people with degrees, what percent vote democrat/republican. If anyone has the latter graph please post! Sidewinderaim9x (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there's something fishy about the source of those graphs and the statistics therein. It's a book which claims Republicans are better educated, harder working, healthier, more politically informed, more intelligent, more scientifically minded, and the list goes on. Pretty much the only thing it claims Democrats are better at is having promiscuous sex and taking drugs. Most of the text is available from Google books. Peasaep (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The education section is definitely dodgy. Although the evidence is anecdotal, my experience is that most professors, esp. those in the sciences and liberal arts, are Democrats. If Republicans were the most educated they would also be rampant on university campuses.

History

The Republican Party started with a longer official name. That's what I am looking for. If someone knows it, you might include that in the history section. Thanks.

There is an inconsistency in this article. In the introductory paragraph, someone says that the Republican party was founded in Jackson, MI and in the section on the history of the party it is said to be Ripon, WI. According to the GOP's own history narrative the first (informal) meeting was in Ripon (in other words, they created the party there) and the first official meeting of the new party was in Jackson, MI. I have edited this, but someone may want to clean up my edit. Jdsmke (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Democratic-Repulicans? Soxwon (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Teapot Dome scandal threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924." The structure of this sentence is misleading. VP's historically had little authority during this time period and mentioning Coolidge seems in this sentence just seems odd. Some citation or sourcing (reforming of the sentence) would be beneficial regarding public opinion at the time, keeping in mind that it was the secretary of the interior who was historically the culprit. I support Harding being mentioned and the "threatened to hurt the party" portion. Can anyone find a good source for this though? --Akane00 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

democrat/democratic

The Republicans were defeated at the polls by the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Lglenn21 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else pointed That out! Thank you Lglenn21. Matt2h (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New President

The first paragraph still has George W. Bush as the current president of the United States Chemaleon (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)chemaleon

That would be because George W. Bush is the current president of the United States. Barack Obama is the president-elect (although constitutionally not even that until the electoral college votes) and GWB is still the president. After noon on January 20, 2009, the article should be changed. Which, by the way, you can do. seresin ( ¡? )  00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nation's first Religious Party

It has become clear that the Republican Party in its current form is our nation's first thoroughly religious party. It is the National Christian Party or the National Evangelical Party. Its policy positions assume (not only ignorance or anti-intellectualism, but) an adherence to protestant or evangelical Christianity. It is no longer possible to be a consistent atheist Republican or Muslim Republican. The party has become intellectually populist and inherently religious, and nowhere has that been more clearly enshrined than in the figures of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.Matt2h (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

From the 2008 Republican Party platform;

"Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed."

Regardless of their electoral campaigns and the way they're designed to bring fundamentalist voters crawling out of the woodwork, the party does not officially endorse any religion, denomination or church. A lot of Republican ideology comes from evangelical beliefs? True. But a lot of it also came from a psychotic lowlife named Ayn Rand, who as you may see was rabidly antireligious. A lot of GOP foreign policy comes from Zionism, by definition not a Christian ideology. The modern Republican revival began with Barry Goldwater, who was deeply Christian and just as deeply supported the separation of church and state and opposed the religious right. The list goes on.

It's not accurate to say that the Republicans are the National Evangelical Party. Like all political parties, the GOP is an alliance between different groups whose interests overlap enough for them to vote the same way. Christian fundamentalists are just one of these interests, a very vocal one but not the dominant one. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's clear that the Republican Party has become a religious party then why is theoconservatism not listed as a part of its ideology? Surely we can agree that the religious right is the base of the party just as much as liberals and progressives are the base of the Democratic Party. It seems logical that theoconservatism would be mentioned well before such a minority group as the libertarians. Since this article is protected, I'd like to have a justifiable reason why theoconservatism and the influence of the religious right is not more heavily explored seeing as how numerous polls and statisticians agree that they make up the largest portion of the party. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Party box controversy

My change for adding neoconservatism to the ideology was reverted, as was my removal of the fiscal conservatism box. Well, you really can't call the Republicans fiscal conservatives anymore, what with their support of trillions in bail-outs and deficits. Also, in the past, they never held center-left beliefs: please read the article on what center-left means and explain to me how the Republicans in the 20th and 19th centuries were anywhere close to that. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS, back up what you have said with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the party being center-left in the past, when even a quick skimming of the article would indicate that the GOP was nothing close to that. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care, you had no reason to keep taking out Fiscal conservatism. Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What caused the reversal in the ideas of the Republican party?

The Republican party was founded by people who opposed slavery and were for keeping the Union together, while the Democrats were the ones creating the Confederate States of America. Now days the Republicans proudly fly their rebel flags while the Democrats are the ones who are sympathetic to the history of slavery. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong idea, both parties were and still are all about getting the vote no matter what they have to do or say (/cynicism). However, that aside, the Radical Republicans were for abolition more for the vote than anything else. The Democrats lost the South after the Civil Rights Act by LBJ among other things. I'm probably oversimplyfing things quite a bit and if anyone else knows the subject better feel free to correct me. Soxwon (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Both parties' ideology changed after the Civil War. The Republicans, who had just been born and weren't known for much besides abolitionism, evolved over time into the party of big business (there were other interests too, but they were increasingly dominated by that one as time went by). The Democrats had been broken by the Civil War and had no ideology to speak of; they basically became a catch-all for voters who for whatever reason didn't like the GOP.

In the South, those voters were the people who'd just lost the Civil War (i.e. white people); in the North, they were inner-city immigrants who started arriving in the late nineteenth century (mostly Catholics and Jews, definitely not WASPs). These people became the two wings of the Democratic Party; in the North, the Democrats were the protectors of minorities against the established ethnic order, whereas in the South, they were the opposite. That's where the dichotomous outlook of the Democratic Party on civil rights originally came from.

After the New Deal however, the Northern wing became increasingly dominant, mostly due to FDR's welfare programs which expanded the Democratic coalition to include not only white Northern workers but also blacks, who until then had voted Republican (or not at all). The party also started giving a greater role to Catholic and Jewish intellectuals, helping to further break down the "ethnic order" in the North; the logical next step was inclusion for blacks. Cue Harry Truman desegregating the military, John F. Kennedy pushing for civil rights, and Lyndon Johnson forcing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through Congress.

In the meantime, the Great Depression had turned the Republicans into the party with no ideology (the small-government faith they stood for was shattered by the Depression, and never really came back); therefore they became the catch-all party, as the Democrats had been before, picking up whatever voters had grievances with the liberal-run political order. Starting in the seventies, the biggest such group was white Southerners, who were angry with the Dems not only over civil rights but also other issues like the anti-military movement, the secularization of society and others things that persist to this day. The Republicans simply adapted their ideology to fit their new base and the rest, as they say, is history. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Republicans have always been a party of Eastern wealth and were opposed to the power of slave-owners rather than slavery. In order to get elected they have always appealed to ordinary people, whether workers and farmers in the the North-East (who were anti-slavery) or later small town people in the South (who resented the Civil Rights Act). But while they have been responsive to the views of their supporters, they have never ceded power to them. Note that there is still tension between the party establishment and the "grassroots". Similarly the UK Conservative Party followed a path from Tory Socialism to neoliberalism, while remaining the party of the establishment. Civil Rights was the catalyst for the realignment between Democratic and Republican supporters in the South. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Deuces. Shorter and more perceptive than mine.

Out of curiosity, who did the "Eastern Wealth" support before the GOP? Did the Republicans flow out of the Whigs and Federalists, or were these two just completely different parties that were crushed and never came back? I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much about pre-Civil War America as after. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The predecessors were the Federalists (1792-1816), National Republicans (1825-1833) and Whigs (1833-1856), (all dates approximate) which all ultimately failed because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened. There is a continuity of leadership and membership among these parties. Between the decline of the Federalists and the establishment of the National Republicans, they briefly found a home with the Democrats. Each new party would generally be more broadly based than the predecessor. The Federalists can be traced to various pre-revolutionary "court" parties that supported British government. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Moderate Senators

I edited that because Olympia Snowe is a moderate New England Republican, (along with fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Judd Gregg). Lincoln Chaffe was really not the last moderate Republican in the Senate. Sorry I wasn't signed in when I edited it.Rs09985 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the numbers of Senate seats that Republicans hold

I don't know if this is caused by my browser or if it's actually wrong, but looking at the infobox, the numbers of seats in the House is displayed by some kind of blue-and-red bar (red from Republican), while seats of the senate lack that bar. I'm not good with tables & I can't reinstate it, so someone else please do it, unless of course it's my browser's fault. --96.232.58.180 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in [11]. I don't know the details of how <timeline> works but I compared to Democratic Party (United States) and found that adding a space at the end of a line fixed it. Maybe the problem was that a timeline image was not stored correctly somewhere, and many other tiny changes could have fixed it too by generating a new timeline image, but that's just speculation. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Future trends section - crystal ball?

Aside from being pretty obviously outdated, is anyone else concerned that this section seems to possibly fall under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? The section doesn't seem to revolve around third party analysis but rather around the attempts of partisan commentators to rationalize an optimistic view in their favor. It seems to be attempting to 'crystal ball' the future of the GOP. I would support removal or a heavy rework of this section to actually comprehensively summarize the extensive third party discussion of the future of the GOP that is presently occurring. I personally favor deletion as the latter strikes of news and not encyclopedia. Thoughts?Locke9k (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing while reading it. It should probably be eliminated, and that goes for the article on the Democratic Party as well if future predictions are included.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

explain the end of the solid south.

Added 3 sentences from the History of Republican Party to explain that after the breakdown of conservative coalition the solid south became republican. The change of the south from democrat to republican is arguably the most important political factor in the last 50 years. And explains how the republicans reached a majority in the senate and house. It is clearly more important than the fact that republicans supported protestant prohibitionists in the 1870s. Nitpyck (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more Democrat History the way it is written. I'll see what I can do.Soxwon (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The South was Democratic (with the exception of the civil war and reconstruction) for the entire history of political parties in the US until the shift from the solid south to the Republican south in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the 1970s the Republican Party has the southern states as its main bastion. This shift should be mentioned. Rather than deleting rephrase. Just "In the 60s and 70s there was a seachange and the Republican party became the majority party in the southern states." would do". Nitpyck (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon of the "solid south" is much simpler than the way it is described here, and is so well known to most Americans that it hardly needs an explanation. However, I will provide an explanation for the benefit of our European cousins, who understandably have a less avid interest in the history of the USA, and for that reason might not be familiar:

During Reconstruction the Republican Party was in favor of equal rights for African-American people, including former slaves. Those equal rights were enforced on the Southern (formerly Confederate) states by military occupation. For that reason white racists were anti-Republican, and were therefore driven into the arms of the Democratic Party. (Even though Democrats at that time were not necessarily opposed to equal rights, they were not ideologically in favor of equal rights as the Republicans were.) Since white racists dominated politics in the South after African-American voting rights were curtailed at the end of Reconstruction -- roughly 1877 -- the South was "solidly" aligned with the Democratic party, since it was the only practical vehicle for opposing the Republican Party. This situation persisted until the middle of the Twentieth Century as a matter of tradition. Those in favor of equal rights tended to be Republican because the Republican Party was regarded as the "party of Lincoln."

However, the "solid south" of the Democratic Party started to break up when Democratic President Harry S Truman issued Executive Order 9981 integrating the armed forces. The so-called Dixiecrats broke off from the national Democratic party and ran Strom Thurmond as a segregationist candidate for President in 1948.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted by a Democratic Congress in response to the urging of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, the disenchantment of white racists with the Democratic Party was complete. From that time to the present, white racists have been firmly opposed to the Democratic Party, which means that they have overwhelmingly been supporters of the Republican Party, since it is the only practical vehicle for opposing the Democratic Party. (Even though present-day Republicans are not necessarily opposed to equal rights, they are not ideologically in favor of equal rights as the Democrats are.)

Although white racists no longer have an absolute stranglehold on politics in the South, as they did from (roughly) 1880 to 1960, they still control the outcome of most Southern elections, especially in regard to Presidential politics. Additionally, white racists have a substantial influence on many elections outside the South. In the Twenty-First century, the white racist vote remains the cornerstone of Republican electoral success, whenever and wherever that success occurs, although the other factions cited in the article also contribute. Paul (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that explanation is extremely, well, black and white. You take no consideration for cultural climate or for society. For instance, it wasn't "equal rights" that the Radical Republicans sought, or at least not the only reason. They also had a lot of votes to gain by disenfranchising white voters and giving blacks the vote among other reasons. The Republicans had been the party of the Union and the Democrats the party of the Confederacy (hence the phrase "waving the bloody shirt), so naturally southerners clung to their former way of life (no, not just slavery) and voted Democrat. The South was devastated after the Civil War, totally and utterly destroyed. How would you expect the Southerners who fought for their 'country' to react when the party they fought against began to order edicts and then took away their vote (all the while giving it to ppl you considered inferior and ppl that the Republicans considered somewhat inferior)? I could continue in this fashion for the rest of the little "summary" but you get the point. I'm in no way excusing the behavior, nor am I saying any of the violence and racism of the South is acceptable. I am, however, saying that to simply preach 'evil whites, want to take away civil rights, evil evil' is really rather childish. Soxwon (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, please note that I did not use the word "evil" in my summary, nor did I use similar words. In a political discussion, it would be ridiculous to imply that white people are evil as a group -- for one thing, white people are a majority in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party -- and I made no such implication. Furthermore, I never stated or implied that the Radical Republicans' motivations in the late 19th century were pure -- motivations are essentially never pure in politics, and certainly not in this case. The Radical Republicans certainly backed equal rights for black people in Reconstruction, for whatever good and bad reasons. Yes, I quite agree that it is understandable -- even inevitable -- that white southerners would be anti-Republican after their defeat in the Civil War, with its widespread destruction and humiliation. As for the turnaround in the 1960s, a host of observers at that time (including both the Democratic president Lyndon Johnson and the Republican president Richard Nixon) acknowledged that the Democratic Party had lost the South for the next several decades by pushing through the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965. That is not to say that the Republican Party of today is an inherently racist party, merely that it is electorally dependent on white racist votes. These facts are obvious, and both sides acknowledge them.

Really, Soxwon, I don't think you and I disagree in any substantial way. Not all whites are racists. Even white racists are rarely "evil" -- ignorant, often; fearful, often; angry, perhaps; evil, rarely. Please reread what I have written before you accuse me of preaching "evil whites," etc. -- I am simply describing what happened, not vilifying or whitewashing anyone's motives. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious -- I wish the other contributors here would quit ignoring the obvious.Paul (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "white racists" is loaded and should be used lightly (and if you have seen the lynchings, the acts, then you'll know goes above and beyond ignorance). Secondly, during your entire characterization, the only reasoning you gave for the south being against Republicans was racism, and then went on to say that the south was solidly democrat because it was against the republican party, hence the implication of racism being the driving force. Soxwon (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course some racists are more extreme than others. When you cite "lynchings," you have cited the ultimate extreme manifestation of white racism. A great many racists who were not extreme enough to approve of lynchings were nonetheless strong segregationists. A great many racists who were not extreme enough to approve of statutory segregation nonetheless approved of informal segregation and/or racial discrimination via "gentlemen's agreements." And a great many racists today will disavow all the abuses of the past but will nonetheless contend that discrimination is a thing of the past, that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be allowed to expire because there is no longer any movement to disenfranchise black people, that there is no need for any type of Affirmative Action because blacks already enjoy preferential treatment as compared to whites, or whatever delusion du jour they may favor.

Of course racism -- be it subtle or extreme -- was the driving force behind the Democratic "solid south" of roughly 1877-1947. Of course racism is the driving force behind the Republican domination of Southern politics today. Of course the civil rights acts of the 1960s effectuated this reversal. It is obvious. Everyone knows this. Lyndon Johnson knew it, and said so. Richard Nixon knew it, and said so, as did many others. You know it too, Soxwon. Pardon me for restating the obvious, but as for you, please do not disregard or obfuscate the obvious. Paul (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterizations of the Republican control of the south being only racism. To claim so is an insult to many southerners. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a vast and dishonest oversimplification of the dramatic shift that took place in American politics in the post-war era. Issues of importance to southerners like gun-control and abortion, which were never issues at all before, began to gain political importance at the end of the 1960s and especially in the beginning of the 1970s. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First official meeting

How is it that the first official meeting was held in Jackson, MI and Madison WI? Simultaneously? This doesn't seem to make sense, and the reference cited for the Madison entry doesn't clearly support the claim. Agathman (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version is not very accurate, and much of what was added (origin of the term and the part about Wisconsin for first official meeting) is directly challenged by the other sources. I'll return it to the older version. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am from Wisconsin, so am not entirely unbiased, but I do know that the RNC formally endorsed the history that the party was first established in Wisconsin. They did so at their national convention in the early 1880s when the principle players were still alive. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is still the position of the RNC. See below:

“ The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan. ”

[RNC About Us] - Capitalismojo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Should there not be criticism of the party and its policies? It would provide a more balanced article I believe because it seems to be full of haigography. Liberalcynic (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism's should placed in the appropriate sections, not in one section of the article. Soxwon (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is criticism, because it's biased. This is article is basically "The Republican Party according to Democrats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.226.154 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The GOP is not Centrist from a Global POV

Wikipedia is a Global encyclopedia. The American political spectrum is very oriented towards the Right-Wing, and using the same tags for the Republican Party and the Conservative Party in the UK is highly misleading considering these parties are nothing alike. If anything, the British Conservatives are like the Democratic Party. In any case, from a global POV the Republican Party is Center-Right; Right and this is especially true considering the mass exodus of Liberal Republicans/Moderate Republicans since the 1980's and beyond.--Saffron831 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the Republicans rose to power from the 80s on with the help of the moderates as evidenced by these sources: [12]. As for America being more right-wing, that's debatable. There are plenty of right-wing governments througout Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc. Even in Europe the right has a voice such as mentioned by Marcel Lubbers, Peer Scheepers, and Merove Gijsberts stated in "Extreme Right-Wing Voting in Europe." Not to mention political victories by such parties such as the National Alliance in Italy, and even to some extent Berlusconi. Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think left and right vary by country, Saffron. It is relative, and it would probably be inadvisable to use a "global" perspective on this issue. If done, most Democrats in the United States are rabid right wingers by European standards. Let me illustrate: Proposition 8 was passed in California by a clear majority of Blacks and Larinos, yet they voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the election. Hardly liberal by European standards on such a social issue, n'est pas? --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Self Identification

I have recently added several polls from RS showing that the republican party self identification is significantly older than the now outdated registration figure given in the intro. Soxwon has reverted this addition, citing his personal opinion that polls are just snapshots and therefor apparently should not be included in the article. First, if you believe that, I would encourage you to find RS to that effect. Second, at least one of the two polls shows a long term level of low to mid 20% self identification, demonstrating a long-term level, not a "snapshot". I have thus reinstated the material. Feel free to take a look at the link to verify this fact. I'd be happy to have a discussion on the new material, and if you can supply some RS stating that self-identification polls are worthless, or if you can find some differing polls from RS, it might be worth reevaluating inclusion. Otherwise it is hard for me to see any NPOV reason to exclude them. Locke9k (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, those polls are snapshots, as polls from the 2008 election showed self-identification up to 27%, and overall 21-22 was the lowest on the poll, hence the "snapshot" comment and why I objected. The polls you provided showed it stayed consistently at around 26-29 percent for most of the time periods given, and with a plus or minus range of 3, that can indeed be roughly a third of the electorate. Soxwon (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply not comfortable with "roughly a third of the electorate, which is 33.33%, when as you say this poll for example shows 21%-29% over the last 17 months. Furthermore, this material is much more up to date than the 1/3 figure. I don't think it is appropriate to look back at very old data in assessing the current state of the party. I'd be comfortable having the range for the last year (which would be 21-26 percent), and saying so in the statement. How about something like "polls over the last year have shown that 21 - 26% of Americans self-identify as republicans." I agree that something like that would give a better overall picture than simply giving the latest month. I'll implement that wording for now in the hopes that you will agree that it is improved; obviously feel free to edit it and continue discussion here. Locke9k (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but the way you edited it, it also sounded like the Republican Party had been passed as the second strongest party. Soxwon (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That was certainly not my intent, so thanks for catching it. Locke9k (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

opposition to aristocracy and corruption?

While "opposition to aristocracy and corruption" may or may not be values of the Republican values (trying to avoid a political discussion), I fail to see how the name "Republican Party" echoes those values any more than the names "Federalist Party," or "Democratic Party," or even "Socialist" party. It would make more sense to explain the importance of these values in the early party, rather than say that the party's name reflects those values, which seems in some ways like an empty statement (at least without an explaination). I can't edit this page and therfore can't add an explanation.

the above by Babelbo (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy, President Obama is a communist and the Republicans, while liberal aren't. America doesn't echo communism. And the liberals are moving my links, because they're loving the Chinese in my opinion even though they hack into our servers in the cyber cold war and Australia is raising defenses and military budget to combat the PLA. Obama wants a Forced Labour Police force, exactly like Soviet KGB civilian wing, and forced labor community work, 500 hrs. No pay on either. Don't be surprised if this comment is deleted. There are some mentally ill democrats on this page.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/2/19/1769420/Obama%20is%20a%20Communist.ogg http://www.megaupload.com/?d=C42IOFX1 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8F11DCB6 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W186190W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.8.13 (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

THEREPUBLICAN

[Therepublican.info] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Howard (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Realism and neo-realism

Hi, I disagree with the article's following statement, as I deem it factually inaccurate:

"Today, the Republican Party supports unilateralism in issues of national security, believing in the ability and right of the United States to act without external or international support in its own self-interest. In general, Republican defense and international thinking is heavily influenced by the theories of neorealism and realism, characterizing the conflicts between nations as great struggles between faceless forces of international structure, as opposed to the result of individual leaders, their ideas, and their actions. The realist school's influence shows in Reagan's Evil Empire stance on the Soviet Union and George W. Bush's Axis of evil."

This paragraph is self-contradictory. Realism and neo-realism both emphasize in their philosophical foundations that a nation's establishment should deal with adversaries as they are, instead of trying to transform everybody else in their own image. Whereas many realists tended to agree with Cold War leader's handling of containment and deterrence, most present-day realists (most famously Walt, Mearsheimer and Waltz) opposed the Iraq War for precisely the same reasons, as they claimed that Iraq was pretty much contained and no threat to the world's balance of power in 2003. However, neither party's foreign policy prescriptions can be cleanly, neatly and purely identified with realism or liberalism. A more precise statement would summarize the different currents concerning foreign policy, and that neoconservatism, a more activist form of liberalism and a rejuvenation of Wilsonianism, gained support within the Republican Party at the end of the 1990s. Neither should the party's long tradition of isolationism, though currently not as important, be neglected. --Kriegslüsterner (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"founded by abolitionists"

{{Editsemiprotected}} The intro says (without a source, or without it backed up by a source elsewhere in the article, as far as I can tell) that the Republican Party was "founded by abolitionists". While it was certainly founded by people opposed to slavery, my understanding is that they were not at all considered abolitionists. Self-declared abolitionists were considered extremists and never wielded any political power in the 1800s. There was a big difference between the ultra-radical Abolitionist movement and the mainstream Anti-Slavery movement, the latter of which the GOP embraced. I think the definitive source to back this up is Eric Foner's book "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men". here is just one of zillions of examples within the book where it shows anti-slavery Republicans not identifying as Abolitionists. I'd change this but anonymous editors cannot edit this article right now.

Basically, I'd like to have the wording:

"Founded by abolitionists in 1854,"

changed to:

"Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854,"

My version is supported by sources cited in the article, the current version isn't. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have investigated this as much as I can, and I think that you are right. It is not referenced; it is, later in the body, referenced as "anti-slavery expansion activists". Therefore I changed it. Thanks.  Done  Chzz  ►  00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This was quickly reverted by Soxwon with the comment "if you'd bothered to look in the history, you'd have seen the reference", but despite that, the language about abolitionism was added with no comment, much less a reference. Referring someone to "the history" is a weak argument anyway... there are thousands of edits to this article. I "bothered" to look in the history and found nothing but a specific lack of a reference. Also note that my version was in the article for years, as well it should have been. This inaccurate "founded by abolitionists" wording is what's new. But if there's some magic source that debunks everything I've read by recent historians, Soxwon can point it out and prove me wrong... just claiming it's "in the history" isn't enough. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant the history section, the last word must have gotten cut off. Here is the reference I was referring to: The Origins of the Republican Party by William Gienapp. I'll look for the exact wording. Soxwon (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the history section, as currently written, also supports that the Republican party was not founded by abolitionists, but by people in favor of "free soil, free labor, free land and free men" which is not a position very accurately described as simply "founded by abolitionists". --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. What I was referring to was the idea that the first thing to hold the party together was anti-slavery. However, I would not disagree with the change. Soxwon (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe the thesis of Foner's book even was just that (that they said a lot of other things early on, but the main reason the party came to exist was anti-slavery/free labor). I unfortunately can't make the change, being a lowly IP who just happened by this article randomly. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-done. (I don't think that we have an icon for that!). Cheers, both, esp. Soxwon for explaining; I've reinstated the edit, as, as far as I can make out, it is a valid critique. Thank you all. Be careful - a civil and mutual understanding - you might start a trend :-)  Chzz  ►  03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Lowly IP; please see Wikipedia:Why create an account? - Wikipedia Needs You!  Chzz  ►  03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imprecise assertion

"Polls over the last year have found that twenty-one to twenty-six percent of Americans self-identify as Republicans."

This is an imprecise assertion in several respects: 1) what polls (with what authority); 2) when is "last year"; 3) what does it matter how persons "self-identify"? konetidy (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The poll used was cited in three sources and is 3 months old. It would be good to possibly find a more recent one. Soxwon (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)