Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

Archives

---

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2
3. Archive 3
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5
6. Archive 6
7. Archive 7

Center-Left? How?

Center-Left by international standards, looking at political parties across the world spectrum. Those who don't understand that need to study international politics and put American politics in context of the whole world we live in. I don't find the statement about the Whig Party fading away and the Republican Party being mostly a split-off from the Democratic-Republican Party. Two of the main founders of the Republican Party were Rockefeller and Leland Stanford. Stanford was a Whig. The Republican Party continued to perpetuate (and still does) many of the Whig policies, and a study of the early-20th century Encyclopedia Britannica entries (before they were heavily cut up and censored after it was put under the thumb of Rockefeller's University of Chicago) show how much the Republican Party was and is a revived Whig Party, although they copied half the name of the party of Jefferson. 70.36.176.211 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"although since the 2007-2010 recession, many in the party have moved to the far-left." - this statement from the article is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gksteele (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they are considered "left wing" on a national scale within America, however, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it is arrogant to write an article on a national scale instead of an international one.

It at least deserves a dubious and discuss tag as does the Republican party has over whether it is "centre-right" or just simply "right"

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

I believe that this at the very least could be used as evidence of the Democrats being "centre-right" even if they are more left-wing and liberal than the Republicans that is only relatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.52.20 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A truly international article would label the democratic party as a party that represents the center right to center left. The vast majority of Democrats (including every single sitting Democratic Senator) are right wing. Barack Obama is right wing. The Democratic party is "more left than the Republican party", but not left wing in general.

It's my theory that the reason so many Americans consider the Democrats left wing is because they don't know what left wing actually means. A true left wing party would advocate universal single payer healthcare, limitations on salary and wealth, government control of markets, and would be opposed to land ownership. On the social issues, they would insist on nothing less than full legal marriage for homosexuals and polygamists, be opposed to censorship of any media, and vehemently oppose the death penalty. There are almost no Democrats who favor even one or two of these things. ReignMan (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, that sounds like the Democratic platform to me, with the expection of polygamy. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that. The positions of the various Democrats currently elected in the United States are almost totally against most of this stuff. Many Democrats don't agree with gay marriage, and even those who do only agree with civil unions. Democrats across the board favor censoring nudity and foul language from television. As far as I know, not a single Democrat currently in a major office is calling for land ownership to be outlawed, or capping salary and personal wealth. Ralph Nader is the only politician I can think of who supports income caps, but he's not a Democrat. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat I can think of who advocates universal single payer healthcare, but almost all Democrats believe in private options as well. This would be a centrist view, not left wing. The true left wing view is that no one should be able to have better healthcare than anyone else, no matter how much money they have. ReignMan (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the red herrings...the article does not call the Democrats "left-wing." That would be quite absurd indeed. Please resist the urge to flood the talk page with your personal opinions and refer to the reliable secondary sources backing up the claim.UBER ^(talk) 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because the Democratic party is considered right wing in the European spectrum, doesn't mean that they would be considered right wing on an international scale. Maybe you should take a look at the policies implemented by the Democrats while they've been in power. Very much in line with the European left. Dunnsworth (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as much in line with the European right too, although Democratic policies are more right-wing than the mainstream European right would advocate. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black migration to Democratic Party: Documentation?

The article as written today indicates that blacks overwhelmingly adhered to the Democratic Party from economic considerations, the programs of the New Deal. Though this may be true, there's not one source cited in support of so bald an assertion. Can any reliable source be found? Can the racial difference (as many whites remained within the Republican Party) be explained? Firstorm (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's received knowledge; everybody knows it's true, so sourcing may be hard to find. I'd start with textbooks. Look at party-switching; William L. Dawson, the most powerful black politician in Chicago at the time, switched in 1930. Abductive (reasoning) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue this point but..."The Color of Welfare" by Jill Quadagno, "The White Man's Burden" by Winthrop D Jordan, & "America's Struggle against Poverty in the 20th century" by James T. Patterson would all support your claim in some fashion, however LBJ's "Great Society" would be a better turning point to site than "The New Deal" and really, historically, neither party had done anything to actually help America's problems with poverty in the past 60 years. If you look at the actions & effects of for both democrat & republican parties, you'll find the efforts were mainly useless endeavors created to garner votes without fulfilling the needs of the voter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous poster (12 Jan 10). I've a similar impression: that, at least since the 1920s or '30s, neither major American political party really desires more than to continue its bosses' receipt of money (and, perhaps, a shadow of power). I'm more interested in blacks' internal reasoning in transferring allegiance from the Republican party to the Democratic: do we actually fall for the rhetoric, or are deeper factors at work? I remain uncertain. Firstorm (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Solution to the Center-left or center argument

Okay, since there seems to be some disagreement over whether we should say that they are center-left(on the American Spectrum) or center (International Spectrum), perhaps we should say something like

Center-left(American Spectrum) Center(International)

What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? 76.29.110.161 (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe removing Center all together is more proper as of right now the majority of "friendly" nations to ours are held by I.D.U. member parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.212.89 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that. If the views of the IDU parties are accepted as the standard, then the Democrats are a left-of-center party internationally. That shouldn't be an offensive or POV issue, given that the GOP are only listed as center-right.Sadistik (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, we can fairly state that both parties are dead center, largely the same, & just leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove implied "attacks" on Non-Democrats

In the "Ideology" section under "Liberals" there is the following line...

"A majority also favor diplomacy over military action"

This statement is indicative of most Americans. Placing it in this article implies that the majority of Independents and Republicans prefer military action over diplomacy. There is no argument that there exist radical elements (of all parties)that are pro-war, but they remain an exception. This information is not necessary in a nation where the vast majority of citizens share the same beliefs. Saminole (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Without taking sides on your core issue, I do take exception to your closing statement. In the U.S. the vast majority of citizens DO NOT share the same beliefs. If they did, there would not be a revolving door into the White House (and Congress) every other election or so that swaps representatives of one political belief system with another. Mercy11 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here separate the soldiers from the generals? I live in America, I was raised in America, this means that most of the people I know are American's. I think it is safe to say that most voters, from ALL parties, do not want to go to war...EVER. I think it is also safe to say that most voters from ALL parties condemn torture & think it's an inhuman practice. If you look at the numbers MOST of the Democrats in the senate supported the war with Iraq at the time, they may have recanted it later, but they did vote for it, just like most of the Republicans voted for it. In this case there is NO revolving door, the American voter has a limited choice, they can either vote for Donkey that wanted to go to war or an Elephant that wanted to go to war. They can vote for a Blue that wants to give billions of dollars to companies that wont give Americans jobs, or a Red that wants to give billions of dollars to companies that wont give Americans jobs. This is why the parties in power switch so often. If you look at what the American people want it's really not that different no matter what party they are in: security, happiness, meaningful work, education, health care, transportation, a world at peace, a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, a winning sports team. The problem is not that Americans don't want the same things, the problem is that politicians in BOTH parties don't want to give it to them. So they try one for a little while & when that fails they try another not because there is a huge divide between the people in one party or the other but because there is a huge divide between politicians in Both parties & the people that have no choise but to vote for one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Democrat Party and Slavery

I think there should be a refference that outlines the involvement of the Democrat party with slavery. It is not well known that the Republican Party was entirely Anti-Slavery from it's inception in the late 1800's, it is also not well known that the Pro-Slavery party was the Democrat Party. This is the Cause of the Civil War, It doesn't seem correct to just completely exclude a key period in our currently Dominant political party. --67.172.230.59 (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, this is due to a mere switch in party positions. Liberals have always been in favor of civil rights, whether for blacks, gays, or any other minority group. The thing is, the Democrats weren't always liberal. It all goes back to the "Yellow Dog" days of the Democratic party. I don't know how much it has to do with the "wrong side of history" because it was a different party back then. I'll do my best to explain it here from memory.

The Republican party was founded as the liberal, northern anti-slavery party, while the Democratic party was the conservative party of the south. This was around the mid to late 1850s. Around 1912, the Schism of the Bull Moose party broke the Republican party in two, when liberal Teddy Roosevelt was angered at Taft's removal of a tariff (can't remember specifics). The left wing part of the Republican party was detached. The Republicans now represented more or less the middle, while the Democrats represented the right wing. The left wing had the Bull Moose party, followed by another few small, not very memorable parties.

So now, we had the right wing Democrats, and the centrist Republicans. Woodrow Wilson took the helm, and favored what we now call "populism" in the U.S. American populism was essentially left wing economic views with conservative social views. Now, the democratic party represented the populist view, while the Republicans took on more of a mainstream conservative view. The liberals more or less joined the Democratic party.

Ok, you with me so far? Here's how it splits now: We have the Republicans representing the northern anti-segregation conservatives, and the Democrats who represent the liberals, and the pro-segregation conservatives. The Populists refused to leave the Democratic party due to the "yellow dog" convention. For a while, there was even a "Dixiecrat" party.

Anyway, in the 1930s, the Democrats became more and more favorable to civil rights, but never quite drove it home. The turning point came in the 1950s, when the Democratic party officially adopted the platform of civil rights. At this point, the upset southerners moved to the Republican party, and the conservatives, both pro and anti segregation were now Republicans. Now, we had the first signs of the modern parties. The Democrats were the liberal party, and the Republicans were the conservative party.

In 1964, the last major party presidential candidate to run on the position of segregation (Barry Goldwater) ran as a Republican. Eventually, the pro-segregation side of the party subsided, and both parties adopted civil rights. While the old Democratic party had the same name, it was ideally the opposite party of what it is today.

This does show a confusing history, but an interesting one none the less. There is one universal constant to look for. Since the beginning, the southern states have tended to be more conservative, while the northern states are more liberal. Whenever you're confused about the issue, look up election maps and try to spot patterns. In the 1860s, the northern states all voted Republican, while the southern states voted Democrat. That's probably the quickest way to get a fix on who was who. ReignMan (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does get a little vague around that issue. I think that it is well-known that the Democratic party was on the wrong side of history for a while, so if you can find a couple of reliable, secondary sources that say something about the topic, please list them here. Start with the ones already in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.241.154 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"White Man's Burden" by Winthrop Jordan "The American People: Creating a Nation" by Gary B Nash & Julie Jeffrey, "Crucible of American Democracy" By Andrew Shankman, or, if you really want to, you can pick up ANY early US history text book, or ANY text book dealing with the founding of the Democratic Party as one of the first major issues was opposing the Federalist Party on the issue of Slavery. Rent "1776" you'll be entertained & enlightened. For over a 100 years the big D was on the wrong side of history & then they were on the wrong side of Reconstruction, & then FDR came into office & things radically changed for a period of about 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

favored ethnic minorities

I also believe the Democratic party and it's supporters are trying to rewrite it's history regarding slavery, human rites and supression of minorities. This passage: "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" Is totally untrue. One only has to look up other subjects like Jim Crow laws, Bill Connor, George Wallace, Orville Faubus, The KKK, Robert Byrd etc right here on Wikipedia to see how the Democratic party suppressed civil rights up until the time that President Johnson and Kennedy took up the civil rights cause and got the 1964 Civil rights passed, despite the filibustering of Democrats such as Robert Byrd. Once the bill became law, the Democratic party needed the minority votes to be elected so they switched their ideology to pro-civil rights and claimed to be pro-civil rights all along and further claimed the Republican party had been anti-civil rights.

I think this section on Wikipedia is an outrage an an affront to intelligent people. See

"One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Robert Byrd (D-WV)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Smith 1956 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is still there: Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities

When does someone make the changes in the article or dispute them? I offer this quote as evidence that the Democratic party has not historically favored ethnic minorities:

Sen. Ben Tillman, D-S.C. "Now that Roosevelt has eaten with that nigger [Booker] Washington, we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back to their place."

WILLIAM A. SINCLAIR, THE AFTERMATH OF SLAVERY: A STUDY OF THE CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE AMERICAN NEGRO 187 (Afro-Am Press 1969) http://students.ou.edu/W/Gifford.L.Weber-1/Documents/15-Leon_Higginbotham_Letter_To_Clarence_Thomas.pdf Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I understood that as referring to the party's historical support from white ethnics (ex. Irish Catholic immigrants in the North) which it did do through machine politics in large cities (see Political_machine#Political_machines_in_the_United_States). With regards to racial minorities it is right to say that the Democratic Party was for a long time the party of slave holders and then segregationists (so historically speaking it was certainly not the party of racial minorities) but since the split of the Dixiecrats and the incorporation of many of them into the Republican Party through the Southern Strategy that is no longer the case.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If "historically speaking it was certainly not the party of racial minorities" then the statement "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" is untrue and should be corrected. Dixiecrats did not appear until 1948. "The Republican Party, nominating Tom Dewey of New York in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed" [1] Where is a list of these Dixiecrats? This whitewashing of the Democratic party in the 120 or so years before the civil rights era is outrageous. I had a person tell me recently that John Wilkes Booth was not really a Democrat because he shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" after he shot Lincoln.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Party which favored slavery IS NOT THE SAME PARTY as the one we know today. Back in the 1800s, the "Republican Party" was almost completely northern and the "Democratic Party" was almost completely southern. You are right in saying that the "Democrats" supported slavery, but you are reffering to the wrong "Democrats." Back in the 1800s, Democrats had a conservative agenda while Republicans were more liberal. During the late 1800s, everything changed after The Republican Revolution in which the beliefs and ideals of the Republican pary changed, and with it, those of the Democratic party, to those we know today. That is why today, the majority of Democrats are up north while the majority of the Republicans are down south. Everyone didn't just get up and move simultaneously; the parties did. So please get your facts straight before posting. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities"This is an incorrect statement as per the above and a whitewash for 120+ years of pro slavery and anti civil rights. The The Republican Revolution had nothing to do with party policy it was merely about an election as written here in Wiki. The Dixiecrats is a subterfuge. Someone needs to present their facts.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) The "Dixiecrats" were Conservative Southern Democrats. The "Conservative" is key. Had they been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans. Same with the Democrats up north. They were not called "Dixiecrats", as they were not in the South, yet they still had a Conservative agenda. Since the Democratic Party today is strongly liberal, while back then it was Conservative, this means that the party mentioned is not the same party, with supporting evidence coming from the locations of Democrats and Rebublicans being moved from North to South without playing 'musical chairs'. I rest my case. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) If Then does not reflect a fact. It does not change 120+ years of history. Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities is an incorrect statement and it still needs to be removed or corrected.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1. 1: I have read over my own writings and cannot find the "If...then" you were reffering to.
2. 2: The 120 years of history you are reffering to, as I have said, does not include the current Democratic Party. The Democratic party that endorsed slavery is not the same Democratic party that it is today. This is why, in answer to a previous question, a large ammount of African Americans "migrated" to the Democratic Party, and why, as I have been saying continouosly, Democrats used to be almost completely southern, but are now almost complete,y northern. Unless you can refute all of the evidence I have provided in this discussion, don't blame what happened 120 years ago on this party just because it happens to have the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.116 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Had they been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans is an If Then statement. Fact is not based on hypothetical statements. "The 120 years of history you are reffering to, as I have said, does not include the current Democratic Party" The statement Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" does include the democratic party from today all the way back to the beginning of the Democratic party. It is untrue and should be corrected if Wikipedia is to have any credibility.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The statement, "If they had been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans" is not hypothetical; it is 100% true. Republicans before the early 1900s WERE liberal. Democrats before that time WERE conservative. Look it up if you want. 2. You have yet to prove my evidence wrong. Please explain to me how the evidence I have previously given is incorrect before you continue, or you won't accomplish anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.116 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

one of the oldest parties in the world

"one of the oldest parties in the world." Founded 1828 (1828) (modern)[1] 1792 (1792) (historic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Whig_Party Founded 1678

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Tory_Party 17th centurie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.69.155 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are defunct. Oldest means the party has existed longer than other current parties. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the Tory Party is not defunct as I am a Tory Party member, I do wish the Americans would stop trying to pretend that their country and political structure is either A: Based in History or B: Has any history whatsoever, we get it your country is young no need to try and push this oldest political party nonsense on other people, feel free to reply I won't check back here again reading Americans ramble on about complete nonsense drives me insane and makes me glad that there is a huge ocean inbetween the USA and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.218 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're way out of line. Both the parties you listed are defunct as said above, there are no Tory or Whig parties currently in existence in England. The major parties are the Conservatives (1912), Labor Party (1900), and Liberal Democrats (1988). And for you to come on here and deem all Americans to be stupid is indeed, extremely ignorant. While there are many, many Americans who are ignorant, you'll find we're not much different from any other country. For me to take your comments out of context and apply that all Britons are pompous and arrogant because of your comments would be just as asinine. ReignMan (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Civil Libertarians

The "protectionism, corporate welfare, government debt," bit is kind of misleading, the idea that civil libertarianism has anything to do with economics is debatable at best as you can see by reading the first few paragraphs of the article on libertarianism, i know in the USA libertarianism is often seen side by side free market capitalism, but in the rest of the world its got less association, could someone who aint a wikinoob/lazy like me fix this please, or put a "neutrality is disputed" tag at the civil libertarian section. Thanks. 86.131.212.67 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I hadn't noticed. But you're right, civil libertarianism has little to do with economics. I think the best thing to do would be to expand this section to include libertarians and civil libertarians.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Civil Libertarianism is a totally social issue, and has nothing to do with economics. There are multiple parties that favor civil libertarianism in the U.S., and they fall all over the economic spectrum (Libertarian, Democrat, Green). ReignMan (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Party Roots

The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that they are the opposite of what they were. However, the parties have changed in the past, most recently the Democrats went from being the conservative pro slavery southern party before 1912 to the liberal northern pro civil rights party in 1965. The Republicans did the opposite. In between those two dates, they bounced around a bit, with factions on both sides. When the Republicans were founded in the late 1850s, they were the northern liberal anti slavery party. ReignMan (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Party size and influence

You need to have a closer look at the citations. It's all there. Also have a look at the article for the Chinese Communist Party. It's the world's second largest party with 70 million people. The Democrats have a membership of 72 million. I added the comment about Democrats being the dominant party because it has been the majority party in the United States for most of its existence, although clearly not all of it. This is common knowledge in the United States. I'm going to revert your change. If this bothers you then it looks like we'll have to work out a compromise. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the party is the largest in the world then you need reliable references to prove it. And just because you think it's common knowledge that the Democrats have "dominated" American politics, does not mean it is. I seriously doubt if you asked most people on the street, that they could name the three branches of government or their elected officials much less what party has "dominated" the US for the longest. Also the term is very vague. Dominated in what terms? Controlled the most state legislatures? The most time controlling both chambers of congress or just one? How do you count split chamber control? Do you factor in the President at the time? What about the fact that more Republicans have been President than Democrats? It's simply too vague to added in the lede.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read the cititations carefully. All of the information I claim is there in the citations. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reference was a book defending conservatism saying that conservatism will win the day in American politics written by two conservatives. I'm not going to read a biased book to find one or two tiny references. You also haven't discussed how the claim that Democrats have dominated American politics is too vague or answered any of the questions I posed.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Books are acceptable citations on Wikipedia even if you're not willing to read them and it's pointless to cite common knowledge. If that's the case we might as well cite the fact humans need air to survive or that chickens lay eggs. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point and so far have failed to contest anything I've said. Of course books are used as references in Wikipedia, as well they should, they are vital sources of knowledge for anyone. That being said, the book in question is promoting conservatism and is written by conservative writers, this makes it an unreliable source because of its biased approach and point of view. If you can find reliable sources that say the Democratic Party has dominated American politics or one that says it's the largest party in the world, then we'll have a discussion. As for the "humans need air" and "chickens lay eggs" analogy, it's a ridiculous comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one on Wikipedia expects others to read entire books for references and I'm not the one citing common knowledge, you are when you said it was common knowledge that Democrats have dominated American political life. I look forward to working with you to improve this article with reliable references.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Center-left/center-right/center

Since the Democratic Party is ideologically all over the place and has no real unified goal, wouldn't it make more since just to list the party as center? Center-left makes absolutely no since; it is associated with social democracy. Would anyone here try to tell me that the Democratic Party of the United States is ideologically the same as say the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party? Of course not . . sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

American politics don't make sence, don't try to make a meaning out of something which is ment to be a puzzle for the rest of us. --TIAYN (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that they are ideologically all over the place but it seems roughly that 40% are progressive (which is basically European social democracy), 40% centrist and 20% conservative. As much as people want to say American progressivism is different from social democracy there really isn't that much difference if you look at the aims (single-payer healthcare, universal education, regulations and market interventions, progressive taxation). Even if you disagree about the similarity between American progressivism and European social democracy, it's still worth noting that social liberalism is often considered center-left but sometimes considered centrist. That seems to fit overall with the Democratic Party, somewhere between center and center-left, which is what is currently in the info-box.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but look at politicians who come from the party: Obama, Reid, Hilary Clinton; they are all on the right of the political spectrum. There seem to be few Progressives in Congress. Even "progressives" tend to be right-wing. Obama calls himself a "progressive" yet supports the death penalty, the war, took record amounts corporate funds (very non center-left), opposes youth rights and universal healthcare. And even in your argument, you admit that less than half of the party is left-wing. 40% centrist + 20% Conservative = 60% not center-left, 40% center-left. Therefore, it seems logical to me to classify the part as "center." Just my thougths.sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.154.224 (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The progressives in Congress are truly on the left of the spectrum, although they may not be as far left as you are. I believe your perspective may be altering your view. Obama and Clinton may not be progressives but most Americans think they are liberal and most conservatives think they're socialists but as it turns out, they're both pretty centrist. Obama may have taken record amounts of corporate cash, but if you'll do your research most of his money came from under $50 donations. Additionally Obama has stated that he supports single-payer health care if he were reinventing the entire system but to gain support for needed reforms he ditched that option. On the wars, he's drawing down troops in Iraq and winding up the war this year and next summer he's bringing home troops from Afghanistan (granted, not as fast as I would like but nevertheless). And I really have no idea how exactly he opposes "youth rights." Thank you for the math lesson, I do realize what the numbers I stated add up to. They are however very unscientific and I'm sure there are numerous conflicting polls dividing the party on ideological grounds. I think the way things are on the page are fine as is but I wouldn't be opposed to listing center first then center-left. But again I think it's important to remember our biases and keep center-left on the page.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This entire argument is absurd. You know what I'm seeing here? Lots of allegations and absolutely no reputable sources. To fix that mistake, I've now modified the lead to reflect the party's current ideological character, per highly distinguished and reputable scholars (see citations).UBER ^(talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The following three reputable sources support the current version of the first sentence that I just wrote. Unless you have something better, please do not tamper with the lead.

• Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science (2008) by Ellen Grigsby pp. 106-7:

In the United States, the Democratic Party represents itself as the liberal alternative to the Republicans, but its liberalism is for the most the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.

• Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation (2009) through Oxford University Press, by Arnold Scott p. 3:

Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.

• The state after statism: new state activities in the age of liberalization (2006) through Harvard University Press, by Jonah Levy p. 198:

In the corporate governance area, the center-left repositioned itself to press for reform. The Democratic Party in the United States used the postbubble scandals and the collapse of share prices to attack the Republican Party...Corporate governance reform fit surprisingly well within the contours of the center-left ideology. The Democratic Party and the SPD have both been committed to the development of the regulatory state as a counterweight to managerial authority, corporate power, and market failure.

About some of the authors:

• Jonah Levy is Professor of Political Science at Berkeley University.

• N. Scott Arnold is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama.

In other words, these are people who know more about the subject than you or I do. Please don't mess with them.UBER ^(talk) 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid use of the term "center-left". The US party system differs significantly from other countries and none of the sources can be considered authoritative. Grigsby's book is a US freshman textbook that provides no sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And because no one single source was authoritative, I gave three.UBER ^(talk) 05:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the United States does not have ideological parties, it does not make sense to put them on a political spectrum. See e.g., The Constitutional bases of political and social change in the United States (p. 6)[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What you said is false, and the sources presented above are more authoritative than the one you gave anyway.UBER ^(talk) 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The book is by Shlomo Slonim, Chair of the Department of American Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who gets plenty of hits at Google scholar,[3] is dedicated to Walter H. Annenberg and is published by Greenwood Publishing. Seems like a better source than a US Intro Polisci junior college textbook. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jonah+Levy"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Jonah Levy gets more hits at GS, and two of my books came through the Harvard and Oxford presses. Hmm...Harvard and Oxford...versus the Hebrew University. It's a tough choice Deuces.UBER ^(talk) 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenwood Publishing is every bit as credible as the Oxford or Harvard university presses. BTW there is nothing in the article about the principles that prospective members must agree to follow or how the party enforces ideological discipline on its members. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On this particular subject, two university presses of such high prestige easily take the cake. And not only are my sources more authoritative, there are more of them. Plus, even though the sources don't make the distinction, the article currently states in the "US political spectrum," which restricts the power of the claim. It should be noted that I myself don't think the Democrats are center-left even on their best days, but, as I've told you a million times before, our personal opinions don't matter. If reputable sources call the Democrats center-left in overwhelming numbers, then the Democrats have to be treated as center-left for the purposes of Wikipedia.UBER ^(talk) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no guideline which says one reliable source is more reliable then another reliable source. We all know the American political spectrum is far-left idiocy.--TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing lots of sources does not make a case stronger and usually shows a weak position. The comment that university presses are more reliable than the private academic press is novel, and I have posted a question about it at WP:RSN. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lots of sources"??? Don't give me more credit than I deserve; I provided three sources, mostly because I wanted to reinforce the point. Since you asked, I would hesitate to make a blanket generalization about university presses versus commercial ones, but in this case, there's no doubt that Harvard and Oxford should take precedence.UBER ^(talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Those sources you use proves our point, from an American persective the party is seeen as centre-left, while in European persective it is seen as a purly right-wing party, nothing more nothing less. --TIAYN (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we say that the Democrats are right wing, but Americans think they are left-wing? The Four Deuces (talk)

We should say what the sources say.UBER ^(talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Deuces, beyond the occasional source or two, I don't know where you're getting this idea that the Democratic Party is not ideological. First of all, as I've mentioned in other places, the Democrats were the most powerful leftist party in the world next to the Communists of Uncle Joe during the middle of the twentieth century. They had a consistent leftist streak (not just center-left) after FDR for about four decades, but they have tamed their positions significantly after the right-wing backlash of the last four decades. Right now, as I've also mentioned before, I think they're generally centrist. People who know better than me disagree, however. But one of the best examples that ideology still runs through a major part of the Democratic Party is the Progressive Caucus in the House, which is the most powerful wing of the party and is solidly center-left, social liberal. There are other factions, of course, but they don't wield the same clout. Anyway, take this last piece of information as the icing on the cake, since what was presented above more than justifies the inclusion of the center-left label.UBER ^(talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide us with the "left-wing" set of principles that prospective democrats are required to follow and the procedures they follow to ensure that members follow these principles. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a rubbish and arbitrary standard to adopt when determining the ideological character of a party. It also misses the point of how Wikipedia handles situations like these: we go first and foremost to reputable secondary sources, not to primary ones. Primary sources, especially on potentially controversial issues, have a tendency to manipulate and deceive, so what the Democratic Party says about itself or what it requires (or does not require) its members to be is irrelevant for Wikipedia. When you've got scholars from Berkeley saying they're center-left, that's relevant.UBER ^(talk) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

When one joins an ideological party - Communist, liberal, Christian democrat, etc., they are required to agree to follow certain principles and may be expelled for disobeying them. What principles must Democrats adhere to and what procedures are there to expel members who fail to follow them? (If you provide the principles then me may determine whether they are left, right, or centre.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to provide those because your request is illegitimate and ignorable.UBER ^(talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideological parties, like the Liberal Democrats, have stated principles that all members must follow and members who betray those principles are expelled. We can read those principles in order to categorize parties on a left-right spectrum. My suspicion is the Democrats do not have core principles and do no enforce them and therefore cannot be categorized. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not your job to categorize the Democrats, although thank you for staying true to the very bold spirit of Wikipedia. I don't believe that the entire party is ideological for a second; I already told you that they're broadly centrist. However, their most powerful factions are ideological, and those are tipping the scales in favor of the "centrist to center-left" approach...well, they and the sources. Now, I'm not going to waste my time giving you something that I consider to be ridiculous in the context of our debate, so do you have anything else to say or are we done here?UBER ^(talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to take issue that the progressive wing of the party is the most influential. It's members chair half of the House committees yes but that's the only example of their power. Look at Obama's cabinet, Hilda Solis is the only progressive while every other person is either associated with the DLC or was a Republican. The Progressive Caucus only has 79 members out of 255 Democrats in the House and it's usually the Blue Dogs, or the New Democrats who wield more power since they usually have no qualms over voting with Republicans against something deemed too liberal. Obama himself has declared that he is a centrist "New Democrat" when he had a meeting with them and the last liberal to be nominated for the presidency was Dukakis. Rahm Emanuel won the House back for Democrats by recruiting conservative Democrats and Obama won the Whitehouse by following Deans fifty state strategy of going after red states. I simply can't see how a party can be ideological when it never has been. It's always been a loose coalition of disparate groups that often have competing or diverging interests (pro-war/pro-israel vs. anti-war/pro-civil liberties, coal/industry state vs. green interests, gays and allies vs. socially conservative minorities and southerners, government friendly/populists vs. market friendly/wall streeters) ever since FDR. All you have to do is look at news reports and hear about moderate/conservative Democrats and how they think the party's being pulled too far left or liberal/progressive Democrats who see the party as being run by special interests and big money and capitulates too much with the right and big business. The party has always been pretty divided but the Republicans are a lot better at sticking together around one set of roughly conservative principles. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama actually declared himself a "progressive" in one of his books, although he's fiddled with several terms over his career, including denying any ideology completely. But again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves; they're politicians. Obviously they have ulterior motives. This is why we should stick with reputable secondary sources. The Progressive Caucus is the most influential for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it has the ear of the Speaker and essentially drives the legislative agenda in the House, although they don't always get what they want (health care being a great example).UBER ^(talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the arguments that Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg make. Anyway I have posted to RSN asking whether publications of the Harvard and Oxford University presses are more reliable than those published by the private academic press and welcome any comments there.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure that sounds like the arguments that WP:RS makes explicitly:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources.

You were saying?UBER ^(talk) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What does reliance on a book published by Greenwood for the ideology of the Democratic Party have to do with relying on primary sources? Since you think it violates RS please comment at RSN.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on your allusion—through references to Beck and Goldberg—to the primacy of primary sources, not to the actual source you gave. I have no problem with the source you presented. I just think mine are better.UBER ^(talk) 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think your sources are better then please join the discussion at RSN.[6] My comment about Beck and Goldberg was that you seem to derive your opinions from them. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll join in due time if I think it's necessary. Disputes like these should normally be resolved in the talk page of the article, not in the deep bureaucratic chasms of Wikipedia. I'll pretend I didn't read the part about Beck and Goldberg.UBER ^(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) When there is a dispute about reliable sources, the proper forum is RSN. Since you are challenging the legitimacy of the privately-owned academic press, you should defend your views there. And yes your views about the progressive movement controlling the Democratic Party are straight out of Beck and Goldberg. Your only dispute with them is that you think it is a good thing. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's get two things straight:

• I am not disputing the legitimacy of your source. This is an absolute red herring. I've told you repeatedly that your source is acceptable. All I'm saying is that my sources are better.

• If I was getting my views from Beck and Goldberg, I'd be calling the Democrats socialist, Marxist, Leninist, fascist, radical, or any other kooky and inapplicable term you can think of. The lead currently calls them "centrist to center-left," and I'm pretty sure I'd faint if I ever saw Beck refer to the Democrats in such mild terms.UBER ^(talk) 01:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you forgot you said, "two of my books came through the Harvard and Oxford presses. Hmm...Harvard and Oxford...versus the Hebrew University. It's a tough choice Deuces....On this particular subject, two university presses of such high prestige easily take the cake. Since you asked, I would hesitate to make a blanket generalization about university presses versus commercial ones, but in this case, there's no doubt that Harvard and Oxford should take precedence...." If that is your opinion then please defend it at RSN.[7] If your are "not disputing the legitimacy of [the] source" then please retract your statements. By the way your views are very similar to those of Beck and Goldberg, which is where you probably got your opinions. They both talk about the "progressive movement" etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All of those comments speak about the superiority of my sources relative to yours. Nowhere do I say that your source is "illegitimate." Relative to my sources, it's inferior, but that doesn't mean it's inferior in general, and it's certainly acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I have similar views to Beck and Goldberg like the sky is yellow with pink roses. Either way, I'm flattered that you care so much about my views, but for the billionth time, they do not matter. You don't see me taunting you about your views, whatever they are. Don't do the same with me.UBER ^(talk) 03:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why a book published by Harvard or Oxford University presses would be more reliable than one published by Greenwood or Routledge and the editors at WP:RSN#Oxford, Harvard University Presses v. Greenwood Publishing appear to agree with me. However, we may be wrong and would be appreciative if you would provide your comments there. You may wish to change the reliable sources policy. (BTW it was not published by the "Hebrew University" as you claimed.) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to where the professor teaches, not to the publishing organization. Actually, the people there don't agree with you at all. They're talking about mentioning all relevant viewpoints where reputable sources disagree, as they may on this subject (and as they do on nearly all contentious issues, no matter what the academic discipline). On the other hand, you're pursuing a slash-and-burn strategy in hoping to remove center-left entirely from the lead, completely ignoring the fact that reputable sources classify the Democrats as a center-left party.UBER ^(talk) 03:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources cited were by professors at Oxford or Harvard. My objection to the term "center-left" is its ambiguity. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...we've been down this road before. Deuces, you know what you and I really need to do? Go to the center-left article (well, its talk page) and finally decide on what it means, to whom it applies, and conversely to whom it doesn't apply. This talk page, however, is not the appropriate place.UBER ^(talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That article has been tagged for "original research" and there is no clear meaning for the term. If we label the Democrats as center-left we should use a source that explains what the term means. I did go to the talk page btw but received no reply. Usually when the term is used it refers to a coalition between a liberal and a social democratic party, e.g., a coaltion between the Liberal Democrats and Labour would be centre-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Originally I also wanted to include modern liberal, and the Grigsby book both explains what that means and gives the Dems that label. However, Sparrow and I agreed to leave the term out from the current version. I've seen center-left used frequently to describe individual parties (liberal or socialist) as well.UBER ^(talk) 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Scott book does throw in a few other parties with the term center-left and describes modern liberalism in that context.UBER ^(talk) 05:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like how the Democratic Party is described as "centrist" but the corresponding article on the Republican Party does not. Surely both parties contain centrist elements or neither do? I suppose it's yet another example of the pernicious editing slant on political articles in wikipedia: left-leaning political parties are "centrist," while right-leaning political parties aren't (the better to convey the impression that rightwing politics is extreme). 119.74.220.59 (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article currently describes the party's platform as "centrist to center-left," so your characterization is not accurate.UBER ^(talk) 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The Democratic Party may be center-left, but to claim center is a huge leap. In a nation that is center-right it is not possible for the major liberal party to be center and poll after poll show this. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the US is a center-right nation it explains why the country does not have any left-wing or even center-left parties and also why Americans might mistake centrism for the center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're both wrong. The US is not a center-right nation (this is a right-wing meme) and it does have a center-left, though currently not as strong as it once was. Arzel, past consensus reached this result in the lead, so you'll have to discuss here in the talk page before making further changes to such a sensitive part of the article.UBER ^(talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to justify the term "center left" for a party that is more right-wing than the UK or Canadian Conservative Parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Don't take this personally, but since this is an article about US political parties, and the terminology is in reference to the US it doesn't matter in the least what the rest of the world thinks about our terminology. Political ideology is all relative to the population to which it serves.

UBER, the most recent polling on ideological perceptions in the US put Conservatives at ~40%, Independents at ~35% and Liberals at ~25%. Ergo, the US is a center-right country. Concensus cannot trump facts. Do you have some proof that the Democratic Party is a party of the center? Arzel (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No one would take it personally that you think "it doesn't matter in the least what the rest of the world thinks". However mainstream US politics represents a narrow range of the political spectrum and the article is designed for an international audience. Also American academic writers do not use the popular jargon used in US opinion pieces, but the language used in the rest of the world. Incidentally if the US develops its own political spectrum without reference to the rest of the world, then it makes no sense to say the US is center-right. Center-right compared with what? With the American center? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a highly reputable source clarifying the centrism of the Democratic Party. Deuces would actually like this source because it talks about the labels while giving a historical context about what they mean (even though, again, it's not our job to bother with those details for this article). Arzel, ideological self-identification is notoriously perilous and subject to a wide range of ambiguities. I've seen polls, for example, that show up to 20% of conservatives support abortion rights or that up to 20% of liberals do not support same-sex marriage. Just because people adopt a certain label does not mean they go all in with the stereotypical positions associated with a certain ideology. Far more indicative on where this country falls in the political spectrum are questions about central social values or the role of government. On these questions, Americans come out as broadly centrist.UBER ^(talk) 18:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get where this discussion is going. The Democratic party is mainly a center right party, not center, not center left. Only Americans could possibly consider the Democrats left. There are only a very small handful of Democrats who fall on the left, Kucinich and Sharpton being the only ones I can think of.

Indeed, the Democratic party platform reads like a moderate right wing platform from any other country. They favor government options for things like healthcare and education, not mandatory universal government systems. They oppose television showing nudity and radio and television allowing expletives. Not even in the most liberal parts of the United States do you see billboards with nudity, and legal prostitution is only allowed in one state. No state allows the use of drugs, even marijuana (a mild drug) is illegal, and you face jail time for its use. Gay marriage is illegal in most states, and many states have amendments or acts specifically banning it. The Democrats do not favor income caps, or limits on wealth. They do not oppose land ownership. They do not favor polygamy being legal.

Where Americans find the left wing in this, I'd like to know. ReignMan (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for personal opinions. If you do not have reputable academic sources for what you're claiming, your statements are meaningless.UBER ^(talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess this [8] won't work? Either way, the Democrats are not a left wing party. They are moderately right wing. This is pretty well understood outside of the United States. ReignMan (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No it won't work. Political Compass is cute if you want to have fun with the subject, but it's not considered a reliable source per WP:RS.UBER ^(talk) 01:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "reputable academic sources", the only sources for the Democrats being left-wing are from Jonah Goldberg and others who claim that they have a hidden agenda. Perhaps UberCryxic could provide a reputable academic source for the Tea Party point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Democrats are not left-wing and the article does not say they are left-wing. Like red herrings much?UBER ^(talk) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

UBER, I do not see the highly relibale source that you claim indicates that the Democratic party is centrist. Also, your opinion of what polls are actually saying is original research. We report information from reliable sources, we don't interpret what those sources say and introduce new orginal research. Additionally, much of the logic being presented to classify the Democratic party is based on original research of comparrison between the Left of the US and the Left of the rest of the world. Since this article is about the US and the Democratic party's place in the US it should represent the view of the Democratic party within the US, and not some arbitrary view of what it would be like if it were in some other country. Arzel (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the term "generally" is being used as a clarifier for the definition of Centrist which implies that most people believe that to be true. There is no way that most people in the US believe the Democratic party is centrist. You will have to provide a reference that makes that statement. Arzel (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't see it? It's cited in the article right now. The source is the following:

• Warren, Kenneth (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior, Volume I. On page 366 it says:

Developed in a time of political upheaval in Europe, the left-right distinction was a convenient and accurate way to describe political...attitudes towards the continent's sweeping changes: for or against...With the centrism of the Democratic Party, the existence of liberal Republicans, and the prevalence in U.S. political history of liberals strongly opposed to communism or in favor of privatization of services, there is some question about how relevant the model continues to be.

Kenneth F. Warren is a very famous political scientist at Saint Louis University. You were the one originally interpreting the meaning of the polls, so direct accusations of original research at yourself first.UBER ^(talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That section is written from the perspective of the Democratic party and is about the Democratic party. As such it is talking about the center of the Democratic part or the move of the Democratic party towards the center. It however, does not state that the Democratic party is centrist. Do you have any other sources that makes this explicit claim? One marginal source that doesn't make the direct statement is not enough for this claim. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The source mentions the centrism of the Democratic Party. What else do you think that means other than it's a reference to the Democrats as centrist? It's also not written from the perspective of the Democrats and it's quite clear it's referring to the party in general.UBER ^(talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you have to define what the author is trying to say is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. We are not here to interpret what an author believes or doesn't believe. Unless you have sources that make the explicit statement that the Democratic party is centrist within the US you simply cannot make that claim. Without the book, and without any easy way to read the entire section it is not clear what the author is trying to state. Lets say, however for argument sake, that this author does actual make the statement that you claim, you need more than a single source to make that statement. As it is it would be simply the claim of one person, and subject to attributation. Unless you can provide some additional evidence to back up your statement then you simply cannot put it in the article as a fact. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, don't take this personally, but although this is an article about a US political party, and the terminology is in reference to the US, it doesn't matter in the least what the US thinks about their terminology. Political scientists normally group both US parties as "liberal" and therefore centrist. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD, seriously, what is your issue? This article is about the Democratic party within the US political system. There is absolutely no way that you can describe their view in the world and then parlay that into where they fit within the US political system. If you want to talk about the differences between Democrats in the world and/or Republicans in the world I suggest you create an article that discusses the world view of either/both and how the US political parties fit into that view. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, the fact that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans does not make them a left-wing party and more than the fact they are bigger than their opponents makes the Republicans a small party. There are in fact left-wing parties in the US, but the US differs from other countries by the absence of any large left-wing parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that Democrats are a left-wing party. Please read that sentence again. It is refering to the Democratic party within the US POLITICAL SYSTEM. How other countries view our Democratic party is not relevant in the least to that sentence. You think that the US Democratic party would be viewed to the right within the world view, fine I don't care, and within the European political system you would be correct, but that still does not change how the Democratic party is viewed within the United States. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but the last sentence is obviously false. Political scientists (and everyone else) do not see the Republican Party as the classical liberal party it once was. And to call the Republicans centrists would be a very ambitious joke. Nearly half the party thinks Obama is not a US citizen and a majority does not believe in evolution. At best, the Republicans are right-wing medievalist, and that's a stretch too. They certainly rival some of the far-right European parties in their level of insanity.UBER ^(talk) 03:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true. The Republicans do not advocate the restoration of monarchy, hereditary titles, or the Anglican church (which would be conservative but not right-wing) or the abolition of private property or the Bill of Rights (especially rights of guns). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We're getting off on a tangent here. It's best to stop now before it escalates unnecessarily.UBER ^(talk) 03:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of the Republican Party belongs in that article, not here. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Center-left revisited

I see no reason to label the Democratic Party "center-left" when the term has no clearly defined meaning and there is no academic consensus that they are center-left. They do not self identify as center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what any party or organization "self-identifies" as. We use reliable secondary sources, and these largely call the Democrats center-left, although there are also plenty (just as many I'd say) that call them centrist, which is why I wanted to include both labels. Either way, to echo what you're saying, none of these terms are clearly defined, including centrist, which is especially one of the most annoying buzzwords in American politics (ie. it means nothing). Deuces, without gaining consensus here first, please don't tamper with this information.UBER ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)