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

Request for Comment, 'Center-right' or not

Should this article continue to use the label of "center-right" for the party or use a different label for its orientation such as "right" or "far-right"?

see discussion above

Statement from filer of request

The Republican Party's current label of "centre-right" is being challenged. Supporters argue that the RP fits in with the modern definition of "centre-right", citing sources such as the International Democrat Union as proof that the RP is not fully "right" or "far-right" when looked at from a national standpoint. Opponents question the truth and verifiable nature of this label. They argue that large, influential factions such as the Christian Right and Tea Party have pushed the RP further to the Right, pointing to recent negotiations such as the United States debt ceiling crisis (in which Republicans opposed all tax increases) as proof of obstructionism.--Drdak (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be labeled 'center' by the elected and 'center right' by the voters since the elected is more centrist and the voters are more libertarian and socially conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Polling

• Center-right - There are centrist or even slightly center-left Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Gordon Smith, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Jane Swift, Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who was elected on a GOP ticket all three times), and many more. (At the moment, there are more GOP Senators in the US Senate who vote consistently pro abortion than there are Democratic Senators who vote consistently pro life; for instance, every single Democrat in the Senate voted for Obama's health care law.) There are centrist or slightly center-right Republicans such as Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Orin Hatch, Senator Senator Mark Kirk, Representative Mike Castle, Representative Joseph Cao, Representative Charles Djou, Governor Linda Lindle, Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Tim Pawlenty, Governor Mike Huckabee, and even President Bush (who more than doubled international aid, introduced Medicare Plan D, allowed poor African-American kids in Washington DC to escape state school: hardly a far right agenda). Then there are center-right Republicans such as Senator Pat Toomey, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Speaker John Boehner, Representative Paul Ryan, Representative Allen West, Representative Aaron Schock, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Scott Walker, and Governor Nikki Haley. And there are right-wing Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul, Senator Jim DeMint, Representative Ron Paul, Representative Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Scott. So if we take the average over all center-left, centrist, center-right and right-wing Republicans, we'll get a Big Tent party of the center-right. Thus "center-right" is a fair and accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.93.26 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for how you decided to put some of those people in the those categories. Mike Huckabee and George W. Bush as "centrist to slightly center-right"? Seriously? Bush's expansion of foreign aid was primarily military aid, and "allowing poor African-American kids in Washington DC to escape state school" is very much a conservative move; the idea that "state schools" (a term used almost exclusively by the right to bash public schools) are something to "escape" is hardly a liberal or centrist position. John McCain also hasn't been "centrist to center-right" in years. He's personally shifted hard to the right, as anybody who paid attention to his 2008 presidential campaign and 2010 reelection campaign would see. Then you put Tea Party members Marco Rubio, Allen West, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry (a man who actually threatened to secession in his reelection bid as Texas governor!) as center-right? All of them are more right-wing than Ron Paul, who you place in the right-wing category. Likewise, Paul Ryan (who proposed abolishing Medicaid and privatizing Medicare) is center-right? Give me a break. If you have that skewed a view of where the center lies, I can see how you'd think the GOP is center-right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry. That man who endorsed Al Gore and Rudy Giuliani for president? A man who supports open borders? --Dezidor (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Open borders are not something the right-wing unanimous oppose. Right-wing business interests, a group which Perry is closely aligned with, love illegal immigration because it provides them with cheap labor. And endorsing Al Gore over twenty years ago means nothing. Ronald Reagan was once a New Deal Democrat, and later became a staunchly conservative Republican. Perry was a Blue Dog Democrat who has become a far-right Tea Party Republican. — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right - I agree with 79.194.93.26. --Dezidor (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right - When we look at the only objective measure of looking at this situation (the party's positions relative to the general public), we see clear indications of right-wing leanings. The non-partisan organization OnTheIssues has compiled a list of the Republican Party's platform, as well as those of other political parties; this goes so far as to place the RP on a position on the Nolan Chart (Republican Party On The Issues). We also cite the Republican Party's platform on its actual website (GOP: Current Issues), which contains paranoid phrases such as "(International organizations) must never substitute for principled American leadership" and "We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry". The RP seems to villify its enemies (namely the Democrats) by making them appear socialist, statist and unAmerican. Various academic and respected texts have identified the obstructionism and purity "cleansing" that has become part of the modern day RP ("The Christian Right in the Republican Party: The Case of Pat Robertson's Supporters")("Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States")("Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort")--Drdak (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Any 'right-wing' influences are still drowned by the centrists and libertarians, though, and still falls under 'center-right'. For one matter, half you're comments seem to be Original research. You are taking comments rejecting socialism and internationalism (common traits of center-right parties) and using them to somehow prove they are right-wing? It makes no sense. How is not wanting internationalism or socialism 'paranoid'?

For the second matter (vilification), that is something that is common on both sides, not just the GOP - you see Democrats call Tea Partiers or Republicans anything from 'fascists' to 'hard-righters' to 'terrorists'. Name-calling is not political - it is just politics. With all that fancy text, you're argument is still more bark than bite. Toa Nidhiki05 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to find sources that confirm that centrists and libertarians (which should not be confused with moderates by any stretch of the imagination due to their economic stances) outnumber conservatives. The evidence I cited earlier from Gallup shows that 73% of the RP is comprised of self-identified conservatives while 38% of the DP is comprised of self-identified liberals. Self-described moderates are less frequent in the RP. The burden of proof lies with you to confirm it being centre-right. Your argument about "centrists" outnumbering those on the Right is undoubtedly false.

A paranoid mode of thinking exists because the RP believes it is fighting a "government takeover" which is not what any major party has ever proposed. If anything, the Democrats mirror third way and modern American liberalism in their orientation, not socialism. So it is paranoid to label everyone opposed to one's own political POV as a statist or desiring a one world government. This isn't so much what our argument is based on so much as a side note.--Drdak (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you are changing your argument; do you think Republican constituency is right or do you think it's actual representatives and platform are? Overall constituency of a party does not affect it's affiliation at all - platform, representatives, and voting do. It's routine calculation to determine that, combined, the Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Liberty Caucus outnumber the Tea Party Caucus in overall Congressional representation, and that the Tea Party is not represented in party leadership. Simply put. libertarians and centrists outnumber the Tea Party, and so the center outweighs the so-called 'right'. In addition, while libertarians may have pretty conservative economic views, their social views are just as liberal - if you are trying to say libertarians are 'right' as well, you are sorely mistaken.

And since when has rhetoric been 'paranoid'? Democrats have been making claims that the Tea Party are 'terrorists' and are out to destroy America. Is that not 'paranoid'? You are taking political rhetoric as usual and twisting it to support what you think the political ideology of a party is, and that is incorrect, not to mention original research. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You must prove that centrists outnumber the right. I don't know how many times I must restate this. Libertarianism really is irrelevant when talking about the left-right spectrum of politics; it's an ideology. Libertarians can classify themselves on both the right and left. The kind of libertarianism I believe you are referring to is on the right (right libertarianism).--Drdak (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party Caucus has 60 members. The RMSP has 50. The RLC has 12. 50+12=62. If you count Senators as well, these caucuses each have 4 members each. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're still counting the libertarian wing as if they're allies of the centrists and in opposition to the Tea Party Caucus. Neither claim is remotely accurate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that there are "comments rejecting socialism and internationalism", it's that the Republican Party makes the obviously false assertion that the Democratic Party is a socialist, internationalist party, when it's barely even center-left. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

...And the Democrats make the false claim the the GOP is 'hard right' or 'fascist', on occasion. Those are examples of politics as usual from both parties, not a legitimate stance. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's false equivalence. Calling the GOP "hard right" is only a slight exaggeration at this point. Calling the Democratic Party "socialist" is flat-out absurd, given that even designating it as liberal is a bit of a stretch these days. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right - The above ideologies besides 'center-right' are unjustified and change the ideology section to something that is factually wrong. If the GOP is not viewed as 'right-wing' or 'far-right' (truly absurd labels when one actually looks at what those labels mean when you put politics as usual from both sides of the aisle aside) by a Democrat-leaning organization and an international coalition of centrist and center-right parties (which would certainly expel the GOP if they were so-called 'right-wing' and certainly if they were 'far right'). Keeping in mind the GOP also has sizable centrist and libertarian caucuses (which actually outweigh the Tea Party in membership when combined), center-right, which in actuality means organizations 'views stretch from the centre to the right on the left-right spectrum, excluding far right stances', center-right is the only accurate describer of the party as a whole. By any means, if 'right' is inaccurate, far right is absurd - GOP policy is nowhere near that of the British National Party or the Nazis. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - You need to cite sources, Toa. Political internationals of 'centre-right' parties can vary tremendously in their composition, especially considering that the definitions of 'right' and 'left' differ from country to country.--Drdak (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If an international source labels the Republican Party as center-right, and I think we would agree that the U.S. is to the right on the international political spectrum, doesn't it give it more validity? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it means it is inaccurate.Rppeabody (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just reject a source you don't like, Rppeabody. Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, be nice. When we say that the party is far-right, we do not mean that it adheres to the same racist fringe views that the Nazis follow. These views hold no place in right-wing ideology, no matter how conservative you are. Racism also takes place in far-left groups and even in groups that are in the political center. It is in no way an indicator of how conservative you are. And when you remove issues of racism and genocide, the Republican party of 2011, while less socially conservative, is significantly more fiscally conservative than the BNP or the Nazis, both of whom favor significant government intervention in the economy. Let me stress that I am not accusing the Republicans of the racism, genocide, and general moral repugnance of the Nazis because those views have nothing to do with conservatism.Rppeabody (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly need to look up what the far right actually is. The Nazis were far right (as are fascists and Third Positionists), and when you actually look at the political scale, right-wing or far-right parties acutally support more government regulation, be it through trade protectionism or ownership of industries (look up Right-wing socialism). By saying they are 'far right', you are grouping them with the Nazis. Just to be fair, I'll quote the entire WP page on the 'far right'

Far right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. The terms are often used to imply that someone is an extremist. The terms have been used by different scholars in somewhat conflicting ways.
Far right politics commonly involve supremacism — a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm.
Far right politics often support segregation; the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior.
Far right politics also commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.
The ideologies usually associated with the far right include fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies
The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms, but which aim to break with prevailing institutions and practices.

Now, I want you to think really hard about whether the GOP fits in with that. :) Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is deeply offensive to the far right. Racism is not a prerequisite for being very conservative. Interestingly, aside from the racism and fascism aspects, the Republican party actually does fit that definition pretty well. The party has adamantly opposed any attempts to lower income inequality, and numerous Republican politicans openly espouse the views of Ayn Rand, the ultimate supremacist. George Bush was routinely criticized for being authoritarian (Patriot Act, calling himself "the decider," etc.), and nativism has become a big deal lately for the party (i.e. [1], [2], etc.).Rppeabody (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rppeabody, read the article and the sources - they clearly say it is. Being a conservative party, I doubt they would support left ideas like income equality, and I'd love for you to show me a source linking Ayn Rand to the far right - because what Objectivism actually links up with is Libertarianism. It is quite easy to find a liberal source criticizing Bush, as I could for Rove criticizing Obama; does that make it a legit source?

Also, on the so-called 'nativism' front, since when is enforcing laws 'nativist'? Since when is opposing Jus soli citizenship 'nativist', when every other continent but the Americas doesn't have even a small minority supporting it? Neither of those show an opposition to legal immigration, only illegal. Slimming requirements to match what the rest of the world uses isn't nativist, I don't think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, opposition to jus soli citizenship is nativist, within the context of the United States. — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-Right - the party itself is center right made up of centrists, center-right, and right politically leaning individuals, with greater concentrations of each in different regions of the country. The party is overall center-right. Right wing parties would be like the Constitution, American Independence, or Conservative Party. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right - As I mentioned below, the Republican Party must be fairly centrist in the national political spectrum or else it would not have so many elected officials (more or less parity with the Democratic Party). There are lots of new stories about it shifting right but only because the U.S. public is shifting right. The only source for "right" I have seen is the On The Issues page that Drdak provided. However, that is mostly based on the Republican Party platform, which tends to be more conservative than its members (the latter being what we should reflect, I think). I recall hearing for some time that the official party platform called for eliminating the Department of Education, for example. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Yes but there is a large right-wing inside of America that elects them consistently. For example, you'd think that the Tea Party would lack influence because of its Right-wing stances on issues, but they are quite strong and have politicians elected all of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdak (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, Drdak, then the American political spectrum is farther to the right, not the GOP. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Far-right - Back under Nixon, the party was probably best described as center-right. (I hope we can all agree on this.) But it is undeniable that the party made a major shift to the right under Reagan. And the party moved even further to the right during the Republican Revolution. It would be very hard to lump the tax-slashing, anti-government party of the 1990s in with the big-government president who founded the Fed and the EPA. At this point, I think, "right-wing" would have been appropriate. To say that George Bush brought the party further to the right would be an understatement. Once he was through, the ‘’Economist’’ was ready to endorse a Democrat. But today he looks positively moderate against a party that opposes economic stimulus, flirts with default, and proposes a constitutional amendment to eliminate the government's ability to borrow money. It is hard to find a major group in American politics further to the right than the Tea Party, which currently dominates the party's agenda. And while the party has moved so much further to the right, the country has, if anything, probably moved left. Most Americans now support abortion and higher taxes! Despite having significantly fewer members than the Democrats, the party currently has control of one branch of Congress. And the party has been able to dictate the agenda. They trounced the Democrats not because of popular support but because of passion, a beautiful fund-raising machine, brilliant strategy, and most importantly, faith. Tea party members freely admit they are not in office to get elected, not there to follow the will of the people but there to follow the will of God.Rppeabody (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - That entire post contains no sources, meaning it is pure original research. Also, are you honestly going to support grouping the GOP with the British National Party and the Nazis? I suggest you actually look up what the far right is (extreme authoritarian social policy paired with Third Position economics and usually led by a charismatic leader) before claiming it is on par with the BNP or Nazis, and actually more right that actual right-wing US parties such as the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party. I'd also be hard-pressed to find a party that is controlled by a minority caucus with no positions in leadership, which is basically what the Tea Party is. And, just so you know, most Americans now oppose abortion (after decades in favor). Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please not throw around impolite and untrue accusations? I listed my sources for "far-right" below a post requesting sources, as TN05 is well aware, since he/she commented on that post. Also, not to nitpick, but OR accusations are a bit rich when they're in a post that contains no sources but lots of questionable assertions. Furthermore, I note that TN05 did not actually question my central thesis, which is that the GOP has moved far to the right of where it was under Nixon. Could it be that this is so blatantly and obviously true that even the most ardent supporter of the "center-right" position will not challenge it? I suppose I'm probably being too optimistic.Rppeabody (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cited sources (both on the page and on the center-right article), which are removed in obsessive-compulsive fashion by other editors - you're 'central thesis' cites nothing but your opinion. If you understood American political history, you'd realize both parties prior to at least the Reagan Revolution had a centrist, liberal, and conservative faction - traditionally until the Goldwater nomination, the moderates controlled the GOP presidential nomination. This gradually adjusted into our current setting - a liberal and conservative party, with the conservative Democrats mostly leaving the Dems between the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution in 1994. So if you want to say strictly, yes, the GOP has moved farther to the right - from the center to the center-right, as the Dems have moved from the center to the center-left. This is a result of party realignment, not anything else.

On another note, did you actually look up the Constitution Party and read for yourself? You seem to ignore that your desire to change the ideology section to 'far right' would entirely eclipse the legitimately right-wing Constitution Party. My suggestion is at least read up on what the far right actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am getting quite weary of Toa's aggressive tactics. He does not respect anyone else's opinion.--Drdak (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect opinion - I refute incorrect opinion. For that matter, Wikipedia isn't about opinion, it's about fact, so 'opinion' really doesn't matter here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about neither opinion nor fact (e.g. "The Truth"). It is about Verifiability.--Drdak (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right - Without delving to deep into this (and I'm certainly willing to change my mind if someone wants to debate), it occurs to me that the Republican party encompasses a range of views most of which would likely fall under the categories "center-right", "right" or "far right". It seems to me that the most honest thing to do would simply be to "average" those views and say the party represents the political right. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Please elaborate on these so-called 'far-right' influences in the party, because I don't see a Nazi coalition in the party. The party is firmly center-right in the American political system, as has influences from the center to the right, per the definition of 'center-right'. 'Right' would only make sense if the vast majority of the party was ideologically right-wing, which it isn't - there are more libertarians and centrists in Congress from the GOP than the so-called right-wing Tea Party. As the GOP has no 'far-right' influence (you don't see Third Positionists and Nazis scrambling to join the GOP, rather, you see them bombing), 'center-right' is the only way to define the GOP.

If you want an example of what would be reasonably defined as a right-wing US party, I suggest you read up on the Constitution Party, which adequately fits that mold - a protectionist, mercantilist, non-interventionalist, party that disputes the validity of the income tax amendment, thinks states have the right to secede, opposes all immigration, and opposes abortion under any circumstance. While you may claim this is 'far-right', it really is not close to real far-right parties such as the British National Party or the Nazi Party, which adds right-wing socialism, supremacism, and authoritarianism, as well as even more stringent social policy (such as extermination of gays or people of color, for example). :) Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 - The term "far right" is obviously going to contain a certain amount of subjective interpretation to it. I think being in favor of greatly relaxing/removing separation of church-and-state, being against abortion in all cases, being for the forcible deportation of 12 million illegal Aliens in the US, or calling for homosexuals to be healed of their "sexual identity disorder" through the power of pray, all represent what could be considered "far-right" ideologies on the American political spectrum. You can find in the republican party prominent members who support all these positions. In addition, there are also far-right fiscal views (i.e. anarcho-capatilists/laissez fairest, gold standard supporters, trickle-downers etc etc). Again, all these views can be found within the Republican party.

I don't think it's fair to say, that just because you don't have any Republican congressman standing up and doing the Nazi salute or overtly supporting the "white-is-right" mantra, the Republican party doesn't incorporate far-right views. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, the GOP platform never says anything about deporting every alien, being against abortion in all cases, or 'curing' gays - what it does support is enforcing and strengthening illegal immigration laws, opposing abortion in general (through a sanctity of life amendment), and opposing gay marriage (never does it mention anything about the actual act of homosexuality, only the idea of marriage). So all those are incorrect.

Second, please show me these 'anarcho-capitalists', and link me to where lassiez-faire (I'm assuming you are referring to the libertarians) and trickle-down are 'far-right' policies, given actual far right policies are protectionism and right-wing socialism, not free markets or neoliberalism, which is actually even being accepted in portions of left-leaning parties such as the UK Labour Party.

Once again, show me proof - you have given rhetoric, but no proof.Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the GOP platform, I'm talking about the platforms of those who make up the GOP. You want a reference? What more do you need than to know that Laissez-faire is in Category:Right-wing politics? NickCT (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How many Republicans actually adhere to laissez-faire? Other than Ron and Rand Paul it is mainly lip service. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Republicans themselves would tend to consider "center-right" to be an insult these days. They consider themselves the right, not the center-right, end of story. I don't understand how anybody who's paid attention to the last 2 years (or for that matter, the last decade) of Republican politics can fail to notice the massive rightward shift of the party. And as for the farcical claim that "Any 'right-wing' influences are still drowned by the centrists and libertarians"...at what point did libertarians and centrists get conflated? — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Redxiv, even if your claim is true, it does not matter what people consider themselves - I can call myself a flying pink monkey, but does that make it true? I am not a flying pink monkey, no matter what I say... Period. Unless I become a flying pink monkey, I am not one. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party has become a right-wing party. Have you even been paying attention to them over the last several years? The rightward shift has been very pronounced. 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention to the country over the last several years? You'd need to argue that the shift in the Republican Party has been more significantly more than that of the American public as a whole. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not remotely difficult to argue. That the Republican Party has veered hard to the right, while the country has not, is hard to factually argue against. Both major political parties in America tend to be to the right of actual voters. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How has the country not moved to the right? Look at the polls; more Americans consider themselves 'conservatives' than ever before. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The fact that Republicans call their party "right" and not "center-right" doesn't matter (you claim it's akin to calling yourself a flying pink money), but an increased percent of Americans calling themselves conservatives (in some polls) is clear proof that the country as a whole has shifted just as far to the right as the GOP? Either self-identification matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. — Red XIV ^(talk) 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-Right - We are talking on the national scale. Center-right means one thing in the US, and an entirely different thing in Sweden. That the Republicans would be further to the right than, say, the Conservatives in the UK doesn't tell us anything about where they are on the US's political spectrum. I also would find it hard to believe that any party that wins elections on a regular basis could be considered "far right". If they can draw support from a majority in a given election, that speaks volumes as to where they are relative to the views of the voters. Mpgviolist (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-Right gets my vote. In the past, some Republicans have taken stances considered to be on the left-side of the spectrum. So, giving any kind of label is problematic. Anyway, I believe the sourcing supports center-right. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Centrist In fact, the core of both major US parties is "centrist." The idea that everyone must fit into neat compartments on a "left right political spectrum" is silly - there are far too many variables for such categorization to be valid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Right - As discussed a few months back. Phagopsych (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC) PS: I suggest any "closing admin" pays attention to the archived talk pages, as this has been discussed to the point that Toa managed to exhaust anyone else's patience. And, by the way, this is not a straw poll. Thanks Phagopsych (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - Before this thread gets to be a 600k long back and forth. Perhaps someone can suggest what would be considered an objective measure of this, and then perhaps give some evidence which is based on that measure. Otherwise this is just too broad and subjective to ever be resolved. Remember that the idea is to build consensus, not to argue about politics. I for one would like to see non-US sources and international orgs. from right-wing we get "Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism." The Republican party clearly fits that definition, but of course, that's just one definition. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: Can we first determine if we are talking about the Republican Party in U.S. or international political terms? That is quite an important distinction to me. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

All classifications of parties are supposed to be done on a national scale. Although this is not the case with the Communist Party of China (which we, as Westerners, have labeled "far left" due to our subjective assessment of it). Anyway, long story short: national political spectrum.--Drdak (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That being the case—and forgive the original research—in a two-party system isn't it pretty much guaranteed that one party will be center-right and the other center-left? Since the parties are pretty much equal in terms of elected officials, they must both be in the mainstream of the national political spectrum. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, CWenger - the GOP is mainstream center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If there is a large right/left-wing within a country and a politically disengaged public, it's quite possible for a right/left-wing party to gain large support. WP:V requires Toa to find sources that conclude in a pluralistic, single-winner system always produces a centre-right party and a centre-left party. As of right now, no credible source guarantees this. In fact, South Africa was a model of a Far-Right party dominating a similar system for a while.--Drdak (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion. (I saw the RfC notice.) Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish, per sources of course, how the classification has changed over time. I would imagine that there are many sources that would say the classification today is quite different than it was in Eisenhower's day, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt, or Lincoln. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Great point. Back in 1848, "far-left" probably would have been the most appropriate!Rppeabody (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Back in 1848, "pre-natal" would have been the most appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 1854.Rppeabody (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: I think this should be resolved using sources. Here is a reliable secondary source which says: "Republicans have split into a number of different wings of the party - anti-government populists, pro-business internationalists, isolationists, supply side economy supporters and moralists". "Centre-right" sounds like a useful catchphrase to describe these factions on a more general level and I think sourcing it shouldn't be too difficult. The somewhat splintered state of the GOP is an important aspect that should definitely be conveyed by the article, including the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This source is more than a decade out of date. The Republican party has moved much further to the right since 2000. Back in 2000, "center-right," while still a poor choice, would have been MUCH more appropriate. Anyway, it is not clear that this source supports the "center-right" position. While it recognizes the existence of moderates in the party, it notes that they are only one faction, and it does describe a solid swing to the right in the Republican Revolution of 1994.Rppeabody (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: I also think that "right" would be a more appropriate label but with something that complicated and an apparent rough consensus against a change, the burden of proof would appear to be on those who want to overturn the status quo. After all, wikipedia isn't about my opinion, its about verifiability and some other stuff. Could someone please make a real case for "right" as opposed to "center-right" with some sources to back it up. I wasn't able to find anything solid except that definition I quoted above, but then I don't work on these US politics articles so I'm probably not as familiar with the research. Without some objective evidence it doesn't do any good to say you think they're "right-wing" or you think they're more "center-right". Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find a definitive source stating where the party falls in the political spectrum because it's an opinion, not a fact. All you can find are opinions. But there are a lot of those. Here are a bunch of sources supporting the far-right position: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And, to be fair, there are also some sources supporting the "right-wing" position. But sources for the "center-right" position are very hard to find unless you turn to really weird places like the IDU. Try googling Republican and "center-right." You'll find some articles on how the party once was "center-right," but precious little saying that it is right now. I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the internet, there is a source supporting "center-right," but I haven't been able to find one.Rppeabody (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are all opinions (from which it is hard to discern rhetoric from fact due to the person talking from a biased position), with the first two writers not even being notable enough for an article here. The third writer (E.J. Dionne) does have a page here, but it notes he writes from a liberal standpoint. The fourth is some website I've never heard of (and apparently one without a page here), while the fifth and sixth are from members of the opposition party (hardly an unbiased source). The only source in the Politico article for 'far-right' was a Democrat pollster, while the New Republic one was also opinion. The final one is also opinion, but uses Gallup polls to actually confirm the idea that America is moving back to the center-right as opposed to the center, as some people stated above.

So, basically, none of those sources work - I can find plenty of sources with Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, or some other conservative blogger calling the Democrats 'far-left' or 'socialist', but does that make it fact? No. We build articles on fact, not opinion, and that has to be represented on pages. Toa Nidhiki05 17:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is true that all these sources are opinions. That is because this is, quite simply, a matter of opinion. But you missed my point. The issue is that it's incredibly easy to find sources supporting the far-right or even right-wing positions (it took me all of maybe a minute or two to compile that list), but pretty hard to find sources supporting the center-right position. This is evidenced by the fact that the only sources so far brought up for the "center-right" position refer only to the IDU, not the GOP.Rppeabody (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stop the edit warring before somebody gets blocked. As a compromise, can we just leave Toa Nidhiki05's source but also leave the {{citation needed}} tag so potential editors know we are looking for something more definitive? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why should these sources remain in the article if they are clearly inadequate? Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least the one that isn't the IDU one should stay - it is a perfectly valid source from a non-partisan (although loosely Democrat allied) organization. But yes, I would accept CWenger's compromise - I have no issue with somebody finding something more definitive. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say they are inadequate. Just less than ideal. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They are both from the IDU and neither discusses the specific orientation of the US GOP. It is ridiculous that we should even be discussing using either link as a definitive source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not - one is from the IDU, the other is from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, an unrelated and non-partisan group that maintains minor ties with several liberal, centrist, and social democrat organizations. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation is for a page of an NDI document which discusses the IDU, and not the Republican party. Either way, in both citations, we're making a conclusion about the US GOP based on vague generalizations about all the member parties of the IDU. I don't think it's such a bizarre thing to demand a source which specifically discusses the US GOP, and I'm baffled that you'd edit war over such a routine matter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not warring - I'm re-adding a source that has been removed because the people removing it don't like it. And it isn't a vague generalization - it refers to the IDU as a 'coalition of center or center-right parties'. It is not a stretch by any means to say 'the GOP is a member, and this source says members are either center or center-right. The GOP, as a conservative party (one of the many groups present in the IDU), would fall under center-right'. Is it ideal? Probably not. But it works and is valid. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By readding it against all protests, you are in fact edit warring. The source isn't valid just because you assert that it is. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

...and it isn't invalid because you dislike it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't "dislike" it, whatever that means. It is vague and does not specifically discuss the subject of the article, thus it is inadequate for use as a source. Your suppositions about the generalizations of this source are not sufficient for citing a claim in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, it does discuss the subject as center-right - whether or not it referred to it by name is irrelevant. I highly doubt the people that created the article would under any circumstance list each party by name. And it may be a generalization - but giving a party with thousands of elected officials an overall ideological affiliation is, in fact, a generalization in any circumstance or by any measure. No one can accurately account for the ideology of each individual member, which is why we have broad ideological affiliations, such as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Something being a 'generalization' is not a valid reason to want to remove a source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant, because you don't know how the broad generalization applies specifically to each group. Under this logic, the US GOP could be called "centrist" with your source. This is clearly an inadequate source and that is a perfectly valid reason to insist on an source that actually says what we claim in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Toa Nidhili05, couldn't you just find a better source, one that describes the GOP itself as "center-right"? If you are right about the GOP being "center-right," it should be easy for you.Rppeabody (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The Nazi Party was considered "centre-right" in its national political climate at the time and was elected with an overwhelming plurality on numerous occasions. If we are to take every party within its own national context, we must relabel the "Nazi Party" as centre-right since it was far from far-right back when it existed. If the Republican Party is to be evaluated on its own scale then why not do this for other parties (to include the CPC)?--Drdak (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the Nazi Party was far-right within its political climate. Can you point out the parties that were further to the right of them? The notion that far-right and far-left parties can't win, and that dominant parties have to be center-right and center-left, is baseless. Hard as it may be to believe, it's possible to get a great many people who don't actually agree with a party's goals to vote for them. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course far-right parties can win, but the Nazi Party represented the ideas of the people at that time. Hence, it must be centrist on a national scale. I still don't believe the Republican Party is centrist on a national scale, however. I was saying that if the Republican Party is centrist since it "wins often" then the Nazi Party must also be classified in this respect. I see little support for that.--Drdak (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tally of Votes

Center-Right	Right	Far right
Toa Nidhiki05	Drdak	Rppeabody
79.194.93.26	Red XIV	N/A
Mpgviolist	NickCT	N/A
CWenger	N/A	N/A
Dezidor	N/A	N/A
RightCowLeftCoast	N/A	N/A
Fat&Happy	N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A	N/A

Tally of Votes

This whole discussion proves that the "political spectrum" article is correct: one axis is not sufficient to judge political spectrum. Taking a vote of a few com enters and presenting it as fact s not scientific and does not belong in this encyclopedia. I vote that the section be removed. 70.59.144.114 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion proves that the "political spectrum" article is correct: one axis is not sufficient to judge political spectrum. Taking a vote of a few commenters and presenting it as fact is not scientific and does not belong in this encyclopedia. We can and should do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.100.76 (talk • contribs)

Potential Compromises

I've created this section to list and discuss potential compromises. If you don't like any of the compromises proposed here, could you please propose your own?Rppeabody (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my compromise: While the Republican party has been traditionally regarded as center-right in the American political spectrum, many observers have argued that the party has moved significantly to the right in recent decades and should now be regarded as right-wing or far-right.[12][13][14][15]Rppeabody (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt liberal commentators and the Democratic Party are adequate descriptors of the GOP's political status, just as conservative commentators and the GOP aren't adequate describers of the Democratic Party's status.Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How about if we say, "many observers on the left"? Would that be acceptable? (I hope it's okay that I signed your comment for you, Toa Nidhiki05; I didn't want to confuse people by making them think I said that.)Rppeabody (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mind signing comments - I think that is common courtesy, so thanks. :)

And to answer the suggestion, I'd have to say no, just because of the complications of it - would we give conservative or right-wing commentators the same treatment on the Democrat page (that is, accusations of 'Marxism' and 'socialism'), and what about fringe views or parties, would they get this same treatment in both regards as well? If this were an individual politician or person I would agree (as commentary is not entirely invalid in some contexts), but I don't think applying political columns or commentary is a legitimate means to discern the nature of a political party. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If not political commentary, then what should we use? Toa, let me remind you that you have yet to present any sources (that pertain to the GOP).Rppeabody (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have, and you claim they are wrong while adding no proof they are. Claiming I have given no sources is wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What I said was that you have yet to present sources that pertain to the GOP. As far as I know, you have not. You have presented sources relating to the IDU, which is a group to which the GOP belongs, not the GOP. You have also argued repeatedly that groups have a diverse set of members and that a group can still be center-right even if it contains some far-right elements.Rppeabody (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am surprised you haven't cited a source relating to the GOP. Given the expansiveness of the internet, I am sure it is possible to find some source calling the Republican party center-right. While I was unable to find one, I only spent about five minutes looking. I'm sure you can find one if you look hard enough. In fact, I believe I remember Sean Hannity calling the Republicans center-right about a year ago.Rppeabody (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have cited my soruces, and have no reason to give more. However, Sean Hannity or otherwise commentary in general is not a valid describer for political positions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that some Republican ideologues have accused the Democrats of marxism, those accusations are just ad hominem attacks by a small minority of the party. And yes, for fringe parties, how the rest of the political spectrum views them is important. Indeed, most fringe parties do not view themselves as far-right or far-left. If we did not state how the rest of the spectrum viewed them, then we would not be able to accurately characterize them. There is a common tendency to see one's own views as centrist. So it is important to note how others characterize them.Rppeabody (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And the claims by the Democrats are just as invalid, Rppeabody. If you cannot accept the validity of the GOP claims, there is no reason you should accept the Democrat claims - they are just as biased and invalid. Political commentators, talk show hosts, and otherwise are not valid because they are opinion, not fact. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Toa, do you, a conservative, actually believe that the Democrats are Marxists? Working on a liberal college campus, I can assure you that virtually all liberals view the GOP as far-right or at least right-wing.Rppeabody (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My views don't matter, nor do the views of the left (which is actually outnumbered by the Tea Party in this country). However, the wide consensus among conservatives is that Obama has socialist tendencies - either social democrat or just flat out socialist. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I really think this is the best compromise. It recognizes the controversy and states both viewpoints. Where there is a difference of opinion, you should state both opinions and cite them both. That is the standard practice for resolving Wikipedia disputes.Rppeabody (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a solid compromise - it's giving one political group the means to slander or defame another. It is just as invalid as sourcing Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh on calling the Democrats 'marxist' or 'socialist'. Left-leaning commentary is just as invalid as similar right-leaning commentary. And we still have no talk on my compromise proposal. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the view that the Republican party is far-right or at least right-wing is widespread across the American left and center. The view that the Democrats are Marxists is not. Indeed, I am sure that Glen Beck understands that they are not actually Marxists, just like he understands that illegal immigration is not actually slavery. Furthermore, it is demonstrably true that the Democrats have repudiated Marxism. The GOP certainly has not repudiated right-wing politics. And please, do not accuse us of slander. That is not appropriate.Rppeabody (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'slader' and 'defamation' quote is not referring to you, but to commentary in general - allowing Howard Dean as a reliable source is as absurd as quoting Andre Carson on the Tea Party page to add 'some observers on the left have said the Tea Party wants to see all blacks hanging on a tree'. Simply put, left-wing commentary is as invalid as right-wing commentary - period.

So now I have to prove a negative - that is, the GOP has rejected the 'right'? Absurd. I've presented sources for center-right, and they are enough. Arguing that what you are saying (which is unsourced) needs to be disproved is not reasonable. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion? Eliminate 'center-right' and 'center-left' entirely in this article. RIght now there is no consensus to change, but this fight will continue for months, maybe years if nothing changes, given my past experience in political disputes.

Eliminate the 'political position' tab on the GOP infobox. Change all uses of 'center-right' to 'conservative' and 'center-left' to 'liberal'. This should be adequate enough for both those opposing 'right' and supporting it, as it lets the reader go to the page, study for themselves, and make their own opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with a version of this. I think that "conservative" is an improvement on "center-right" as a descriptor of the GOP and could work as a compromise position. I don't think the political position should be eliminated from the infobox, but I think "conservative" could be a reasonable compromise to put there. I'm strongly against linking "liberal" to "Conservatism in the United States." That makes no sense. I also do not think center-left should be changed to "liberal." The terms are not equivalent.Rppeabody (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'liberal' link was a mistake on my part. I'd agree to place 'conservative' there, as long as we just add 'conservative' there, nothing else. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The GOP isn't just right-wing these days, it's proudly right-wing. Not just in an international context, but within the American political spectrum. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A so-called 'right-wing' party would not be able to gain wide representation in Congress if it is so far out of the mainstream. The GOP is mainstream center-right in the US. But let's get back to discussing compromises in this section. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the July 1932 German federal election, the Nazis ended up with 38% of the seats in the Reichstag, the most of any single party. In the March 1933 election, they ended up with 48% of the seats. Does this mean they weren't a far-right party, and instead were a mainstream center-right? If even a party as extreme as the Nazis could get that level of representation in democratic elections, it's no surprise that merely right-wing party like the GOP can do so. Especially when they massively lie during their campaigns about how they'll govern, which is exactly what the Republicans did to make their electoral gains last year: they campaigned on creating jobs, and once elected they've instead focused on banning abortion, busting unions, and cutting spending. — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess we know your POV... –CWenger (^ • @) 02:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We know Toa Nidhiki's too. But everything I posted is objective fact. Since the 2010 election, the Republicans haven't introduced a single jobs bill, either in Congress or in any of the 50 state legislatures. This is despite their de facto campaign slogan having been "where are the jobs?" Instead, they've pushed new abortion restrictions, new collective bargaining restrictions, and budget cuts. You can form your own opinion about whether those are good policy priorities, but you can't form your own facts about what the Republican Party has done in office this year. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

These are facts.Rppeabody (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And I at least post mine, Redvix - yes, I am libertarian/conservative. By most regards, my economic stance is very libertarian/conservative, and my social stance is conservative with libertarian influence. However, unlike you, I'm actually presenting sources and facts to support the side I am on, while you are only posting rhetoric.Toa Nidhiki05

Not to nitpick, but what sources and facts have you presented, Toa? (Aside from the preposterous IDU source, of course.)Rppeabody (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, the GOP has significant elements of centrist and center-right politics (and has even accepted some center-left guys such as Michael Bloomburg, Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee), which outweigh what you would consider the 'right-wing' elements. The GOP is a center-right party in the American political system.Toa Nidhiki05

Bloomberg, Leach, and Chafee are center-right. Furthermore, Bloomberg and Chafee (and Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords) actually left the party in protest because it had become so extremely right-wing.Rppeabody (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And regarding the Nazi example - it is completely irrelevant, as the German system was multi-party, no two-party, but I'll humor you anyway. The Nazis were elected under the circumstances dictatorships arise - terrible economy, very high unemployment, hyperinflation, and the utter humiliation Germany experienced in World War 1. The Nazis were never mainstream, and many voted for them as a protest vote but were elected due to many, many unique circumstances.Toa Nidhiki05

To add on to that, I find the notion that in a two party system, one party is closer to the center between the two parties than the other quite intriguing. We consider the Nazis far right because they were more off to the right than other conservative parties, such as the centre party. For us to not consider the Republicans center-right, we would need a third major party that is conservative, but to the left of the Republicans. Mpgviolist (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is very silly logic. In China in the 1940s, there were two political parties. The Kuomintang was center-right. But you'd struggle to call the Communists anything but far-left.Rppeabody (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point is noted, but unless I'm mistaken (which is not terribly unlikely) by the 1940's when the Communists had gained momentum, the Kuomintang had moved to the far right, killing anyone whose views remotely resembled communism, using a secret police force, and striving for a one party state themselves.Mpgviolist (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the Kuomintang were on a war footing, and they were somewhat authoritarian. But their politics were still solidly center-right. They certainly did not "kill anyone whose views remotely resembled Communism." And they were still quite populist. To say they were "far-right" would be a gross mischaracterization. After the war was over, you'll note they instituted some land reform and started a democracy. Remember that this was the era when the Democrats were locking up all the Japanese.Rppeabody (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better response than the China example. Mpgviolist wrote: "For us to not consider the Republicans center-right, we would need a third major party that is conservative, but to the left of the Republicans." The reason that you don't have a third party like that is because the American political system is structured so that having three viable parties is very difficult, much harder than in the parliamentary system dominant abroad. However, there is a strong demand for a center-right party to fill the gap missing in the American political system. Probably the best evidence of this is Ross Perot's singular and shockingly successful center-right independent campaign for president. Indeed, there was considerable talk of a similar move by Bloomberg in 2008, and there is talk of him mounting an attempt in 2012 (cough Americans Elect cough).Rppeabody (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The United States does have a center-right party, one that's "conservative, but to the left of the Republicans." It's called the Democratic Party. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you look up centre-left - you'll find that the Democratic Party's main ideologies, social liberalism and Progressivism, are all center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg and Chafee aren't Republicans at all, Toa. They're former Republicans. They left the party because it lurched to the right and they refused to move with it. Nor are they center-left. They're centrists. And Leach is certainly not center-left. He's genuinely center-right, unlike the bulk of the modern Republican Party. I'll concede that the majority of Republican Party voters might well be center-right, but the majority of Republican elected officials are right-wing. As for an actual compromise (and it's a sad day when the facts have to be compromised), how about "Center-right to right"? That's how the Conservative Party of Canada is designated in its infobox, and it's surely less deserving of the right-wing label than the US Republican Party. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Centre-right to Right is a very accurate description. We can put it up there and retain the citation needed tag so as to understand the label is under debate. It acknowledges the Tea Party, right libertarians, and Christian Right without denoting the Party itself as entirely right-wing.--Drdak (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I strongly prefer my compromise, this is certainly better than what we have now.Rppeabody (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That idea makes absolutely no sense, given 'right' is already covered in 'center-right' - look up what it actually means, which is 'from the center to the right', which is absolutely what the GOP spans. Furthermore, comparing the US political spectrum to the Canadian one, which is certainly more left, is bizarre - the Conservative Party in Canada is farther to the right in Canada's spectrum.

If you want to do something like that, how about 'center to right', given the center and libertarians outweigh the so-called 'right-wing' elements in the party? You're so-called compromise entirely rejects the centrist wing of the party. Toa Nidhiki05 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I reject the "centrist wing of the party" because it doesn't exist. There's a center-right wing and a right-wing, and there's libertarians who don't quite fit with either group. None of those groups are "centrists". And you continue to falsely conflate the moderate and libertarian elements of GOP, even though the libertarian wing is closer to the right-wing Tea Party elements than it is to the center-right moderates. And no, right-wing is not part of the center-right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Toa, part of compromising is giving up something. "Center to right" is exactly the same as "center-right." If you're not willing to compromise at all, expect this mess to continue for quite some time.Rppeabody (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's just following the example of current House Republicans, who think that compromise means getting most or all of what they want and giving up nothing in return. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Showing you're political stripes again. I am willing to compromise and have given two proposals. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a compromise because it recognizes all the 'right' elements you proclaim exist as well as the very valid 'center' that is just as prominent. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be adult about this. Surely you can't actually think that's a compromise. "Center to right" is exactly the same as "center-right," which is your position. How is it any different?Rppeabody (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a compromise because it accepts your view (that the right-wing element exists) and my view (that the center is also, if not as, dominant). Of course, you can read my first one that has gotten no discussion - eliminate center-right/center-left entirely and replace with 'conservative' and 'liberal', respectively. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is - it is part of center-right parties because the center-right spans from the center to the right. The center-right is not a fixed position - it is hardly likely a person could identify as 'center-right' unless their views range from the center to the right.

And yes, the centrist wing does exist - the Republican Main Street Partnership, which currently has over 50 members and has led to moderate Republicans getting elected in states like California, New York, Hawaii, where center-right candidates are unelectable. The moderates/centrists are a vital part of the GOP, particularly in northeastern states such as Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and New Hampshire, as well as the 'left coast' states and Hawaii. Arguing it does not exist is laughable. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The RMSP is is the center-right portion of the Republican Party. The rest of the party is right-wing. What's laughable is arguing that places like Maine, New Hampshire, and upstate New York (which all have a strong libertarian tradition) would never elect a center-right candidate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not - it is the centrist wing. In the US political spectrum, the RMSP falls under the 'center', similar to the Blue Dog Coalition. Those northeastern and left states rarely, if ever, elect center-right candidates on a state-wide level, instead opting for the moderatism of the RMSP when they even vote GOP.

And aside from the relatively GOP-friendly New Hampshire (which is very libertarian in most respects), those states are all bastions of liberalism where the GOP rarely even controls one house - Hawaii only has one GOP senator in its state legislature, in fact. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

States aren't monolithic entities where every city, county, and district has the same political makeup. The New York City area you'd be quite correct in labeling a "bastion of liberalism". Upstate New York, however, is more to the right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but I was writing about the state in general - of course upstate NY is conservative, but in the whole state scale, the dominance of NYC politics controls the state (aside from the upstate-friendly state senate seat distribution). It's about the same as saying Texas is very conservative, despite liberal dominance in more urban or city areas such as Houston or San Antonio.Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I live in San Antonio and the city is most assuredly moderate. It voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. I think you really need to back off the idea that "all this = all that" and begin accepting that things are not so black-and-white. For example, cities are not always "liberal" (whatever that even means). There are a variety of reasons why Texas is conservative, just as why the Republican party is right-wing, and it isn't equivocal.--Drdak (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And yes, saying "Centre" to "Right" is exactly the same as saying "Centre-right" (in between both). You are not compromising, you are engaging in obstructionism.--Drdak (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have given two proposals, one of which you have completely ignored, the other you have rejected. If anyone has engaged in obstructionism, it is you. And I may have misspoke about San Antonio, but I am correct that even the most liberal states have conservative bastions and vice versa - it is not a stretch to say Massachusetts or Vermont is 'liberal', just as it is not a stretch to say Texas or Oklahoma are 'conservative'. For that matter, when did I say all cities are 'liberal'? I certainly can't think of many conservative ones off the top of my head, but cities do in fact tend to be liberal, and rural areas tend to be conservative. There are exceptions, of course, by demographic abnormalities and the like, but they aren't really that common in general terms. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that consensus does not mean unanimity, a single person can't block a consensus from forming. If everyone else involved in this discussion agrees that "center-right to right" is a reasonable compromise, that should be considered a consensus. — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the result of the RfC is consensus - and consensus is overwhelmingly in favor or 'center-right' by a 2-1 margin. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, because you say so? You're the only one arguing against the compromise of "center-right to right". — Red XIV ^(talk) 07:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not - the 5 other users above rejected adding 'right' in any form to the article. Further, only the referendum is what is binding, not random proposals adding by the supporters of a failed addition to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to close RfC

Given there has been no real activity on this in a couple of days and most involved editors seem to have stopped posting and no new editors are getting involved, I suggest we close this RfC. I don't think any real consensus has amounted from this (the total is 5-3 in favor of the current status, although that is still pretty slim) aside from the very nature of what is debated - the political position of the GOP on the US political spectrum, so I suggest cloture with a result of no consensus, leaving open the possibility of future RfCs on the subject if consensus has not been reached. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just made an actual proposal for compromise that I'd like you to look at first. If it can't get consensus support, then end it because we'll just go around in circles otherwise. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing request of closure to close with a result of center-right. Voting was 6-3 in favor of 'center-right', and 9 persons is adequate for a clear consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Toa, there is no consensus for center-right. The discussion has moved to the compromise section, where we have gotten closer to a rough consensus (with only you opposing). Please stop being obstructionist and work with the rest of us to come up with language that reflects all viewpoints, not just yours. Additionally, let me remind you that no source for the center-right position has been produced.Rppeabody (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No such consensus exists. You're the only one who's raised an objection to "center-right to right". One person is not a consensus, Toa. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does exist - it was created during the RfC referendum, which is what is binding, not a 'compromise' proposal created during the referendum by the losing arguers. The only people concurring are those who also opposed. This idea that somehow a random 'compromise' (which is merely an attempt to add clearly rejected ideas into the article) has binding power and the referendum doesn't is absurd. And, I will add, I have given two source concurring that have been persistently removed by those who dispute the claim. This wasn't a referendum on sourcing, it was a referendum on labels. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're arguing in bad faith, especially given your repeated insistence on having sources that you never actually post. The consensus you claim does not exist. Period. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the sources (from the IDU and the NDI), so stop accusing me of editing in bad faith. The fact is, the consensus of this RfC is clearly that 'center-right' is what should be used on this page, not 'far right' or 'right-wing'. Being obstructionist about it helps absolutely nobody and doesn't improve this wiki one bit. 6-2-1 (center right, right, far right) is definitive, like it or not. Toa Nidhiki05 21:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The "consensus" is a slight majority. The compromise of "Centre-right to Right" is the best option.--Drdak (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the best option... To you. The fact is, the consensus among a broader group of editors is the valid one, not one developed to incorporate a rejected viewpoint.

For that matter, the vote consensus is large enough - out of 11 voters, 7 favor 'center-right', 3 favor 'right', and one favors 'far-right'. Aside from being a sizable majority, it is also clear consensus - a 'no consensus' ruling would only be for very slim margins, and 4 votes isn't 'slim'. Toa Nidhiki05 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "consensus" is built mostly on people who commented once and then declined to participate as the discussion has continued. — Red XIV ^(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And yours is based off of the users that had the content they wanted to add soundly rejected in the referendum. People are not required to be 'all in' in an RfC, and their level of participation in no way lessens their vote and opinion. The fact is, the consensus established up there is both definitive and adequate for the purposes of this page. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No such consensus has been achieved, and consensus is not a "vote". Your attempt to unilaterally declare a consensus don't change that. — Red XIV ^(talk) 09:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How is your attempt to unilaterally declare consensus any different? The clear consensus among the editors that have participated in this RfC is center-right, and I have absolutely no clue how a 7-3-1 vote isn't clear consensus to you. Toa Nidhiki05 13:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is any help, I also feel 7-3-1 is consensus,and that quite honestly, I don't really think this conversations has been or will go anywhere (no matter whose fault you think that is), so we might as well let it rest. Mpgviolist (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the "vote" you refer to doesn't actually exist. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Red, you are the only one rejecting the vote actually happened. Please stop being obstructionist and accept what actually happened. Toa Nidhiki05 16:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

7-3-1 is not consensus because the 1 for "Far Right" counts against "Centre-Right" as well, if not more opposed than those who submitted votes of "Right". That being said, a majority vote cannot override facts and polls indicating that the RP is to the right of most voters while the DP is to the centre-left.--Drdak (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This was a poll to choose a title, not to 'accept' center-right. Each of the three has their own vote. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to define consensus, but 63% don't favor changing it, so as I said before, I think we are just going in circles and are not going to accomplish anything. However, perhaps these polls on party affiliation might seem somewhat relevant and make you more comfortable with center-right. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx ; http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends Mpgviolist (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind, more Americans identify as Tea Partiers than liberals. America is a more right-leaning country than many others, so it is only natural the GOP would be a little bit more 'right' than worldwide parties. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The GOP is a 'little bit' more right-wing than worldwide parties? Compared to the GOP, the Canadian Conservative Party is downright Marxist. The label 'center-right' for the GOP is laughable, and the reasons given above to support it are highly questionable. One user gave a hilarious list of Republicans he considered 'centrists or slightly center-right', which included George W. Bush! Slightly center-right! Paul Ryan, a man who would like to get rid of social security and medicare, was tagged as 'center-right'! In what world would one have to live in to consider the elimination of highly popular social programs a 'center-right' position? The tea party is clearly not 'center-right', they are right-wing, and the tea party currently controls the Republican Party. Just watch the Republican presidential debates, and watch as your 'center-right' candidates all genuflect before the tea party. Yes, there are a few remaining 'center-right' Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, but they rapidly diminishing as the more moderate members are primaried out by tea party candidates. Hilariously, the above commenter cited Mike Castle as a center-right Republican - Castle was primaried out of the party by Christine O'Donnell! Other center-right members like Lincoln Chafee felt the need to leave the party due to its growing extremism. The existence of a few 'center-right' representatives does not make the party 'center-right'. The Democrats also have many 'center-right' members of Congress (e.g. blue Dogs), but wikipedia would never label the Democrats 'center-right' because of that. The vast majority of Republicans currently serving in Congress are indisputedly 'right-wing', and wikipedia should be edited to reflect this fact.

On a separate note, the earlier discussions about Keynesian economics were non-sensical. Since when did being right-wing mean embracing Keynesian economics? Maybe there are some European right-wing parties that are Keynesian, but right-wing has never had this connotation in the States. Keynesian economics is a center-left position that the right actively disavows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.123.168 (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the 'center' with the 'center-right'. And, for the record, the last center-right Democrat was Zell Miller. The Blue Dog Caucus is centrist. Toa Nidhiki05 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion of those terms. Your history of comments on this page shows that you have a very 'unique' view of American politics. Consulting your user page indicates that you are a 16 year old conservative. While it is great that young people are taking such an active role in Wikipedia, I suggest that on this topic you might want to defer to those with a little more expertise. You are just one person with one opinion, and the history of this page shows that your 'unique' opinions have dominated the discussion a little too much, IMO. 72.43.123.168 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe you just attacked me on my age. Wow. I have just as much of a right as any Wikipedian, and what you said was just blatantly offensive. Given the fact you are an anonymous IP, how do I know you aren't a 16-year old liberal? Stop attacking me. Toa Nidhiki05 12:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not 'attack' you on anything. I am sorry, but when discussing matters of recent history, one's age is relevant. People who have lived through the gradual rightward shift of the Republican party are more qualified to judge it - I am sorry, but that is the truth. I am not that old myself, but at least I can remember the days when a candidate like Bob Dole could win the Republican nomination. On matters of political history, I tend to defer to those older than me. I did not say that you shouldn't contribute, or that your contributions are not valuable, but simply that you have dominated this discussion too much, IMO, and in an awfully stubborn manner. The part about you being 16 years old is less important than the fact that you are a self-labeled "conservative", and thus probably shouldn't be defining what the 'center' is. Yes, I am a self-labeled "liberal", but I don't have dozens of posts on this page telling everyone else what to thing. 72.43.123.168 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Age is not relevant at all - we go by verification, not fact here. All opinions are equal here - users, admins, and IPs such as yourself. Age is absolutely irrelevant. And I have not 'dominated' this discussion - I've participated just as actively as Red or Rppeabody. For that matter, show me where I have edited with bias - I've presented sources to back up the 'center-right' label. My ideology is irrelevant and I leave it at the front door, and it is assuming bad faith to tell me otherwise.

Further, the other people on the this page have been just as upfront about their personal views - if it is wrong for me to have views, is it wrong for Rppeabody (a professed liberal) to have his own? I've never told anyone what to think, I've debated and presented fact - not shoved by POV on others. My age and views are irrelevant - only the facts matter. Toa Nidhiki05 23:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I a "professed liberal"? I do not recollect professing liberalism on Wikipedia. I am registered as an independent. While I am perhaps more of a liberal than a conservative, most of my views do not fall neatly into those categories, and I dislike being fit into them. For instance, I favor our current immigration policy, abolishing sales tax, establishing price controls on gas and #2 feed corn, overturning Gonzales v. Raich, banning credit cards, legalizing marijuana, abolishing the drinking age, abolishing age limits on freedom of speech, correcting capital gains tax for inflation, allowing bad teachers to be fired, ending affirmative action in public schools (except for Native Americans) but keeping it in private schools, and most importantly, monetizing the debt. I voted for Clinton in the primary and Obama in the general election, but I was very unhappy with both of them (more so with Obama). My favorite politician is Chester A. Arthur; my favorite philosopher, Jesus. My political views are driven not by party positions but by my views on ethics. I am a utilitarian. (I give away about 15% of my income and hope to give away 50% when I make more.) I would prefer that Toa not speak for my views.Rppeabody (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant Red, my bad. However, if you look on my infobox page you may note my views aren't orthodox in conservatism, either. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that Toa's views should not be discounted because of his age. I myself was 16 once. Nor do I believe that his autism should be held against him. Indeed, I personally attribute the apparent immaturity of Toa's contributions here to the fact that he is defending an indefensible position, one he feels compelled to defend because he believes that it will help the Republican party to be portrayed as "center-right." Given how untenable his position is, he is forced to edit as he has. Were I attempting to edit with such an agenda, I would have acted very similarly to Toa. Toa's rhetorical tricks are quite clever, and I do not believe he is intellectually unable to contribute. Indeed, his NPOV contributions are no more immature than the average Wikipedia editor's.Rppeabody (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How is my position 'indefensible'? People agreeing with my 'indefensible' outnumber those otherwise 2-1. I'm glad you at least recognize age is not factor, and will not hold my AS against me, however. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Afghanistan

Why does it say: "After the September 11 attacks in 2001 in New York, Bush launched the War on Terrorism, in which the United States led an international coalition invaded Afghanistan, the base of terrorist Osama bin Laden. This invasion led to the toppling of the Taliban regime. The U.S killed bin Laden in 2011. There was bipartisan support. Indeed Obama had criticized Bush in the 2008 campaign for not being aggressive enough in Afghanistan."

It doesn't sound right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galraedia (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's choppy, grammatically incorrect, and contains irrelevancies. For example, the Obama endorsement/criticism is irrelevant. "Even Obama said so" is not an objective measure of Democrat support. >99% of Democrats voted for it, is.

94.203.201.240 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

factions

does anyone hae any kind of reference to say that the republicans have factions. i thought it was only conservatives uk that had factions one called the liberals democarts. Delighted eyes (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

Section 5.2.1 under the heading "Grenada" includes the following statement:

> It built the President's image of decisive strong action a year before the 2004 election, when Mondale said he too would have ordered the invasion.

The year should be 1984, not 2004. The 2004 election did not include Reagan or Mondale.

Beardedbaby (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It has now been fixed by Rjensen --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please change the political position from center right to far right. Communist93 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

resource

The Group Behind the Republican Takeover by Elizabeth DiNovella, November 2011 issue of The Progressive, excerpt ...

... the American Legislative Exchange Council, which helps Republicans draft bills in statehouses. But you’ve probably not heard of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which gets them elected in the first place. This little-known group, formed in 2002, is the only national organization that focuses on electing Republican majorities to state legislatures. It has been active in forty-six states and has spent tens of millions of dollars. Based in Alexandria, Virginia, the committee targets legislative chambers—from Maine to Wisconsin—where there is a chance for control to change hands.

99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)