Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname Content: Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname

Theocracy

Nothing at all about all of the Party's most prominent figures today being openly theocratic? Karin Anker (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that refers to Romney being a Mormon bishop. That point is rarely made in the RS or public debates. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's bigger than Romney. Pat Buchanon, Rick Santorum and many others have argued against the separation of church and state. They are leading figures in the party.--Drdak (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

the idea of "separation of church and state" is a liberal interpretation of the 1st amdt. (Jefferson first made the comment about 1803) The Republicans mostly follow conservative interpretations. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the separation of church and state is a pretty mainstream belief in the United States.--Drdak (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

While you are entirely correct, we also have the parallel truth that America has a strong tradition of the infusion of religious values into politics, including elected officials making overt statements about their religious beliefs. Some of the republican talking points are addressing the idea of more religion in politics, not necessarily (at least on the surface) the direct control of government by religious leaders. The mormon bishop thing is interesting. I will have to read about what that means in mormonism. I suspect its not the same degree of authority as a catholic bishop. i could be entirely wrong.(mercurywoodrose)12.125.80.214 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking specifically about the fact that virtually all prominent Republicans today not only "infuse religious values into politics", but rather about them advocating for laws based very openly and exclusively on the Bible. Karin Anker (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It has as much merit as ascribing the Democratic Party as an atheistic oligarchy, which many people believe, misguided or not. Put another way, any article on wikipedia is not the place for such opinions. Stick to scholarship. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if you're joking or genuinely dense. When something is verifiable by checking the sources (in this case actual speeches and advocacy from most if not all prominent Republicans), it is not opinion, it is fact. From Boards of Education, right up to presidential candidates, they're very open about it, whereas the notion that the Democratic Party is atheistic can be disproved entirely too easily to take anyone making that claim seriously. Karin Anker (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Republican Party is a group of kitten-eaters. You need reliable sources. If you find reliable sources stating that the Republican Party is theocratic, then you can include that in the article. If you find a large number of non-mainstream allegations that the GOP is theocratic, you can say that those allegations exist (though you can't say that they're right). Peacock28 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, theocracy isn't the right word. In a theocracy, God (or an immediate messenger of God) is the head of state. Thus, Iran (ruled by religious leaders) is a theocracy, but Saudi Arabia (state religion, but ruled by a king) isn't. Peacock28 22:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

the issue is whether the GOP is "advocating for laws based very openly and exclusively on the Bible" .... which laws are being advocated?? The Bible does not say anything about prayer in schools, contraception or abortion or same-sex marriages, which are big issues. So the "Bible" issue seems to be a non-starter. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is rather silly since the Republican Party is going to nominate a Mormon, and many Christians do not consider Mromonism to be a Christian religion (even though it is). Like the above says, sources are needed and frankly there are none. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Insurgent outlier

The book It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann (Basic Books, May 2012) ISBN 978-0465031337 [1], [2] needs mention here (and its own article). I quote:

"(the GOP has become) an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition".

Fighting words for sure. There will be responses to this book shortly.(mercurywoodrose)12.125.80.214 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Teddy Roosevelt and "Environmental Policies"

In the subsection "Environmental Policies," Roosevelt is mentioned as being a Republican; of course this is true, but it is misleading to mention a figure such as Roosevelt as representing typical, *contemporary* Republican ideology, regarding the environment or otherwise, given that, A- the Republican party was of course extremely different than what it is now, B- Roosevelt's environmental policies are in stark contrast with contemporary Republican ideology in what I feel, and could likely defend as being, a majority of ways, and C- almost 100 years have passed since Roosevelt was in office.

As a side note, I believe that the section on Environmental Policies should include the commonness of interest, among Republicans in congress currently and those who ran in the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign, in reducing funding and power to the EPA. June 3rd, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.24.140 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki readers should know that positions change over time. That's history. Like the GOP in 29012, TR opposed Muir & the Sierra Club position on nature, and called for efficient use of timber, coal, water & tourist possibilities in a way that the GOP today endorses. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article reads like Roosevelt represents modern Republicans, than by all means change it. As long as the article mentions the ideological shift in the mid-twentieth century (which it does, at the beginning of the ideology section), it's all good. Thanks for your feedback. Peacock28 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party Should Be Characterized as "Center-Right to Right-Wing"

I believe that the characterization of the GOP as "Center-right" is not justified anymore, numerous sources have stated that significant portions of the party, such as the Tea Party Caucus in the House with over 60 members, can be characterized as Right-Wing in the American political spectrum. I have changed the description from "Center-right" to "Center-right to Right-Wing" because I believe this is a better and more factual characterization of the Republican Party today. My sources are listed below:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-07-18/commentary/30703394_1_tax-code-republican-leaders-republican-party
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/jeb-bush-says-his-father-and-reagan-would-lose-out-in-todays-gop/
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-jeb-bush-ronald-reagan-grover-norquist-20120611,0,6999172.story
Gamer9832 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it is a matter of dispute, I would remove the field. TFD (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed--let's drop the field--it is designed for European parties (and the folks over at Democratic Party are also confused here.) For example the "conservatives" in Europe represent the established church & landed aristocracy, and in Europe liberal = what US calls libertarian. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, let's drop the field. It's ideology (Conservative) is noted in the infobox. If nobody objects, I will remove it myself. Toa Nidhiki05 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This consensus has already been reached and continues to be reached but Toa Nidhiki05 continues to obstruct. Upon consulting with the Help Desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_February_16#Consensus) it has become apparent that we must compromise on this issue. Hence, those who voted "Right-wing" and those who voted "Centre-right" all have equal weight. I will make the proper edit. I'll also submit a warning on Toa's talk page.--Drdak (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We have consensus here from three editors (including myself) to remove the field entirely. I'm not holding up anything, I'm following protocol. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring past contributor views, which, according to administrators, also have a stake in the matter. Quit trying to weasel out of coming to a proper consensus that might possibly go against your ideological views.--Drdak (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please go to the Democratic Party talk page and you see a very lengthy argument over a similar matter. I was in favor of changing this originally from "Center-Right" to "Center-Right" and "Right-Wing". A compromise was reached on the Democratic Party page that the field should be removed. I agreed (as did 2 other editors). This was a consensus among those directly involved in the conflict. After thinking about it, the compromise does make the most sense (had I gone back I would have suggested the consensus and not to switch it to "Center-Right to Right-Wing"). America's political parties don't adhere to the world's political spectrum, in any other place both would be considered center-right. Other parties in the world are also ideologically pure, whereas there's a lot of ideological differences within the GOP and Democrats. There is no "center-left" or "center-right" in the American political spectrum, both parties address many positions, and base their platform more towards current issues in upcoming elections, not ideology. There are Conservative Democrats, Centrist republicans (in the American definition of "Centrist"). There are a significant number of Libertarians within each party. So you can't classify each as in a particular spectrum, as both tend to encompass many, diverse points of view. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Gamer said it perfectly. Toa Nidhiki05 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose removing the field. It is original research to say that the left-right spectrum does not apply to the Republican Party without a source to confirm that, and that claim sounds merely like a means to legitimize a frustrated refusal to address the spectrum issue because of past disagreements on this talk page about it. Utilize reliable sources to find the general area that the Republican Party is located on the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't hold articles hostage to "past contributor views" because concensus can change. I'm not convinced by the sources supplied that "right-wing" is warranted. I support removing the field--and it does appear that that is consensus.– Lionel ^(talk) 19:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Material here is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on users' opinions of such sources - provided that they are reliable sources. That being said, the proposal by the first user who posted sources here, are not reliable sources, they are commentary opinions from news channels, those are not reliable. Preferably scholarly books on the subject of politics should be used here. There should be a request for comment here for this proposed change as it is not conventional for a political party infobox to not show the left-right position. Lastly, prior to such an RfC being taken, I urge users to look for reliable sources that say where the Republican Party is located on the political spectrum before making any determinations on whether to include or not include the left-right spectrum issue here.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of the Republican Party's stance on the political spectrum

The Republican Party is part of the International Democrat Union, the IDU describes itself as an "association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right." See here: The Republican Party was amongst the founders of the IDU in 1983, Frank Fahrenkopf of the Republican National Committee, was a dignitary who signed the Declaration of Principles. See here: [3]. With this evidence of Republican Party endorsement of the IDU and its stances, I believe that it is reasonable to restore the political spectrum section on the infobox. "Centre to centre-right" is what should be added. Plus this makes sense, it is acknowledged that there are centrist Republicans, see here: [4].--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because the GOP is part of a loosely organized international union of parties, does not mean that the GOP necessarily follows those policies to make it "center to center right" (I don't think anyone considers the GOP "Centrist", especially if you have been following the news recently). The GOP does not care about international politics. If it did, it would support most of what other members of the IDU do: abortion, same-sex marriage, universal healthcare, mandate that its members believe in global warming, and support a relatively progressive tax bracket (which all other members of the IDU do, most notably the British and Canadian Conservatives, along with the German CDU/CSU). The GOP differs significantly from its IDU counterparts, which are in countries where the political conversation is not slanted to the right. The IDU's goals are also very broad and vague, they're more like the Alliance of Democrats than Socialist International. Also, the GOP is a self-defined big-tent party, along with the Democrats-- and support a multitiude of political views that doesn't happen in other parts of the world, where parties are usually ideologically pure. For example, members disagree on topics like abortion and taxation, there are Libertarian Republicans, etc. The canon of political views is just too huge to classify as one part of the spectrum. Therefore, consensus was reached that the field should be removed. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That appears only to be your opinion, do you have sources that demonstrate that the Republican Party as a whole officially supports policies that are further to the right than centre-right? Your opinion that the Republican Party "does not care about international politics" is biased and inaccurate - the Republican leadership has cooperated with similar movements outside the United States - the close connections of the Republicans, the Canadian Conservatives, and the British Conservatives, and German CDU are well-known - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney, and Helmut Kohl worked together and espoused the same neoliberal economics. In fact it was Mulroney who pressed Reagan and the Republicans to support free trade - overcoming opposition from more protectionist-minded Republicans; and Mulroney pressed and convinced Reagan to support and sign the Air Quality Agreement to address air pollution and acid rain. Now then if you are referring to the Tea Party movement as an example of more right-wing elements when you were talking about "events in the news" - you need to demonstrate that they are in fact strongly right-wing. It is possible to say that the Tea Party movement is perhaps extreme libertarian capitalist, but how does that translate into associating them and the entire Republican Party as being beyond centre-right and strongly within the definition of right-wing politics? Also, I provided a source that shows that there are centrist Republicans. Please provide references to back up your claims here.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need a reputable source to what I claim because it is fact, I can ask anyone here and they would agree with me(even the Conservatives would). You have been hearing it in the news for a long time. The GOP has shifted far to the right, and pushed the US political spectrum a long with it. Ronald Reagan wouldn't fit into his own party ( I have a few news articles that I cited above). The examples you cited were all from 30 years ago, when the GOP was still viewed as center-right in the global political spectrum. The era of Mulroney, Thatcher, and Reagan is 30 years ago, back during the Cold War. The Conservatives in this country have moved so irrevocably to the right (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is true) that the Europeans and Canadians would be frightened of our politics. Canadian and British Conservatives believe in global warming(British Conservatives have a tax on 4x4's, guarantee access to abortion(David Cameron said he's willing to have abortions up to 5 months), support universal, single-payer healthcare coverage, support progressive tax brackets where the richer you are the higher you pay, etc., etc. (this list can go on forever). Democrats can't even get half their party to agree on this issue, and Republicans are against it. To be honest, if you look at the policies of each party and scrutinize in detail, you realize that nowadays the Conservatives in Britain and Canada, along with the German Christian Democrats, align much more closely with the Democrats: they support a free market but with protections for the poor and a significant safety net). Also, look more in depth at the IDU page. The GOP isn't listed anywhere in recent newsletters-- if you look back to 2008 there was not even a mention of supporting John McCain at the 2008 presidential election (that was back before the Tea Party even existed). David Cameron sees himself honestly more aligned with Obama than Romney. The examples you placed were examples from 30 years ago. A lot has happened in 30 years. We're not talking about the GOP of 30 years ago (or as Dems call it, your father's Republican Party). The GOP could care less about the IDU. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics aside, let me counter a few of your arguments about the GOP being "center to center-right". The GOP has Libertarians, Conservatives, and Centrists. Libertarians are left-wing socially, and right-wing fiscally (so that already disqualifies your notion that they can be characterized as center to center-right). Other parties in Europe are ideologically pure (meaning they support only one stance on every issue, if a party member doesn't agree, they can't run under the party's name). That doesn't work here in the US. We have big-tent parties where candidates routinely criticize another over how "Conservative" or "Liberal" the other is, and where people from within their own parties argue with each over issues. This doesn't happen in Europe or anywhere else in the world-- in leadership contests candidates don't demonize each other but just present their platform (the demonizing is reserved for debates with the other parties). Added to that the IDU has not written about the GOP since 2007 in its newsletters (check them out here http://www.idu.org/newsletterlist.aspx), that there isn't one single Republican member on the IDU's leadership board, and the examples you state of GOP and Conservatives elsewhere working together are all from 30 years ago, and your whole argument has just been disproved. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for all of that opinion you just posted? Not appearing in a source for a period of time is not a reliable indicator of something's status. I'm almost certain that its not really a source if all the source shows is that it isnt a source. Simply put, your opinions are just as subjective as the poster before you. Im not going to get in on this argument, but i did think it best to point that you are doing the very thing you claim makes your opponent's position invalid. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)