Talk:Republican Party (United States): Difference between revisions
Red trashcan (talk | contribs) |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 6. |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<!-- WARNING: THIS IS A TEMPLATE. Any changes you make here will appear on a lot of different pages. If you clicked edit in a regular page and got here then you are probably editing the wrong thing. Stop! Go back and add your comment somewhere else. That is unless you really are intending to change this template! --> |
<!-- WARNING: THIS IS A TEMPLATE. Any changes you make here will appear on a lot of different pages. If you clicked edit in a regular page and got here then you are probably editing the wrong thing. Stop! Go back and add your comment somewhere else. That is unless you really are intending to change this template! --> |
||
== "Drug Use" Edit request on 17 July 2013 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
"'The War on Drugs': |
|||
Republicans generally support the War on Drugs, and oppose the Legalization of drugs, believing that smoking and drugs are immoral and wrong, and the country should do its best to protect people from illegal drugs, and support Just Say No." |
|||
The above blurb is without a source and does not represent the heart of the Republican stance on drug regulation, because, although some Republicans believe drug use is "immoral and wrong," there are many who oppose drug-use because of health related issues. Truer to rational Republican form would be to say: |
|||
"Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use, prescription or illicit, because of the high levels of drug-related fatalities in society (second only to auto damage). Jail penalty, health rehabilitation, drug court, prescription licensing, or legalized drug regulation (alcohol for example) are seen as viable and beneficial restriction options by the Republican party." |
|||
Quick possible sources: |
|||
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Prescription-Drugs.php |
|||
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Drugs.htm |
|||
Thank you, |
|||
- A Rational Citizen |
|||
<!-- End request --> |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/70.185.252.162|70.185.252.162]] ([[User talk:70.185.252.162|talk]]) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that the original text should be changed. I particularly support removing the word "''immoral''" as applied to the drug view of ''Republicans generally''. It is also clearly not true that "''Republicans generally believe that smoking is immoral''". However, I do not support the nature of the replacement text and references suggested by '''Rational Citizen''' ([[User talk:70.185.252.162|talk]]). I got bogged down in Rational Citizen's suggested replacement (somewhere around "auto damage"). I was also rather surprised to read Rational Citizen's claim in his first ten words: "''Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use''". I thus checked the suggested references, and must report that IMHO neither is a suitable source (realizing that these were just quick suggestions).<br /> |
|||
:The first suggested reference tries to treat every "political issue of the day" (2012) with unbiased balance by presenting both sides of the story. That website could be used as a source both ''for'' and ''against'' every political issue, including this one. However, it did lead me to a copy of the official 2012 Republican Platform (see my suggested references below). This latter document was notable to me for being a ''non-reference'' on the matter of drug abuse. There is no mention of any 2012 Republican Party policy on drug abuse or misuse (prescription or otherwise). The only reference related to drugs and criminal activity is the solitary appearance of the "war on drugs" way down on page 47 of 50. Its appearance there is only incidental to voicing "support" of Mexico and Colombia in their drug enforcement efforts. This '''lack of stated policy''' is in '''stark contrast to''' the '''Republican Party''''s official platform in '''2004''', which contains specific attacks on Clinton and Democrats for their "virtual surrender in the War on Drugs", and reiterated the Republican Party call for the death penalty applied to drug dealer "kingpins".<br /> |
|||
:Both of those statements from the 2004 policy platform appear in the second of '''Rational Citizen's''' suggested references above, along with similar comments. It is true that neither of '''Rational Citizen's''' references nor those two Republican platforms mention drugs as ''immoral'', but neither reference supports the claim above, that "'''''Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use'''''". The first reference provides both sides to every issue and doesn't state policy. The second reference certainly doesn't support legalization or condone illicit use in any form - the nearest it comes is pledging (in 2004) to expand support for individuals working hard to overcome drugs by seeking treatment and rehabilitation, through the [then] President's ''Access to Recovery'' program (ATR).<br /> |
|||
:In summary, I support removal of the word "'''immoral'''" - wrongly attributed here to Republicans generally about both smoking and drugs. I suggest that the Republican Party has lessened its attention on "The War on Drugs", observable by comparing their 2004 and 2012 platforms. I do not believe that the Republican Party has actually reversed its previous position though; I see no evidence to support the specific replacement text proposed (particularly the first ten words), and I don't consider the two suggested references to be useful in the context of supporting such proposed change. I wouldn't have a suggestion for replacement text, but as '''Rational Citizen''''s template forced him to do so, and in my dual beliefs that Wikipedia records externally verifiable information without adding bias or opinion, and that this Wikipedia article is about the '''Republican Party''' (not the same thing as '''Republicans generally'''), here's my humble [[tuppence]] or [[My two cents|two cents]] worth: |
|||
::'''The War on Drugs''': The Republican Party initiated and has fully supported the War on Drugs. The Party opposes the legalization of illicit drugs, stating that they significantly impact violent crime and health. However, the amount of focused attention on this issue dropped considerably, based on a comparison of the 2004 and the 2012 editions of the Republican Party Platform with barely an incidental mention in the latter.<br /> |
|||
: My suggested references to support this are: |
|||
:: 2004 Republican Party platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/25850.pdf |
|||
:: 2012 Republican Party platform: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf |
|||
:I am sorry, Rational. I wish they had the more enlightened view of your suggested text. With thanks from an '''[[Irrational number|irrational]]''' '''Non-citizen''', but I am [[Algebraic number|algebraic]], and aka: [[User:ChrisJBenson|ChrisJBenson]] ([[User talk:ChrisJBenson|talk]]) 22:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ESp|c}} [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== KKK, Slavery and the Democrats? == |
|||
KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty |
|||
Black Louisiana Senator Explains Why He Left Democratic Party and Became a Republican https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oOysfAAsmQ |
|||
Greetings from Switzerland, Republicans Abroad Switzerland (www.swissgop.org) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.83.204.16|178.83.204.16]] ([[User talk:178.83.204.16|talk]]) 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Right, the KKK are liberals. Thanks for playing. -[[User:Laikalynx|Laikalynx]] ([[User talk:Laikalynx|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 01:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Here you will find some rare political pictures from back then: http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000014/19753_lg.jpeg , http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000014/16363_lg.jpeg <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.83.204.16|178.83.204.16]] ([[User talk:178.83.204.16|talk]]) 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== History == |
== History == |
||
Line 102: | Line 53: | ||
On what spectrum would Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and George W. Bush be considered "moderate"? Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative". Most people identify him as a conservative. Same with Benjamin Harrison and McKinley, the conservatives of the 19th century. I object to this terminology. [[Special:Contributions/74.69.9.224|74.69.9.224]] ([[User talk:74.69.9.224|talk]]) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
On what spectrum would Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and George W. Bush be considered "moderate"? Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative". Most people identify him as a conservative. Same with Benjamin Harrison and McKinley, the conservatives of the 19th century. I object to this terminology. [[Special:Contributions/74.69.9.224|74.69.9.224]] ([[User talk:74.69.9.224|talk]]) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
::yes I agree. They were all best characterized as "conservative." Most historians agree, I believe. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
::yes I agree. They were all best characterized as "conservative." Most historians agree, I believe. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Banana Republicans== |
== Banana Republicans == |
||
[[File:Banana republic.svg|thumb|Banana Republicans]] |
[[File:Banana republic.svg|thumb|Banana Republicans]] |
||
It should be noted in the article that due to their inability to govern the current member of the GOP are being referred to as the "Banana Republicans." |
It should be noted in the article that due to their inability to govern the current member of the GOP are being referred to as the "Banana Republicans." |
Revision as of 03:23, 2 October 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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
History
On October 12, 1853, Amos Tuck of Exeter, New Hampshire called together a dozen representatives of four separate abolitionist political parties: the Independent Democrats, the Whigs, the Free Soil Party and the Know Nothing (or American) Party. The purpose of this Exeter meeting was to form a new, combined party. At this meeting, Tuck suggested the name: The Republican Party. (citation: Birth of the Republican Party, Hugh Gregg. In late 1853, Horace Greely a wrote of this meeting.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExeterGOPer (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Political position
I know it's debatable whether the Republicans are center-right or right-wing and whether the Democrats are centrist or center-left, but is it not general consensus that when compared to one another, the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats and the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans? Providing this was sourced, could it be added to the article?--Jay942942 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it already noted in the article when it says the GOP is conservative and the Democrats are liberals? Toa Nidhiki05 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the original request by Jay942942 was for specific use of the words left and right (inherited, I'll note, from a seating arrangement that developed in the French National Assembly at the onset of its revolution in 1789). Particularly with that etymology in mind, I personally don't see left and right as more explanatory than conservative and liberal, but perhaps others do. It seems innocuous enough to add. I will do so shortly. OK? ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- 'left' and 'right' terms began in France 1790s and reached the US in the early 20th century. Since the 1930s they include "liberal" and "conservative" except that "Far Left/New Left" and "Liberal" elements in US have been quite hostile to each other since 1940 or so. GOP= right is fine with me Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this as long as 'left' is added to the Democratic Party article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- but it's not symmetrical. the parties are not mirror images of each other. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand some people take offense to the idea that the Democratic Party represents the political left of the United States, but the fact of the matter is that it does; in a two-party system, one will lean to the right and the other will lean to the left. In the US, the right is represented by the GOP and the left is represented by the Democrats. The current well-thought out consensus is to not include anything relating to political position on both articles. As far as I am concerned, any changes should apply to both articles. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- well no, both parties are complex coalitions. The great majority of GOP elements are "right" but not so for the Democrats. The Dems have important "center" and "liberal" components as well as a "left." Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- And yet the leadership of the Democratic Party (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama) consists entirely of liberals - who occupy the left of the US political spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- They're in the center, with GOP to their right. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, they are not. They are social liberals, an ideology widely regarded as belonging to the center-left in most of the world. Similarly, the Republican Party is accepted as a member of the International Democrat Union, an international alliance of center-right political parties. Toa Nidhiki05 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- My my! It's getting as rowdy as the House of Commons in here! In the context of the global political spectrum, America's two main parties are not far apart. Both parties are clearly centre-right from the global median, (no matter which umbrella organization accepts them). The meaning of terms like "liberal" and "socialism" have devolved so far in America that they can no longer be used constructively in an international forum like this. But I'd like to get back to the original context. I believe that it is generally "accepted" and "acceptable to state" that the Democratic Party is to the left of, and the Republican Party to the right of the other one. There is necessarily a symmetry to their relative overall position, and by not considering absolute position on either a local or global spectrum, we avoid this kind of contention (and dodeca-indenting). Returning to User:Jay942942's original question, yes after consideration, I do think this article would benefit from a clarification such as this:
- No, they are not. They are social liberals, an ideology widely regarded as belonging to the center-left in most of the world. Similarly, the Republican Party is accepted as a member of the International Democrat Union, an international alliance of center-right political parties. Toa Nidhiki05 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- They're in the center, with GOP to their right. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- And yet the leadership of the Democratic Party (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama) consists entirely of liberals - who occupy the left of the US political spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- well no, both parties are complex coalitions. The great majority of GOP elements are "right" but not so for the Democrats. The Dems have important "center" and "liberal" components as well as a "left." Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Republican Party is positioned to the right of the Democratic Party in the political spectrum.
- With thanks ChrisJBenson (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand some people take offense to the idea that the Democratic Party represents the political left of the United States, but the fact of the matter is that it does; in a two-party system, one will lean to the right and the other will lean to the left. In the US, the right is represented by the GOP and the left is represented by the Democrats. The current well-thought out consensus is to not include anything relating to political position on both articles. As far as I am concerned, any changes should apply to both articles. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- but it's not symmetrical. the parties are not mirror images of each other. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this as long as 'left' is added to the Democratic Party article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- 'left' and 'right' terms began in France 1790s and reached the US in the early 20th century. Since the 1930s they include "liberal" and "conservative" except that "Far Left/New Left" and "Liberal" elements in US have been quite hostile to each other since 1940 or so. GOP= right is fine with me Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the original request by Jay942942 was for specific use of the words left and right (inherited, I'll note, from a seating arrangement that developed in the French National Assembly at the onset of its revolution in 1789). Particularly with that etymology in mind, I personally don't see left and right as more explanatory than conservative and liberal, but perhaps others do. It seems innocuous enough to add. I will do so shortly. OK? ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush "moderate"
On what spectrum would Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and George W. Bush be considered "moderate"? Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative". Most people identify him as a conservative. Same with Benjamin Harrison and McKinley, the conservatives of the 19th century. I object to this terminology. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- yes I agree. They were all best characterized as "conservative." Most historians agree, I believe. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Banana Republicans
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Banana_republic.svg/220px-Banana_republic.svg.png)
It should be noted in the article that due to their inability to govern the current member of the GOP are being referred to as the "Banana Republicans." Red trashcan (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- C-Class political party articles
- Top-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- High-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles