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

Task: Finally assign a position in the infobox using a compromise

As far as I'm aware, it's been well over a year since this has been brought up to a full discussion, and since it's going to have to be done at some point, I figured that I'd bring it up again, and hopefully put the problem to bed for good, invoking WP:CCC and WP:BOLD. The Republican Party has no political position set in the infobox, due to some rather contentious debates about exactly where they fall. Here, I will be laying out an argument for a position(s) which will hopefully be accepted, and will do the same thing, around the same time this is posted, on the Democratic Party talk page as well (although by my rationale, their solution is actually more complex than the one for the Republican Party). ^REMEMBER! This is an argument to place a SOURCED POLITICAL POSITION on the page. Not what you think it should be. All arguments should be clear and backed up with evidence.

Let's start with the first argument: Which political spectrum are we using?

This is an absolutely valid question that raises legitimate concerns. We can either use the US spectrum, or we can use the international one (which is tilted about one degree to the left of the US one-- such that a Left-wing party in the US advocating for, say, social democracy, would be considered Center-left on the international spectrum. With my solution, I hope to take a little overlap from both, so we'll see if it can draw some support from all sides in an unbiased and civil manner.

Next, we must take into account what each position stands for in a general sense, so it will fit with the current characteristics the Party exhibits.

The Republican Party as a whole argues for American conservatism, as well as social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in its main platform. This would fit into the Center-right category of the US political spectrum. However, a faction(s) of the Party (Tea Party Republicans and although unorganized, some national conservatives or paleoconservatives) arguably support policies much more conservative than the party as a whole/average, which would be considered Right-wing by US standards, but Hard right or even far-right/radical by international standards. Since the Party has two different factions (albeit arguing for somewhat different ideals) that can overlap in favor of a claim for Right-wing (Tea Party conservatism and national conservatism by US standards, and average Republicans by international standards), placing at least Right-wing in the infobox will eliminate the "which political spectrum" question. Right-wing is also seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party.

OK, so so far, based on the above compromise solution, the Republican Party would be seen as Right-wing in the infobox. Now though, we have to ask if this includes all necessary ideas within the party, and their separate political positions.

In my opinion at least, the answer appears to be yes. Using an overlap of different meanings of Right-wing, they appear to encapsulate the major parts of the party in all contexts regarding the spectrum, from moderates to Tea Partiers.

"Wait! What about moderate Republicans? They don't seem to fit into any position you have stated above."

Moderate Republicans are also members of the Republican Party, and their ideas should and will be taken into account. However, I believe that a good job has already been done to include them, albeit in a rather roundabout way. As previously mentioned, Right-wing is can be seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, from Center-right all the way to Hard right or Far-right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party. Moderate Republicans, along with Conservative Democrats, make up the centrist wings of their Party, and sometimes even have more in common with each other than the Party they belong to. However, I believe that using the compromise I crafted before, they can be included as well. As mentioned, they represent the centrist wings of their Parties, and by extension, the Center of the US political spectrum, but this would also put them roughly around the Center-right of the international spectrum.

"Why isn't Center-right included then?"

An excellent question. Center-right is not included in this specific context, because there is a faction in the Republican Party that is undoubtedly Center-right, this would not apply if the international spectrum was used to judge. America's political Center is already equivalent to the international spectrum's Center-right, which makes the Republican Party as a whole, seen as Center-right in the US, Right-wing by international standards. This is likely because the American political system and general government infrastructure has had and dealt with the current policies for such a long time now that no one is sure what impact changing them would have-- a fear that affects Democrats and Republicans as wholes as well. This is the reason why some Center-right parties in Europe (like the Independence Party in Iceland, for example, or to a lesser extent, the Conservative Party in the UK) support the varying "welfare state(s)" that their country has built and currently has, even though privately, they may want to do away with some inefficient or overgenerous policies, but either do not or cannot because of high public approval of them. So what is my point in this? Different countries and their respective spectra evolve based on what that country has had built/up and running for a long enough period of time to know that it works in at least some aspects. The conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans are, in this case, excused from the constraints of what "Center" means or constitutes (a balance between Center-left and Center-right) because their beliefs revolve around a current system that despite being less progressive than those in Europe, for example, they still manage to fit into a Right-wing umbrella position because they do balance Center-right and comparatively Right-wing ideas to an extent, but they do it within the confines of their specific country's political spectrum. However, in order to make absolutely sure that everyone is on board, a note will be included next to the position in the infobox, in order to explain this point accurately. Like this short summary, or this more detailed explanation.

In addition:

I went on a little exploration mission across every Wikipedia that has an article on the party, and collected the current positions listed on the page if there was one. Here is what I found as of 21 March 2017.

With all of this taken into consideration, I feel that there is enough here to make this position the new consensus. Below, to judge public opinion, I will create a "Responses" section, where you can either Support, or Oppose this proposed change (type this in bold, followed by your reasoning). If you have any questions/concerns (including about my reasoning above), or are unsure, you can leave a Comment in the "Responses" section, followed by your question/concern. It has taken me a while to formulate this, so I'd appreciate some feedback. I may respond to any concerns. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: an interesting/informative discussion I had on Reddit about the subject is located here.

Responses

Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else.

The U.S. political system is currently designed to create large centrist parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties contain many factions. They are "big tent" organizations. Throughout their histories they bob and weave to gain majorities. It seems best to avoid false labels, or trying to label moving targets, especially since there never has been a faction that is unique to one and not the other.68.40.122.133 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your comment as an Oppose. But to address your concern, the position in the infobox has always been the current median/mean position of the party as a whole. That's why we wouldn't list all the times they've alternated, because you're right in the fact that there would be too many. However, my goal is to place the position based on current policies and positions, and based on the fact that in recent years, with the parties becoming more and more polarized, the Republican Party has become nearly completely composed of conservatives (on the right of the spectrum) of varying degrees (which is why the position I suggested was reached using a compromise tactic), I believe my position satisfies the requirements for a change in consensus. I am not denying the fact that the party may have had a big tent approach before, but it no longer seems to. I also find it hard to believe that anyone would argue today that both parties are centrist (or if they do, it would be a minority in the party). Feel free to ask anything else if you have more concerns. Thanks for your feedback! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support although I have seen pages which have included the "American position" alongside the "Global position". For example something like the Green party would be Centre-left for European parliaments while being Left-wing in American legislatures. --Hsvkr (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Not only are both major parties too complex and divided into factions, but also historically there are changes and significant fluctuations. Single terms as "center-right" etc. would simply not be sufficient and adequate. Eventhough most parties have got a position in their infobox, some for certain reasons do not, like Australian parties for instance. In this case one should simply keep it as it is. --Joobo (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback! The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, from what I have gathered on the talk page and main page, do not have a position listed because of much more dramatic differences than exist in either the Republican Party or Democratic Party. For example, the Labor Party contains two main factions: The Socialist left (which supports democratic socialism) and Labor Unity (which is more like moderate to average Republicans). This is a much greater difference than exists today in either party, Democratic or Republican, which is mostly liberal or conservative, respectively. This would be a true example of a big tent party. If you have any other questions/concerns, ask away! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment – HapHaxion I appreciate your detailed rationale but it's a bit daunting for readers to get to the point. Could you possibly add a one-line summary of the proposal you are seeking support for? — JFG ^talk 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure! It would certainly help make it easier to understand. My basic argument is this: The reason a political position hasn't been placed on this page yet is because:

• It is unclear as to what the position would mean, as it varies by country (i.e. center-right in one country is not always the same as the center-right in another); and
• The wide breadth of opinions and ideologies in the party from moderates to hard-liners would make it "difficult" to position it, as a large range exists in the party today.

I seek to remedy this by using a compromise position, which would both acknowledge the party as being more conservative than the average center-right party elsewhere, while also acknowledging that a variety of opinions exist (from center-right moderates to hard right Tea Partiers) by bundling them in the umbrella term of Right-wing which encompasses all of them. If you have any other concerns, or want to support/oppose the change, I'll welcome your opinion! You seem like a very experienced editor, so I'd appreciate it! You are also welcome to ask others to share thoughts as well, or share thoughts on my effort to change consensus regarding the Democratic Party position as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. I would then oppose, because left–right politics is a rather outdated notion, and "right-wing" or "left-wing" are open to countless interpretations by readers, depending on their own ideological background, their own country's politics, recent events, etc. That change would not clarify things, but raise more questions. — JFG ^talk 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope I clarified everything necessary. Also, just as a reference, most other parties have a position listed, so is the outdated notion relative to the US specifically? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks pretty outdated worldwide. Communist China is the greatest promoter of personal enrichment while maintaining an iron fist on political discourse. France just elected a coalition President based on the top two candidates explicitly rejecting the left-right divide. Elsewhere, right-wing authoritarian leaders are known to apply socialist policies. Welcome to the 21st century! — JFG ^talk 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I admit that some parties are hard to classify, but that doesn't mean that every one is. Also, regarding France, that doesn't mean that the position is meaningless or is fading away, just that voters chose a party in between the traditional right and left (thereby making it a centrist party, as it is labeled on its page). By the way, which right-wing authoritarian leaders applied socialist policies? Again, that may just be an instance of that specific leader/party being outside paradigms. That doesn't mean that all others are on average as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We are drifting off-topic; I've made my position clear, and we should just agree to disagree. — JFG ^talk 06:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Broad consensus has been to have no political position, because both parties are big-tent and the section is redundant anyway. Nothing said here is new at all and honestly there is no reason to have this vote. And FYI, "right-wing" is not a compromise. Judging parties by some nonexistent "international" criteria is also silly - on economics Republicans are right, sure, but their views on church-state separation, monarchy, and immigration are well to the left of most right-wing parties. There is no "international" standard. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts! How is the section redundant? Also, I based my research on the fact that the position matches the majority of the party. That is not to say that other factions don't exist, just that the position is to be based off of the majority/ideology in control currently, and the fact that I sought to sate both problems as described above. I also don't see how their philosophies are left of right-wing parties. Right-wing parties don't have to support monarchism (most don't, like in France, Italy, Germany, etc), and based on what I've seen, their policies regarding immigration and church-state separation are far more conservative/right-leaning than the main center-right parties elsewhere like the Conservative parties in Canada, the UK, France, etc. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The UK has a state church. It has a monarch. The UK Conservative party is conservative in supporting both monarchy and religion. Canada and Australia have monarchs, and their right of center parties support that. Even the most religiously conservative Republican Party members don't support a state church, let alone a state religion. Republicans are a big-tent, republican, classical liberal party and as such don't fall neatly into the European right-wing paradigm. In some regards the Republicans share more in common with European liberal parties than with conservative ones. This is part of the problem of an imaginary "international political spectrum". Calling them "right-wing" is no compromise, just like calling the Democrats center to center-left isn't one. The US system has two big-tent liberal parties with no membership requirements and no ideological test. It's not remotely comparable to Europe. Toa Nidhiki05 14:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this poll, a plurality of them do support making Christianity the official religion. Also, as far as I'm aware, all the major parties in the UK support the monarchy. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike in Europe, anyone can join the GOP. A more accurate measure is politicians or the party platform. Again, there is no "international political spectrum" and in the US, the GOP and Democrats are big-tent liberal parties. In regards to monarchy, the leader of Labour is a republican, the Green party is republican, SNP/Plaid and the NI republican parties are all republican. The Lib Dems favor reforms of the church. The only party that is unequivocally pro-monarchy and pro-church are the Conservatives. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Since both parties are more like coalitions, it makes more sense to look at them in terms of factions. The pages for the ideological factions (Republican Main Street Partnership, Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus, etc.) already have positions on the left/right spectrum listed in the infobox. So I don't see the point in adding a position to the pages for the parties. Maybe I'm missing something. I also don't see any compromise in simply using another country (or countries) political spectrum as the basis. Articles for parties in the UK are given a position on the left/right spectrum relative to the UK. So why should it be any different for American parties? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is easier to look at the position on one page to gauge the average, rather than visiting five or six pages. Also, my compromise stems from the fact that positions vary by country, and as such, my umbrella term of Right-wing includes the acknowledgement that the party is further to the right than mainstream center-right parties elsewhere (see responses above), while also acknowledging the large diversity in opinion by grouping them into an umbrella term (of which right-wing includes everyone from center-right moderates to hard-right Tea Party members, while the note that would be written after the position would explain it, as shown in my full description above). I appreciate your thoughts! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Why are we not using the political spectrum relative to the country of said party (like we do for UK parties)? I didn't see any compromise (I say we should use the American standard, you say we should use the a so-called international political spectrum), you're ignoring the faction issue, and a lot of what you said borders on WP:OR. I have to continue to oppose. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mostly because in most other countries, the center-right is signified by liberal conservative (aka moderate conservative) parties (of which the Republican Party has a faction, but it is not the majority), and because even in countries where the spectrum is shifted (i.e. where this is not the case, such as in South Korea and Japan, which have mainly/dominant center-right parties), the position is similar to what I suggested here (i.e. the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan and the Liberty Korea Party in South Korea, parallels to the US Republican Party, are listed as center-right to right-wing, despite occupying the center-right of their respective countries' political spectra). The only difference between this and what I am suggesting is that the position is fully written out instead of an umbrella term (right-wing) being used, in addition to the fact that the Republican Party has hard-right elements in the Tea Party movement. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that justifies using the term centre-right in that fashion in those countries. But you're still not giving me any argument for why parties in the United States should be the only parties for which we use the standard of other countries to determine position on the political spectrum. I've been asking this for a while now and your only responses are to compare this party to parties in other countries and then state where those parties are in the their country's spectrum. Those arguments would be compelling... if I already agreed that the standard of another country's political spectrum should be applied to American parties. That's the main problem I have with this. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I believe rather than me using the standard of other countries to determine the position, it is just the fact that the US and a few other countries (that I mentioned above) seem to go against the general trend, which makes them exceptions to the whole, rather than a victim of an unfair comparison. Labeling the position in the way I suggested is comparing the party's position to the ideologies associated with that position as a whole, rather than those of a specific country. For example, I mentioned the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan earlier-- it is not labeled as Center-right despite occupying that position in the country of Japan (such as the GOP does in America). Rather, it is labeled to compare (the majority of) its ideology to that associated with the positions selected to be on the page (Center-right to Right-wing). Most political parties seem to have this on Wikipedia (a general comparison to ideologies associated with the position, rather than the position the party occupies in its native country), so I don't see why the 2 main American parties should be any different. Position should also reflect what is generally associated with positions of that party. I hope I clarified your concerns! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea Republicans are "further right" than other center-right parties comes mostly from American Democrats, who compare platforms under an American standard rather than also comparing what it means to be a conservative, liberal, or socialist in Europe. There is no "international political spectrum". Toa Nidhiki05 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the idea that Republicans being further right is a product of American Democrats, I have found multiple sources online which seems to discredit this based on opinions of people who live elsewhere. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your sources are Reddit, Vice, and Quora? Look, we've had this discussion numerous times here. Nothing new has been presented. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Support - I agree that there are many different political ideologies and policies in the republican party, but almost all of them fall under the right-wing umbrella. Because of this, it makes sense to classify the party as right-wing. --Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question - Doesn't it list things already for ideologies? Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, although the main concern here is the position on the political spectrum overall. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should do what is done on the Turkish page (i.e., Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority). I'm not sure if that is considered "support" or "oppose". Ezhao02 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd consider that a support, since you are in favor of changing the consensus. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- The fact that the Republican and Democratic parties control roughly equal numbers of legislative seats at all levels of government is a strong indication that (by the only measure that really counts) the political center of the country lies roughly midway between the two. All the controversy on this topic arises from politically motivated attempts to label one party more centrist and the other more extreme. In order to forge a compromise for the infobox position it needs to be done at the same time for both party infoboxes and it needs to place the two parties equidistant from the center. A simple "right" and "left" would probably be the easiest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.131 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Are you saying someone like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski would not be considered center-right internationally? They aren't that much more right wing, if at all, than say, Theresa May. George Pataki most certainly is center right. I think the whole "US is more right wing than the rest of the world" line is somewhat exaggerated. On the economic front, it may be truer to an extent, but on the social front? Germany just barely legalized gay marriage yesterday, which the US has had since 2015. Abortion laws in most of western Europe are much stricter than the US (for example, Germany caps at 13 weeks + mandatory counseling and 3 day waiting period prior to receiving one). The GOP is a member of the International Democrat Union of center right parties. I would support center-right to right wing to take into account nuances, would not support standalone right wing. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Collins and Murkowski, that's exactly what I'm saying (they are moderates, and therefore center-right), but placing the position as Center-right to Right-wing seems to ignore the much more conservative hard right factions of the party like the Tea Party Caucus or the Freedom Caucus (which hold an equal, if not greater amount of power than the moderates), which is why I suggested using Right-wing as more of an umbrella term (since both Center-right, Right-wing and hard right can all be considered "Right-wing"). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 23:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that the Right-wing/hard right factions of the Republican Party hold more power than the moderate factions, which is why I suggested saying "Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority)" as a kind of compromise. Besides, this source lists the Republican Party as both center-right and right-wing. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Also as a heads up: Joobo seems to have been blocked for various POV violations ("WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV, etc" as stated on talk page), so take his comments with a grain of salt if possible if it looks like he is trying to push a certain idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HapHaxion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo was blocked two months after commenting here, and this thread was not part of the reasons discussed; I don't think this event should disqualify their comment here. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just as a gauge, since using Right-wing as an umbrella term for diversity from center-right to hard right and as a comparison to common center-right parties being liberal-conservative in nature seems to be a stretch, would everyone be up for doing something along the lines of what Ezhao02 (talk) suggested? That way Right-wing wouldn't group in the moderate center-right faction but would still condense the remainder of the party (hard righters and current mainstreamers) enough to avoid confusion. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This has been here for four months and there is clearly no consensus to add anything - that's not a compromise at all, and it's not consistent with formatting used on any other pages. I think it's pretty clear there is no consensus to add anything and the consensus that says not to add anything on either page should stand. Toa Nidhiki05 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

in my opinion it just seems insane to not write anything about the party's position. for starters it's a bit hypocritical.(i.e i assume that a disproportionate number of english wikipedia editors are from the united states due to language) labeling other countries parties as right wing or left wing(i.e instead of center right center left or leaving it blank) while ignoring the elephant in the room(pun intended) logically speaking is there anyone who thinks that this is not a right of the centre party? it's common sense really. obamacare is a center-right wing program.(for confirmation you can even look at the programs of some libertarian parties in europe). if a majority of a party opposes it ,then that makes it a right wing party. it's no nuclear science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.59.205 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

Under political ideology, add Right-wing politics 86.156.244.138 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

there is a ceate where there should be a create. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:181A:59F0:7F01:3CBF (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)