Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Derivation of Name "GOP" and "Grand Old Party"

No historical information is provided on this subject. Reliable contributions would be welcome.Dwarren01 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long wondered about that, given that the Republican Party is actually the younger of the two major parties in the US. I was even more mystified when I read in this article that the first record of the "Grand Old Party" name being used was in 1876, a mere 22 years after the party's founding. Unfortunately, I don't have any information on how the name came about. — Red XIV (talk) 06:24, 17 August 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)

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 [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/08/ten_reasons_why.php 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)
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)

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)

Proposal to remove historical political positions and historical factions from infobox

Aside from this article and the article on the Democratic Party, no other infobox on political parties shows a list of historical positions and historical factions, only the positions that a party currently holds. I propose that this infobox be the same as others. Information on historical positions and factions can be placed in the history section of the Republican Party in this the article.--R-41 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Republicans for Revolution January 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books by Mark Lilla regarding The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin (by Corey Robin, publisher Oxford University Press) 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"2012 election"

This section lacks relevant information. The results of the Iowa Caucus reveal an approximate 25% support base for both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (separated by 8 votes in the former's favour), with Ron Paul closely behind at 21%. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012> This section makes no mention of Mr. Santorum or Dr. Paul.

41.132.239.195 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section ought to be removed altogether from the article. The 2012 primaries are not that important that they deserve their own section. Leonxlin (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
the section can be shortened once we know the nominee and his fate. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Offical Colors

The info box says the official colors are red, but in the body under symbols it says that the color is unofficial and informal. Neither is cited. I don't feel particularly comfortable with my knowledge editing either statement, but it's certainly inconsistent. Wgunther (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

The MLA 'LGBT' is used - this needs to be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.187.240 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Medicare

I think it would be beneficial to the clarity of the article if the Medicare/Medicaid reforms were described in another manner besides "major changes" in the economic section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolytheneSam (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Upper-level education

The article quotes some Freid in saying that Gallup says that the parties have roughly equivalent support from grad and post-grad voters. I think it's worth noting that the Republican Party fairs better than the Democrats among voters with a college degree but worse among voters with a post-grad degree. In 2000, Bush won 51% of the grads, while Gore won 52% of the post-grads. In 2004, Bush won 52% of the grads, while Kerry won 55% of the post-grads. In 2008, Obama won 50% of the grads (McCain got 48%), but he won 58% of the post-grads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiBinks (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Position on Political Spectrum

Why does this article lack the national political spectrum position of the Republican Party as Center-right below official colors, but the Democratic Party article has Center-left clearly shown below their official colors on their respective article? Somebody should add it in. 70.74.250.32 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Stidmatt (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, welcome back to the War Zone:
Fat&Happy (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I am in opposition to this. The political position was removed because three factions could not previously agree: those who believed it was centre-right, those who thought it was right-wing, and those who said it was centre-right to right.--Drdak (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

4.4 Social Policies

Most subheadings under this subtopic have no references. The authors of these paragraphs need to provide references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.29.2 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On Race

Some minorities should be changed to non-whites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.238.57 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC) In addition to Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, the first woman to serve as Governor of South Carolina, is the second Indian-American governor in the country.

In a section on age, the following should be included: At the age of 40, Haley is the youngest current governor in the US.[10][11]

In a section on gender, the following should be included: Nikki Haley, elected in 2010, is the first woman to serve as Governor of South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.224.140 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

State legislatures

Would someone mind explaining why the results of the state legislative elections were given so much weight in the History section, and the results of the congressional and gubernatorial races so little? The state legislatures bit was not deemed appropriate for even the focused History article, so I'm at a loss why something so trivial as a concocted statistic of total "national" legislators would be notable enough for inclusion in a brief historical overview of the party. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gay issues section

The section needs to be revised to detail changes in polling.

Some recent polls have found that a large minority of Republicans support gay marriage. This story has it at a full 39%.

The problem with the section is that things are not in chronological order as well, which is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.3 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

State upper house seats

The infobox in this article says that the Republican Party has 1001 out of 1921 state upper house seats, while the article Democratic Party (United States) says that the Democratic Party has 921 out of 1921 state upper house seats. So, one of these articles (or both, if any seats are held by third parties) must be incorrect. --Yair rand (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

All 49 members of the Nebraska legislature are technically independents, plus there are 7 members of the Vermont Progressive Party and 1 member of the Independence Party of New York; there may be a dozen or so other independents outside of Nebraska. The current numbers of both pages should really be re-evaluated since the math just doesn't work, unless it counts those members of the Nebraska legislature, VPP and Independence Party that caucus or are members of either party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Theocracy

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

I suppose that refers to Romney being a Mormon bishop. That point is rarely made in the RS or public debates. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It's bigger than Romney. Pat Buchanon, Rick Santorum and many others have argued against the separation of church and state. They are leading figures in the party.--Drdak (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
the idea of "separation of church and state" is a liberal interpretation of the 1st amdt. (Jefferson first made the comment about 1803) The Republicans mostly follow conservative interpretations. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the separation of church and state is a pretty mainstream belief in the United States.--Drdak (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
While you are entirely correct, we also have the parallel truth that America has a strong tradition of the infusion of religious values into politics, including elected officials making overt statements about their religious beliefs. Some of the republican talking points are addressing the idea of more religion in politics, not necessarily (at least on the surface) the direct control of government by religious leaders. The mormon bishop thing is interesting. I will have to read about what that means in mormonism. I suspect its not the same degree of authority as a catholic bishop. i could be entirely wrong.(mercurywoodrose)12.125.80.214 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your opinion. It has as much merit as ascribing the Democratic Party as an atheistic oligarchy, which many people believe, misguided or not. Put another way, any article on wikipedia is not the place for such opinions. Stick to scholarship. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if you're joking or genuinely dense. When something is verifiable by checking the sources (in this case actual speeches and advocacy from most if not all prominent Republicans), it is not opinion, it is fact. From Boards of Education, right up to presidential candidates, they're very open about it, whereas the notion that the Democratic Party is atheistic can be disproved entirely too easily to take anyone making that claim seriously. Karin Anker (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the Republican Party is a group of kitten-eaters. You need reliable sources. If you find reliable sources stating that the Republican Party is theocratic, then you can include that in the article. If you find a large number of non-mainstream allegations that the GOP is theocratic, you can say that those allegations exist (though you can't say that they're right). Peacock28 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, theocracy isn't the right word. In a theocracy, God (or an immediate messenger of God) is the head of state. Thus, Iran (ruled by religious leaders) is a theocracy, but Saudi Arabia (state religion, but ruled by a king) isn't. Peacock28 22:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
the issue is whether the GOP is "advocating for laws based very openly and exclusively on the Bible" .... which laws are being advocated?? The Bible does not say anything about prayer in schools, contraception or abortion or same-sex marriages, which are big issues. So the "Bible" issue seems to be a non-starter. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This whole thing is rather silly since the Republican Party is going to nominate a Mormon, and many Christians do not consider Mromonism to be a Christian religion (even though it is). Like the above says, sources are needed and frankly there are none. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Insurgent outlier

The book It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann (Basic Books, May 2012) ISBN 978-0465031337 [16], [17] needs mention here (and its own article). I quote:

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

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

Regarding Teddy Roosevelt and "Environmental Policies"

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

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

Wiki readers should know that positions change over time. That's history. Like the GOP in 29012, TR opposed Muir & the Sierra Club position on nature, and called for efficient use of timber, coal, water & tourist possibilities in a way that the GOP today endorses. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If the article reads like Roosevelt represents modern Republicans, than by all means change it. As long as the article mentions the ideological shift in the mid-twentieth century (which it does, at the beginning of the ideology section), it's all good. Thanks for your feedback. Peacock28 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

dated

Most of the information on voter demographics is from 2004. I think this is significantly out of date and that this should be remedied.--Commander v99 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Since it is a matter of dispute, I would remove the field. TFD (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed--let's drop the field--it is designed for European parties (and the folks over at Democratic Party are also confused here.) For example the "conservatives" in Europe represent the established church & landed aristocracy, and in Europe liberal = what US calls libertarian. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, let's drop the field. It's ideology (Conservative) is noted in the infobox. If nobody objects, I will remove it myself. Toa Nidhiki05 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

We have consensus here from three editors (including myself) to remove the field entirely. I'm not holding up anything, I'm following protocol. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You are ignoring past contributor views, which, according to administrators, also have a stake in the matter. Quit trying to weasel out of coming to a proper consensus that might possibly go against your ideological views.--Drdak (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please go to the Democratic Party talk page and you see a very lengthy argument over a similar matter. I was in favor of changing this originally from "Center-Right" to "Center-Right" and "Right-Wing". A compromise was reached on the Democratic Party page that the field should be removed. I agreed (as did 2 other editors). This was a consensus among those directly involved in the conflict. After thinking about it, the compromise does make the most sense (had I gone back I would have suggested the consensus and not to switch it to "Center-Right to Right-Wing"). America's political parties don't adhere to the world's political spectrum, in any other place both would be considered center-right. Other parties in the world are also ideologically pure, whereas there's a lot of ideological differences within the GOP and Democrats. There is no "center-left" or "center-right" in the American political spectrum, both parties address many positions, and base their platform more towards current issues in upcoming elections, not ideology. There are Conservative Democrats, Centrist republicans (in the American definition of "Centrist"). There are a significant number of Libertarians within each party. So you can't classify each as in a particular spectrum, as both tend to encompass many, diverse points of view. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Gamer said it perfectly. Toa Nidhiki05 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I oppose removing the field. It is original research to say that the left-right spectrum does not apply to the Republican Party without a source to confirm that, and that claim sounds merely like a means to legitimize a frustrated refusal to address the spectrum issue because of past disagreements on this talk page about it. Utilize reliable sources to find the general area that the Republican Party is located on the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't hold articles hostage to "past contributor views" because concensus can change. I'm not convinced by the sources supplied that "right-wing" is warranted. I support removing the field--and it does appear that that is consensus.– Lionel (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Material here is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on users' opinions of such sources - provided that they are reliable sources. That being said, the proposal by the first user who posted sources here, are not reliable sources, they are commentary opinions from news channels, those are not reliable. Preferably scholarly books on the subject of politics should be used here. There should be a request for comment here for this proposed change as it is not conventional for a political party infobox to not show the left-right position. Lastly, prior to such an RfC being taken, I urge users to look for reliable sources that say where the Republican Party is located on the political spectrum before making any determinations on whether to include or not include the left-right spectrum issue here.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

The Republican Party is part of the International Democrat Union, the IDU describes itself as an "association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right." See here: The Republican Party was amongst the founders of the IDU in 1983, Frank Fahrenkopf of the Republican National Committee, was a dignitary who signed the Declaration of Principles. See here: [18]. With this evidence of Republican Party endorsement of the IDU and its stances, I believe that it is reasonable to restore the political spectrum section on the infobox. "Centre to centre-right" is what should be added. Plus this makes sense, it is acknowledged that there are centrist Republicans, see here: [19].--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because the GOP is part of a loosely organized international union of parties, does not mean that the GOP necessarily follows those policies to make it "center to center right" (I don't think anyone considers the GOP "Centrist", especially if you have been following the news recently). The GOP does not care about international politics. If it did, it would support most of what other members of the IDU do: abortion, same-sex marriage, universal healthcare, mandate that its members believe in global warming, and support a relatively progressive tax bracket (which all other members of the IDU do, most notably the British and Canadian Conservatives, along with the German CDU/CSU). The GOP differs significantly from its IDU counterparts, which are in countries where the political conversation is not slanted to the right. The IDU's goals are also very broad and vague, they're more like the Alliance of Democrats than Socialist International. Also, the GOP is a self-defined big-tent party, along with the Democrats-- and support a multitiude of political views that doesn't happen in other parts of the world, where parties are usually ideologically pure. For example, members disagree on topics like abortion and taxation, there are Libertarian Republicans, etc. The canon of political views is just too huge to classify as one part of the spectrum. Therefore, consensus was reached that the field should be removed. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That appears only to be your opinion, do you have sources that demonstrate that the Republican Party as a whole officially supports policies that are further to the right than centre-right? Your opinion that the Republican Party "does not care about international politics" is biased and inaccurate - the Republican leadership has cooperated with similar movements outside the United States - the close connections of the Republicans, the Canadian Conservatives, and the British Conservatives, and German CDU are well-known - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney, and Helmut Kohl worked together and espoused the same neoliberal economics. In fact it was Mulroney who pressed Reagan and the Republicans to support free trade - overcoming opposition from more protectionist-minded Republicans; and Mulroney pressed and convinced Reagan to support and sign the Air Quality Agreement to address air pollution and acid rain. Now then if you are referring to the Tea Party movement as an example of more right-wing elements when you were talking about "events in the news" - you need to demonstrate that they are in fact strongly right-wing. It is possible to say that the Tea Party movement is perhaps extreme libertarian capitalist, but how does that translate into associating them and the entire Republican Party as being beyond centre-right and strongly within the definition of right-wing politics? Also, I provided a source that shows that there are centrist Republicans. Please provide references to back up your claims here.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't need a reputable source to what I claim because it is fact, I can ask anyone here and they would agree with me(even the Conservatives would). You have been hearing it in the news for a long time. The GOP has shifted far to the right, and pushed the US political spectrum a long with it. Ronald Reagan wouldn't fit into his own party ( I have a few news articles that I cited above). The examples you cited were all from 30 years ago, when the GOP was still viewed as center-right in the global political spectrum. The era of Mulroney, Thatcher, and Reagan is 30 years ago, back during the Cold War. The Conservatives in this country have moved so irrevocably to the right (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is true) that the Europeans and Canadians would be frightened of our politics. Canadian and British Conservatives believe in global warming(British Conservatives have a tax on 4x4's, guarantee access to abortion(David Cameron said he's willing to have abortions up to 5 months), support universal, single-payer healthcare coverage, support progressive tax brackets where the richer you are the higher you pay, etc., etc. (this list can go on forever). Democrats can't even get half their party to agree on this issue, and Republicans are against it. To be honest, if you look at the policies of each party and scrutinize in detail, you realize that nowadays the Conservatives in Britain and Canada, along with the German Christian Democrats, align much more closely with the Democrats: they support a free market but with protections for the poor and a significant safety net). Also, look more in depth at the IDU page. The GOP isn't listed anywhere in recent newsletters-- if you look back to 2008 there was not even a mention of supporting John McCain at the 2008 presidential election (that was back before the Tea Party even existed). David Cameron sees himself honestly more aligned with Obama than Romney. The examples you placed were examples from 30 years ago. A lot has happened in 30 years. We're not talking about the GOP of 30 years ago (or as Dems call it, your father's Republican Party). The GOP could care less about the IDU. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Politics aside, let me counter a few of your arguments about the GOP being "center to center-right". The GOP has Libertarians, Conservatives, and Centrists. Libertarians are left-wing socially, and right-wing fiscally (so that already disqualifies your notion that they can be characterized as center to center-right). Other parties in Europe are ideologically pure (meaning they support only one stance on every issue, if a party member doesn't agree, they can't run under the party's name). That doesn't work here in the US. We have big-tent parties where candidates routinely criticize another over how "Conservative" or "Liberal" the other is, and where people from within their own parties argue with each over issues. This doesn't happen in Europe or anywhere else in the world-- in leadership contests candidates don't demonize each other but just present their platform (the demonizing is reserved for debates with the other parties). Added to that the IDU has not written about the GOP since 2007 in its newsletters (check them out here http://www.idu.org/newsletterlist.aspx), that there isn't one single Republican member on the IDU's leadership board, and the examples you state of GOP and Conservatives elsewhere working together are all from 30 years ago, and your whole argument has just been disproved. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources for all of that opinion you just posted? Not appearing in a source for a period of time is not a reliable indicator of something's status. I'm almost certain that its not really a source if all the source shows is that it isnt a source. Simply put, your opinions are just as subjective as the poster before you. Im not going to get in on this argument, but i did think it best to point that you are doing the very thing you claim makes your opponent's position invalid. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of the 2 paragraphs I posted, I noted that the first one is just my opinion (and shouldn't be counted as part of the argument), and that the second is objective to point out the flaws in Drdak's argument without discussing politics. I think it also helps and doesn't count as original research to have some sense of the global political spectrum as well, and know what positions other center-right/IDU-affiliated parties have taken in the world that differentiate them from the Republicans. Gamer9832 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of how large the tents are, there are still fundamental left-right differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Granted that they are smaller than their European counterparts, but they still exist.--Ðrdak (T) 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
But then you can't just generalize and state that one is "Center-right" and one is "Center-left". Center-left means that the party is leaning left (and is liberal or social democratic), Center-right meants that the party is moderately conservative (they do not mean a combination of the centrist and left-wing/right-wing aspects of the party). If you were to put a spectrum you'd have to place center to center-left (you could even classify Blue Dogs as center-right) for the Democrats, and center/center-right/right-wing for the Republicans in order to be fully accurate. European parties don't have these kinds of ideological differences within their party and therefore it's easy to categorize them in one single place in the spectrum. It's hard to do that with the Democrats and Republicans. Because both parties encompass multiple parts of the spectrum, it's best just to remove the field. You can't generalize and put them squarely as "center-right" and "center-left". Gamer9832 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the left-right spectrum is overused and misused in American media, because they mix in the traditional positions held by the two major parties with left-right positions. Plus the fact of political polarization of the two major parties is largely caused by their competition with each other, often makes them exaggerate their differences. All that the left-right spectrum is is one significant dynamic of promotion of egalitarianism associated with the left versus acceptance of hierarchy on the right, most people are centre-leaning because they do not unquivocally support egalitarianism or acceptance of hierarchy. The American political concept "that all men are created equal" is an advocacy of equal opportunity - generally a slightly left-of-centre concept associated with the Enlightenment - regardless of whether American conservatives wish to accept this or not - their official advocacy of meritocracy can easily be associated with centrist and even slightly centre-left positions of historic non-right-wing movements in the past that opposed aristocracy. Also, you will not find any consistent definition of the left-right spectrum as a whole beyond the basic definition that the left supports advocacy of egalitarianism versus the right accepting hierarchy.--R-41 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the Christian fundamentalist wing and the leftovers of the far-right Dixiecrat-turned-Republicans who joined in 1968 in revolt against Lyndon Johnson's racial desegregation policies, the Republican Party is tame in its left-right stance in comparison with the extreme far-right movements in Europe and the Middle East. The far-right in Europe doesn't give a hoot in hell if the state runs everything, just look at the absolute monarchists of Joseph de Maistre, or the Catholic authoritarian corporatist Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right that publicly advocated a totalitarian conservative state closely modelled on fascism. It's not the left-right issue that is the basis of extremism in the Republican Party, its the extreme economic libertarianism amongst the Tea Party Republicans that is the major extreme element.--R-41 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The "left-right political spectrum" is basically obsolete, and has been for a long time. It is vastly different from place to place and time to time, and issue to issue. The desire to categorise groups on it is problematic in the best of times. By European standards, both major American parties are "centrist" with a very slight tilt in each which is insignificant. Collect (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, that's your opinion about the left-right spectrum, it is still used by scholars and it is is not our business here to discuss its legitimacy, and it is still regularly used in politics. The left-right spectrum is significant in understanding a major aspect of political thinking, the problem is that it is an overused analysis in the US that is contorted by political competition and polarization. However Collect, you have reluctantly stumbled upon the reality of the differences of the two major parties on the left-right spectrum. The two parties were consolidated in the first place as rivals over a difference in attitude and policy towards the extension of slavery into territories that were to be added to the US, many Democrats continued to hold Lincoln and the Republicans in contempt for years for their claim that he violated states' rights, that is the original basis of their existence and that basis has become irrelevent over the years.--R-41 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for US voters, the US has a strong yellow journalism media with the generally pro-Republican Fox News versus the generally pro-Democrat MSNBC that both exaggerate the differences between the parties, neither news organization speaks of the fact that the Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama administrations have repeatedly sought and gained bipartisan support for a number of major policies. It was former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt who was the one who promoted the minimum wage and a social safety net that the extreme-libertarian Tea Party Republicans rail about, but that is forgotten because his relative, Franklin D. Roosevelt happened to be a Democrat, pursued the same goal but under another party. And Ron Paul denounces Abraham Lincoln - the founder of the Republican Party - as a despot who caused an unnecessary war - that is the kind of political language that used to be used by southern Democrats.--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Its not like Ron Paul got many votes in the primary any way... He has a fanatical group of supporters and a cult of personality among them but he doesn't really appeal to the mainstream GOP voter. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The "mainstream GOP voter" has drastically changed over the years since its foundation, as I said, there was Theodore Roosevelt who promoted a social safety net who was for a time a Republican President, there was Dwight Eisenhower who called himself a "progressive conservative" and a supporter of Keynesianism, there was Nixon - who openly declared himself a Keynesian and who won over the southern Democrat vote who were angry about racial desegregation initiated by Lyndon Johnson. And the beloved Republican idol Reagan's economics was challenged by Gerald Ford and especially by George H. W. Bush who called his economic strategy of increasing military spending in combination with tax cuts "voodoo economics" Now the Republicans have an non-white Indo-American governor, Bobby Jindal in the deep South. There are Christian Republicans who oppose gay marriage and want a constitutional ban, and then there are libertarian Republicans who say that it is none of the state's business to pass laws on marriage. I honestly can't tell what universal principles "mainstream GOP voter" stands for, if any, based on the party's history; the party has factions.--R-41 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree (somewhat), and that's due more to re-aligment than anything... Both parties had moderate, liberal, and conservative wings from the 1900s-1980s. When Reagan came around he had the unique strategy of uniting the conservative southern Democrats (many of which became Republicans or were replaced by Republicans) and conservative Republicans into an informal conservative coalition'By the 1990s the liberals were mostly gone and the party consisted of conservatives and moderates. And just as the liberals left the GOP or were voted, conservatives left the Democratic Party or were voted out, leaving the Dems with moderates and liberals. Now there isn't a real liberal wing at the national level in the GOP and there isn't a real conservative wing at the national level in the GOP (yes, conservative Democrats exist but they aren't really conservative in any sort of modern sense, rather they are populist-minded centrists). Both still exist at the state levels, with conservative Democrats common and popular in the South in places like Arkansas, Alabama, and North Carolina (my home state) and liberal Republicans common in places like Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Its really hard to define either party as squarely one position, however, when the state parties are so radically different and the members don't all agree. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
But there is greater irony to the claim that Reagan distinctly made the party the way it is today - during the Reagan administration bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans was more common, even though the parties had differences. The Bush-Quayle Willie Horton ad began the gradual descent into the viscious partisan politics associated with the Clinton versus Gingrich partisan feud over health care and welfare reform, which is pretty much the same issue of division exists today. And the Republican position of opposing both universal health insurance and any major state-provided health insurance in a two-tier system, is not conventional amongst right-wing parties across the world. Every major OECD country except for the USA has major state-provided health insurance for medically-necessary services to those who do not have financial resources to pay for private health insurance. Moderate centre-right libertarians, neoliberals, and Christian democrats in these OECD countries want the health insurance limited to necessary services and only for those who cannot afford private insurance, in what is called a "two-tier" health care system. In two-tier systems the costs of state-provided health insurance are less than that of universal health insurance, by focusing on guaranteeing health care to the poor, while wealthy members of society pay for private health insurance and pay a degree of taxes for the poor to have health care coverage. So again, the major Republican position in opposition to any substantial state-provided health insurance is strongly economic libertarian, but it is not conventional of most right-wing movements in the developed world.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
While I love to see lively and civil political debate, I regret having to cough up the dreaded holy trinity of not. a. forum. I think we;ve gone a bit past discussing additions to the article based on RS and are into the realm of (well -argued) political history discussion and speculation. Just a friendly check.. let's start discussing the merits of the change based on RS, or let's end the conversation. No offenseintended of course. Jbower47 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

comments about 20th century

In the early part of the century, the article as currently constructed jumps from T. Roosevelt & Taft DIRECTLY to the 1920s (President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had defeated both T. Roosevelt & Taft in 1912, and went on to serve 2 terms).

It also notes the Republicans capturing Congress in 1946. OK, but that lasted only 2 years, with the Democrats taking back Congress in the wake of Harry Truman's 1948 attacks on the "do-nothing Republican 80th Congress". The Republicans also gained slim control of both houses of Congress in 1952 election (which saw Eisenhower newly elected to presidency), but lost it in 1954 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Official" Color

I do not believe that either the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party have official colors. This should be changed to UNofficial. 98.165.33.229 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

lucky duckies

I added the following sentence to the Economic policies subsection: "In recent years a growing number of Republicans have come to believe that taxes should be raised on poor people who currently pay no income tax.[1][2]" Collect reverted with the comment: "seems a heavy use of opinion pieces which does not meet the level needed to make claims about the party per se - and not based on any solid facts (even a poll) to make the claim as a fact." Collect's comment is incorrect. The two sources are reliable, non-opinion sources and this is an important and newsworthy trend in Republicanism. The Times article says that the new position "has gained currency on the right in recent years" and refers to its intellectual underpinnings (books, editorials, etc.). And the Slate article pointed out that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and now Romney all support this position. These are solid facts. Regardless, if Collect or anyone else has a problem with the sources I provided then it would have been more productive to edit and improve rather than to simply revert. (BRD: "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can.") --Nstrauss (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The Slate cite is an opinion piece by David Weigel. He writes commentary such as The Romney Tax Returns, and His Insanely Low Heart Rate , etc. So -- RS for his opinions, not RS for claims of fact. The NYT article is RS, but does not support the claims made for it (basically it says some would increase taxes, and other Republicans would reduce taxes on the poor). It states Mr. Romney waded into an ideological clash pitting two strands of conservative thinking against each other: the longstanding goal of reducing the tax burden on the poor with tax credits versus the growing anxiety that the nation’s “takers” are now overtaking its “makers.” which is not the same as the claim being made. It cites no figures other than the opinions of its authors who do not say "a growing number of Republicans have come to believe that taxes should be raised on poor people who currently pay no income tax" or anything reasonable close thereto. And again - the Slate article is RS for Weigel's opinions, but not for claims of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC) .

3 points:

  1. New York Times: The article says, "The notion that too few Americans are paying income taxes has gained currency on the right in recent years." Please identify how the proposed sentence not a WP:PARAPHRASE of that. The proposed sentence doesn't say that all Republicans agree with this, it simply says there are a growing number of them in recent years.
  2. Slate: The article points to the easily verifiable facts I identified above (namely, that 4 primary candidates from across the ideological spectrum all took this view) and links to other news articles that state as much. I'm baffled as to how you can call this not a reliable source for the purpose I'm proposing it for. Plus, I don't understand how you can call this an opinion piece just because you call other articles by the same author opinion pieces. To me this seems to be an analysis piece. AFAIK we cite analysis pieces all the time.
  3. Again, if you have a beef with the sources then it would be more productive to either find better sources or alter the language to fit your understanding of the sources, rather than to revert. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The Slate source is absolutely not reliable for factual statements.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Why not? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"Opinion pieces....are rarely reliable for statements of fact", according to WP:RS. But allow me to backpedal a bit: If you want to use Slate for its "analysis", that is fine. We just need to make clear that Slate is the source examining facts and drawing conclusions from them, by ascribing those conclusions to Slate. Then, we can discuss how much weight Slate's opinions are due. Because the NYT and several other sources have said similar things, it would be fair game to say that "several commentators" have discussed this growing rift in the GOP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I started a discussion at WP:RSN about this. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not intending we use the Slate article for its analysis; if I were, the proposed sentence would say something about raising taxes on the poor as being the "new GOP orthodoxy." My proposed sentence is much weaker than that. The purpose of citing this article is for its facts, namely, that three 2012 GOP primary candidates from across the political spectrum plus the WSJ have all stated their support for this position. If the Slate article is opinion (and I don't think it is), it should fall into the exception to the rule you quoted ("rarely") since it uses direct quotes that are otherwise publicly available and provides hyperlinks to the original reporting. Regardless, hopefully we'll get some helpful comments about this at WP:RSN. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's one thing to state the opinions from an opinion piece as fact, another to use the factual parts so as to avoid WP:SYNTH. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Republicans are NOT better educated than Democrats

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/ This study shows that in 2008(and now) thew educated favor democrats for president and congress. Also republican states are less educated and poorer than northern states. 209.129.243.100 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed this. Ausman (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can provide more references if someone wants me to. I also this it is a good idea to remove the now out-of-date graphs on party representation percentage by college degree, as the information is misleading now. What do other's think?

This was reverted without any comment, this is not cool. I am going to change it back. If you want to talk about this, then talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausman (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Logo star orientation

Need something about the star orientation on the logo changing around the year 2000, according to Mother Jones, Russia Today, etc. -98.207.41.67 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed this comment when it was fresh...Can't help but chuckle when I see those two sources cited side-by-side. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Racial polarization

Since there's already a section on trends, it seems like the best place to discuss the racial polarization of recent elections and the current "soul-searching" narrative. However, I'd like to see what more experienced editors think about undue weight and all that. Rendinan (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Badly cited article, needs re-write

This article has many bad-quality citations, most of them from newspapers, or websites, with almost no scholarly sources. There are so many unsourced conclusions as well as very biased conclusions in this article that a significant portion of the article looks like it was written by someone with a Grade 7 education level who does not understand either Wikipedia's guidelines, nor even basic ways to keep an article as neutral as possible. The intro and some parts of the article are good-quality, but there are too many unsourced assertions and bad quality sources for those that are sourced. The article uses an outdated website to make the claim that Republican-sponsored welfare cuts were beneficial to welfare recipients, from this now-deleted source: http://web.archive.org/2006-04-28/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/welfare/042806welfarereport.pdf. That is a very contestable claim that itself would require indepth studies to verify; and furthermore, that it is using an outdated website that it has attempted to access using a web archive, is out of date and thus not acceptable. This article needs scholarly historical studies of the Republican Party as well as scholarly political science studies of it.--R-41 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I ditto this sentiment. I came to this article as I am reading the James McPherson book about the Civil War who describes in detail the origins of the GOP. He writes that the GOP started as the progressive party in the USA. This seems to be an important detail, missing from the article; which seems skewed towards a premise that the GOP is the conservative party. (I am not an expert, but the Gould book also describes the GOP as being progressive up until the schism during the Roosevelt administration. Also, the unsourced sentence about the early support of hard money/gold standard seems simplistic or wrong. McPherson describes the support of the early GOP for the US banking in opposition to the Democratic opposition to banking, so something is dubious here and smacks of modern editorial bias. This could be fixed by some increased reliance on scholarly sources with citations to allow verification. In short, I came here to learn about the history of the GOP origins, and was sorely disappointed. 205.172.16.190 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, a encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.169.153 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Doubletalk in lede

American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism, as many principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism.[4] Rather, the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.[4]

Two problems here: One, it's appallingly bad writing. Two, it's POV and untrue. A small but influential minority of Republicans actually adheres to a modern libertarian interpretation of "classical liberalism." This does not mean that Republican-style conservatism is "largely based upon" classical liberalism.

Note that on the page cited, Farmer calls classical liberalism "***one of*** the dominant ideologies within ... the Republican Party" and does not say that " many principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism," or "the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles," or any words to those effect.

The whole passage I cited should be replaced with something like, "Many Republicans adhere to classical liberalism, as distinct from the social liberalism of the Democratic party." 184.145.67.248 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with your suggestions. A bit of explanation as to how classical liberalism is distinct from social liberalism, which is what is considered 'liberal' in the US, might be warranted for people who have no clue what the terms mean. Toa Nidhiki05 19:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism?

Should nationalism be added as one of the ideoligies considering their strong belief in American Exceptionalism and consistantly saying they stand for "true American values"? I don't think their racist ultra nationalists or anything but they defininitly seem to be the more "nationalistic" of the two major parties. Plenty of sources for this can be found if you guys think it's appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: There are 46 Republican Sena...

OberstKlink21 posted this comment on 15 June 2013 (view all feedback).

There are 46 Republican Senators and 234 Representatives. The Chart at the top says 45 and 233 respectively.

Any thoughts?

ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) posted: A review of the recent history of the US Senator count has led me to make a suggestion. For the last ten days, the US Senate has indeed had 46 Republicans, following the temporary interim appointment on 10 June 2013 of Joe Chiesa to represent New Jersey. This may change on 25 June 2013 following a special US Senate special election in Massachusetts, and will likely change on 16 October 2013 following another US Senate special election in New Jersey. Temporary changes (before a special election) and/or interim changes (remainder of the six year term) such as these are not uncommon. Perhaps the set of such numbers in "the chart at the top" should be accompanied by a date reflecting their last update.

Policy sections

It seems to me that there's quite a bit of clutter in the policy sections regarding past administrations, dating back to even Eisenhower. Shouldn't there be more of an emphasis on policies advocated in the modern day? Perhaps we could rewrite the policy sections with more an emphasis on the policies of congressional Republicans (such as the policies in the Ryan budget) and, to a lesser extent, Republican governors. Thoughts? 69.243.154.129 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Drug Use" Edit request on 17 July 2013

"'The War on Drugs': Republicans generally support the War on Drugs, and oppose the Legalization of drugs, believing that smoking and drugs are immoral and wrong, and the country should do its best to protect people from illegal drugs, and support Just Say No."

The above blurb is without a source and does not represent the heart of the Republican stance on drug regulation, because, although some Republicans believe drug use is "immoral and wrong," there are many who oppose drug-use because of health related issues. Truer to rational Republican form would be to say:

"Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use, prescription or illicit, because of the high levels of drug-related fatalities in society (second only to auto damage). Jail penalty, health rehabilitation, drug court, prescription licensing, or legalized drug regulation (alcohol for example) are seen as viable and beneficial restriction options by the Republican party."

Quick possible sources: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Prescription-Drugs.php http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Drugs.htm

Thank you, - A Rational Citizen


70.185.252.162 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the original text should be changed. I particularly support removing the word "immoral" as applied to the drug view of Republicans generally. It is also clearly not true that "Republicans generally believe that smoking is immoral". However, I do not support the nature of the replacement text and references suggested by Rational Citizen (talk). I got bogged down in Rational Citizen's suggested replacement (somewhere around "auto damage"). I was also rather surprised to read Rational Citizen's claim in his first ten words: "Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use". I thus checked the suggested references, and must report that IMHO neither is a suitable source (realizing that these were just quick suggestions).
The first suggested reference tries to treat every "political issue of the day" (2012) with unbiased balance by presenting both sides of the story. That website could be used as a source both for and against every political issue, including this one. However, it did lead me to a copy of the official 2012 Republican Platform (see my suggested references below). This latter document was notable to me for being a non-reference on the matter of drug abuse. There is no mention of any 2012 Republican Party policy on drug abuse or misuse (prescription or otherwise). The only reference related to drugs and criminal activity is the solitary appearance of the "war on drugs" way down on page 47 of 50. Its appearance there is only incidental to voicing "support" of Mexico and Colombia in their drug enforcement efforts. This lack of stated policy is in stark contrast to the Republican Party's official platform in 2004, which contains specific attacks on Clinton and Democrats for their "virtual surrender in the War on Drugs", and reiterated the Republican Party call for the death penalty applied to drug dealer "kingpins".
Both of those statements from the 2004 policy platform appear in the second of Rational Citizen's suggested references above, along with similar comments. It is true that neither of Rational Citizen's references nor those two Republican platforms mention drugs as immoral, but neither reference supports the claim above, that "Republicans generally support the cause of minimal psychoactive drug use". The first reference provides both sides to every issue and doesn't state policy. The second reference certainly doesn't support legalization or condone illicit use in any form - the nearest it comes is pledging (in 2004) to expand support for individuals working hard to overcome drugs by seeking treatment and rehabilitation, through the [then] President's Access to Recovery program (ATR).
In summary, I support removal of the word "immoral" - wrongly attributed here to Republicans generally about both smoking and drugs. I suggest that the Republican Party has lessened its attention on "The War on Drugs", observable by comparing their 2004 and 2012 platforms. I do not believe that the Republican Party has actually reversed its previous position though; I see no evidence to support the specific replacement text proposed (particularly the first ten words), and I don't consider the two suggested references to be useful in the context of supporting such proposed change. I wouldn't have a suggestion for replacement text, but as Rational Citizen's template forced him to do so, and in my dual beliefs that Wikipedia records externally verifiable information without adding bias or opinion, and that this Wikipedia article is about the Republican Party (not the same thing as Republicans generally), here's my humble tuppence or two cents worth:
The War on Drugs: The Republican Party initiated and has fully supported the War on Drugs. The Party opposes the legalization of illicit drugs, stating that they significantly impact violent crime and health. However, the amount of focused attention on this issue dropped considerably, based on a comparison of the 2004 and the 2012 editions of the Republican Party Platform with barely an incidental mention in the latter.
My suggested references to support this are:
2004 Republican Party platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/25850.pdf
2012 Republican Party platform: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
I am sorry, Rational. I wish they had the more enlightened view of your suggested text. With thanks from an irrational Non-citizen, but I am algebraic, and aka: ChrisJBenson (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rivertorch (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

KKK, Slavery and the Democrats?

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty

Black Louisiana Senator Explains Why He Left Democratic Party and Became a Republican https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oOysfAAsmQ

Greetings from Switzerland, Republicans Abroad Switzerland (www.swissgop.org) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, the KKK are liberals. Thanks for playing. -Laikalynx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Here you will find some rare political pictures from back then: http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000014/19753_lg.jpeg , http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000014/16363_lg.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

History

On October 12, 1853, Amos Tuck of Exeter, New Hampshire called together a dozen representatives of four separate abolitionist political parties: the Independent Democrats, the Whigs, the Free Soil Party and the Know Nothing (or American) Party. The purpose of this Exeter meeting was to form a new, combined party. At this meeting, Tuck suggested the name: The Republican Party. (citation: Birth of the Republican Party, Hugh Gregg. In late 1853, Horace Greely a wrote of this meeting.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExeterGOPer (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Political position

I know it's debatable whether the Republicans are center-right or right-wing and whether the Democrats are centrist or center-left, but is it not general consensus that when compared to one another, the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats and the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans? Providing this was sourced, could it be added to the article?--Jay942942 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it already noted in the article when it says the GOP is conservative and the Democrats are liberals? Toa Nidhiki05 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the original request by Jay942942 was for specific use of the words left and right (inherited, I'll note, from a seating arrangement that developed in the French National Assembly at the onset of its revolution in 1789). Particularly with that etymology in mind, I personally don't see left and right as more explanatory than conservative and liberal, but perhaps others do. It seems innocuous enough to add. I will do so shortly. OK? ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
'left' and 'right' terms began in France 1790s and reached the US in the early 20th century. Since the 1930s they include "liberal" and "conservative" except that "Far Left/New Left" and "Liberal" elements in US have been quite hostile to each other since 1940 or so. GOP= right is fine with me Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this as long as 'left' is added to the Democratic Party article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
but it's not symmetrical. the parties are not mirror images of each other. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand some people take offense to the idea that the Democratic Party represents the political left of the United States, but the fact of the matter is that it does; in a two-party system, one will lean to the right and the other will lean to the left. In the US, the right is represented by the GOP and the left is represented by the Democrats. The current well-thought out consensus is to not include anything relating to political position on both articles. As far as I am concerned, any changes should apply to both articles. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
well no, both parties are complex coalitions. The great majority of GOP elements are "right" but not so for the Democrats. The Dems have important "center" and "liberal" components as well as a "left." Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet the leadership of the Democratic Party (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama) consists entirely of liberals - who occupy the left of the US political spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
They're in the center, with GOP to their right. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they are not. They are social liberals, an ideology widely regarded as belonging to the center-left in most of the world. Similarly, the Republican Party is accepted as a member of the International Democrat Union, an international alliance of center-right political parties. Toa Nidhiki05 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
My my! It's getting as rowdy as the House of Commons in here! In the context of the global political spectrum, America's two main parties are not far apart. Both parties are clearly centre-right from the global median, (no matter which umbrella organization accepts them). The meaning of terms like "liberal" and "socialism" have devolved so far in America that they can no longer be used constructively in an international forum like this. But I'd like to get back to the original context. I believe that it is generally "accepted" and "acceptable to state" that the Democratic Party is to the left of, and the Republican Party to the right of the other one. There is necessarily a symmetry to their relative overall position, and by not considering absolute position on either a local or global spectrum, we avoid this kind of contention (and dodeca-indenting). Returning to User:Jay942942's original question, yes after consideration, I do think this article would benefit from a clarification such as this:
The Republican Party is positioned to the right of the Democratic Party in the political spectrum.
With thanks ChrisJBenson (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush "moderate"

On what spectrum would Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and George W. Bush be considered "moderate"? Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative". Most people identify him as a conservative. Same with Benjamin Harrison and McKinley, the conservatives of the 19th century. I object to this terminology. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

yes I agree. They were all best characterized as "conservative." Most historians agree, I believe. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro wording

I live in the UK so may be missing something but I found the following sentence overly convoluted - perhaps it makes more sense to Americans? "Rather, the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse." 86.136.107.7 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's convoluted, all right. I suppose what it's trying to say is that the party's principles are in opposition to what passes for liberal principles in today's Democratic Party, following the bipartisan shift to the right that occurred during the 1980s and '90s. "Classical principles"? Not so much. But I don't have the inclination to try to fix it. In fact, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the "classical principles" wording means support for ideas that were considered liberal or progressive 100 or so years ago, as opposed to those considered liberal or progressive today. But no, I'm staying with you on the sidelines. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Government shutdown and debt limit

Lots of press currently about the Republican demands for funding the government. Can someone used to working with this page add a summary? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: "The Republicans, being complete f---tards in their desire to kill Romneycare (now known as Obamacare), are holding the government hostage. But they failed to foresee the shutdown wouldn't just affect programs no one cares about, like the national parks, but also programs whose interruption would offend everyone, like military death benefits. So now they're trying to restore selected programs that everyone cares about." Defender of the Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Today, Reagan remains one of the nation's most popular presidents, according to opinion polling.

This really needs to be verified. There is no question that Reagan remains very popular as an icon of the right. This unsubstantiated quote in the article should probably be removed or verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.41.191 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Change leader of RGA to Chris Christie

Change leader of the Republican Governors Association from Bobby Jindal to Chris Christie, the leadership was recently changed.

Chris Christie's Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie RGA Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Governors_Association

Article from POLITICO indicated the change in leadership in the RGA: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/george-w-bush-chris-christie-republican-governors-association-100230.html#ixzz2lKLUCECj

Themayor897 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The election of New Jersey and Virgina Governors does is misplaced

the section after the election of 2008 includes a sentence about Virgina and New Jersey governor elections which should go elsewhere, as it interrupts a narrative generally about the presidency and congressional balance, not gubernatorial contests. 199.27.235.4 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the narrative at that point is about the history of the party, presented in chronological order. Naturally the presidency, congress and senate will be prominent in that, but it need not be to the exclusion of other things. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Political position

Why don't we have their political position listed? I think "Right-wing" would be the most accurate description, because like the liberal Democratic Party of Japan they are more nationalistic than your typical center-right party, more hostile to the welfare state, and contain a lot of neoconservatives, but they still aren't outright far-right nazis. Anyone agree with making their position "Right-wing" as opposed to center-right (despite their membership in the International Democrat Union, and they're more right-wing than many of those parties as well) or far-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If we ever list a political position, it has to come from reliable sources. It cannot be what you have decided it is through your own thought process and based on what you think about other parties. That would be both original research and synthesis, neither of which is allowed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tables in the "Electoral history" section

Not being an American, and not having a comprehensive background on the history and politics of the US, i find those two tables rather "dry." While i could eventually understand that pink represents Rep/GOP and light blue should therefore represent Dem (the "colour: Red" fact in the infobox at the top of the page isn't very prominent), i still did not have an immediate idea what those "Party shading" on each row actually depict. Only after i tapped into my math skills to check the percentages i realized it's about who had the majority. Maybe some kind of short legend might be appropriate for that section? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, are changes such as from 35 / 100 (1960) to 34 / 100 (1962), shown as -3, or from 50 / 100 (2000) to 51 / 100 (2002), shown as +2, actually correct?! -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trends

I noticed multiple errors in this post, one of which was when a user tried to slip one opinion in by using a semi-colon. Here the user mentioned, "The Republican party's candidate for President in 2012 lost to President Barack Obama, the fifth time in six elections the Republican candidate received fewer votes than his democratic counterpart has inspired some republicans to speak out against their own party; former Senator Bob Dole said..." The misinformation is when the user mentioned that the last election was the "fifth time in six elections the Republican candidate" had fewer votes. This is an opinion, not a fact.

In what possible way is that an opinion? You might complain about how the fact was arrived at or whether it was cited or something along those lines, but the claim is certainly factually accurate. On what grounds are you claiming it is "not a fact"? Just look at the popular vote statistics for the past 6 elections and you will see that the only time that a Republican had more votes was the second time that G. W. Bush was elected. They're easily available on the Wikipedia pages for the relevant elections, if you want to check. It's a fact, not an opinion. 2.125.26.108 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

Under 20th Century, George W. Bush should not be listed as having been elected. He was elected and served in the 21st century. 75.114.27.46 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite widespread misunderstanding and unwillingness from many to accept mathematical logic and truth, the year 2000 was technically part of the 20th century. Obviously he served in the 21st century. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: per HiLo48. 2000 was part of the 20th century. LittleMountain5 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

GOP political position should be listed

I would argue that they are right-wing, as in to the right of center-right. Last time I brought this up you guys wanted sources so I'll provide some this time. Here's one and another and another and another. Meanwhile I couldn't get any hits that honestly claimed that the GOP was a center-right party (even most republican blogs didn't bother), with the exception of Erick Erickson's blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources to determine the factual political position of a political party, especially if they come from an author writing from an ideological slant or advocating a policy position.. Toa Nidhiki05 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
How about this? There are tons of articles on this really, I'm amazed their political position hasn't been listed yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk)
Still an opinion piece and it doesn't actually call them 'right-wing'. Political position not listed due to consensus and it probably won't be listed anytime soon. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Environmental policies

The section on environmental policies seems to be poorly written, self-contradictory, and somewhat biased. It opens with a remarkably vague statement that is not sourced. Then, it cites opposition to the kyoto protocol as support for environmental policies, which is absolutely ridiculous; moreover, that sentence talks about Clinton, so it is confusing on multiple levels. Further, it lists nuclear power as a "clean" technology, which it definitely is not. It is a "carbon-neutral" source of power, but not "clean." Finally, it does not link the GOP's general opposition to its support for small government, which makes it a little incomplete. If there are no objections here, I intend to re-write this section, fixing the issues I brought up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten some things mixed up here - the article does not refer to nuclear power as 'clean'. It is right after talking about 'clean alternative fuels', yes, but all it says is that candidates endorsed increased use of nuclear power. I don't have issue with a re-write but I would suggest you post it on the talk first so other editors can help out and improve it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I was wrong on that particular issue, but in my defense I plead poor phrasing. It says "clean fuels, nuclear power, and ethanol" or something like that; thus it could be interpreted to mean "clean fuels like nuclear fuel and ethanol." Regardless, that is one point amongst many. I will post a new version here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Should say "candidates who" and not "candidates that." Agree with Vanamonde93 that rewrite of paragraph is needed. User:guest 2 July 2014

Added Conservative populism to the Infobox

I added Conservative populism to the infoxbox and somehow didn't see the start a discussion thing. I hope that wasn't too quick. However, I don't think there will be objections, since the Republican Party (United States) article itself, as well as the Conservative populism and even the Tea Party all mention this already. --Athaba (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I added some references, like the Encyclopedia Britannica and an article by Forbes. However I wanted to add that these sources also mention Libertarian Populism. So maybe Populism is better, since there are many different movements with their own form of populism in the party? --Athaba (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Most political parties are described in terms of being left or right wing. Why is the Republican party called conservative instead? Wouldn't "right wing" be more in keeping with Wikipedia convention and political science practice?101.98.175.68 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo regarding Ukraine

It says on the footnote 109 that the year was 2014, yet on the main text 2017 stands. 88.115.20.61 (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

Stephen2000 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC) hi i have to tell you something a democratic senator just resigned today now republicans are hold 20 seats in the virgina state senate and republicans hold 20

so what i need you to do is to add one more seat to the senate they should now have 46 seats in the us senate

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

There has always been a lot of hype about global warming. However, 2014 is the year where scientists, and other influential figures (like the military) have started to address it as a serious threat. Technologies are being developed and more people than ever are addressing it and coming up with solutions. However, the Republicans are denying that climate change exists, and refuse to change the infrastructure from one that relies on fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives. Not many people know about this (especially not worldwide) and I believe including an edit to account for the Republicans' decision will spread the word and help the Republicans change their mind. This is not to degrade their party or to endorse the opposing one, it is simply putting facts on Wikipedia. GalileoDJMayo (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  NQ  talk 02:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Left/Right comparison of GOP vs. other countries' main conservative parties

How and where should information regarding the fact that the GOP is much further to the right than similarly situated center-right parties in other industrialized countries, such as the UK's Conservative Party or Germany's Christian Democratic Union, be put? Should there be a new section?Skberry889 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

. The comparisons don't help much. the UK's main conservative party is UKIP. The problem is that the term "conservative" has a very different meaning in Europe than in the US. In Europe it recalls the established church/aristocracy that does not exist in USA. In the GOP there is a major libertarian element that in Europe is called "liberal" or "neoliberal" and the GOP also has a very large religious right component that is missing in secularize Europe. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the GOP's corrollary in the UK is the UKIP, which is, from what I understand, a fringe-right wing group. I was specifically referring to parties like the UK Conservative Party and the CDU/CSU in Germany.Skberry889 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
In context of UK politics UKIP is conservative, not fringe right. It's main appeal is to anti-EU voters, anti-immigration voters, as well as traditional Tories that dislike the fairly moderate Cameron ministry. Keep in mind, the Conservative Party has shifted quite a bit to the left to try and match Labour's rightward shift under Tony Blair, and is now locked into an alliance with the Liberal Democrats, who by most standards are a center-left party. But basically there's where we run into the problem - different nations have different political systems. Throwing a political party from one country into another is not a good measure as to how left or right one is, as left or right are defined on a country-by-country basis. It's basically comparing apples to oranges. Toa Nidhiki05 03:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It's relative to country. Rightists in Europe support monarchy and value tradition above all (even if that tradition involves government). Rightists in China are social democrats and social liberals. Rightists in America are neoliberal, with vastly varying views of social conservatism and neoconservatism. The definition of 'right' varies so much by country that it is difficult to compare. Toa Nidhiki05 22:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
interesting discussion--I copied it over to Talk:Conservatism to see if those folks have ideas. Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Description of Republican Party and Conservatism

"Currently the party's platform is generally based upon American conservatism,[2][3][4] in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse more liberal policies. American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism; some principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism.[5] Rather, the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.[5]"

The Republican Party is not simply a rejection of liberalism. Conservatism is a value in its own right. Conservatism is based on small government, individual power - the celebration of freedom. Look at your description of the Democratic Party vs the Republican and you will quickly see the absolute bias of this article.

I don't know if that's fair to say. That part of the article mentions the party's dedication to classical liberalism, which is essentially synonymous with modern American conservatism (limited government, a curtailment of government authority, individual rights, free markets, etc.) multiple times. Although maybe we could add some additional clarifying information stressing the relationship between classical liberalism and modern American conservatism since some readers may be unfamiliar with the terminology. AtLeastJeffersonLives (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

More recent progressive wing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Rjensen: what is the point of omitting Bartlett, O'Neill, Stockman, and Bair because "none of these are active Republican party leaders today" immediately after describing nine Republicans from before 1932 and eleven from before 1976? EllenCT (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

these folks are called "long time Republicans." no. they indeed do have opinions in 2014 but they have not been active in the GOP for many years. that is, their current opinions are quite different from their views when they were active in the GOP. We cannot call them a faction because no two of them work together--they are all separate from each other and stand apart from today's GOP. I think Noonan comes closest--she campaigned for Bush in 2004 but then she turned against his policies in 2005. She has NOT called for "more steeply progressive taxation" Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
They were all Republicans for the majority of their careers, and all rose to major positions of leadership. How are they not "long time Republicans"? How have Stockman's or O'Neill's views evolved since they were forced out because of them? The text didn't call them a faction, or suggest that they had anything in common other than their opinions to the left of the GOP's center. And why does it matter whether their views have changed at all? Omitting them leaves the reader with the impression that there were no demand-side Republicans in over two generations, which is simply untrue. And why isn't Noonan's linked call for government support of jobs instead of debt and deficit austerity advocating more progressive taxation than the mainstream GOP has been over the past couple decades? EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
None of them have been politically active in GOP since 2000 except Noonan briefly. Stockman has been out of politics since the 1980s & O'Neill never was in GOP politics. Blair has not been active in GOP for 25 years. Your text claims that they called for "more steeply progressive taxation" ??? when was that??? No RS is provided and I don't think that is true. If you want to write about demand-side GOP, then get someone who is a prominent party leader --say a top Senator or presidential wannabe --and who talks explicitly about demand. (steep taxes will lower demand) Support for jobs is standard GOP rhetoric in all factions, including those bitterly opposed to called for more steeply progressive taxes. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
O'Neill and Bair were appointed cabinet-level officials in the G.W. Bush administration. Bartlett was fired from a Republican think-tank because he was critical of Bush in 2005.[20] The text says they all want more steeply progressive taxation than mainstream GOP leaders which is absolutely, objectively true. I don't think you understand the difference between supply-side trickle-down and demand-side Keynesian economics. Talking about demand is something that trickle-down proponents (which both Stockman and Bartlett decry in no uncertain terms, and G.H.W. Bush made a campaign issue out of "voodoo economics") do all the time (e.g. "the rich will demand more labor if only we give them another tax cut.") Support for jobs has been second-fiddle to calls for tax and spending cuts for generations now in the GOP. Why do any of the figures you inserted from prior to 1976 or 1932 deserve more prominence? Omitting the more recent GOP progressives leaves the impression that there has been no recent dissent within the GOP on these issues. EllenCT (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
who says they wanted more steeply progressive taxation?? cite needed. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Bartlett, 2011, O’Neill from 2002, Stockman from the Reagan administration, Bair in 2013, Bair saying the same thing a few months ago. Noonan's op-ed is cited in the article, as is the Bair op-ed. EllenCT (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
a) only Bartlett said it--not any of the others. Bartlett has never been active in GOP (he was a midlevel staff person). None have been active in GOP in several decades (except Noonan briefly 10 years ago). It's illegal synthesis to invent a trend that no one says exists. Cabinet appointment does NOT require leadership role in party -- look at Geithner for example.Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The text doesn't say they were party officials, just "long time Republicans", not even "prominent" although they were all extremely prominent over decades. It doesn't say there was a trend; it explicitly calls out these individuals because they are exceptions to the rule. Plenty of the people from 80 years ago you added were never party officials, either; for example William Borah. What do you think Bair, O'Neill, or Stockman didn't say? How exactly do you think contrasting the outspoken views of a handful of prominent Republicans who, as the text says, espouse policy prescriptions in sharp contrast with mainstream Republican leaders, is misleading? In terms of false impressions or errors of omission, if any? EllenCT (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
there are tens of millions of people who vote GOP for years and years. To associate five of them with Wikipedia's GOP aericle they need to be prominent inside the party--like Borah, a leading Senator for 30 years and presidential hopeful (he ran for the nomination in 1936 losing to Landon). He was a top leader of the left/progressive wing of the GOP. [of your 5, only Stockman was elected to high office--to the House in the 1970s] In any case only one of them (Bartlett) called for higher marginal tax rates, so it's a false allegation against living people (BLP rule) to allege the others did so. They did NOT make this call. The cited article on O'Neill says he favored LOWER tax rates but wanted to wait to cut them. Its ridiculous to call them the "progressive wing" since they have zip in common. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Republican Party (United States) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I should say that, apart from my interest in US politics, I do not have any special knowledge about the current dispute, and am just going by what is said here.

It seems to me that the section is dealing with major figures in Republican party who can be said to constitute a "liberal wing". It is not talking about this or that person associated with Republican party, who hold some liberal views. While I agree with EllenCT about the sources demonstrating that Bartlett et. al. hold liberal views on many issues, I agree with almost all else of what Rjensen has said, namely they are not leaders of the Republican party today, but people who have been associated with Republicans generally (usually going back some years). They do not, in my mind, constitute a "liberal wing" within the party and no source is given to connect them. To put them in this section would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Kingsindian (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The text in dispute doesn't call them a "wing" or "faction" or any other kind of coherent group, just points them out as examples of "long time" Republicans who "have spoken out for more steeply progressive taxation than mainstream GOP leaders have supported." @Kingsindian: would you please reconsider with that in mind? The point is simply to show that there has been dissent by prominent GOP-affiliated government officials since 1976. Doesn't omitting any mention of them disadvantage the reader by implying that there hasn't been such dissent since 1976? EllenCT (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: I did see that the text did not call them a wing or faction. My opinion was not heavily based on that. The preceding paragraph is talking about historical GOP leaders who espoused liberal or progressive policies and which could be seen as a "liberal wing" within the GOP. This is the context in which the statement in question is made. As mentioned in my previous statement, none of the people mentioned are GOP leaders, they are only associated with the Republicans, sometimes going back many years. As far as I can see they have little power inside the party as well. Any big political movements will have dissidents. That is not the issue. If you wish to talk about dissent within the party (in the progressive, not the Tea Party direction), you have to give WP:RS about a trend there, not pick out a few figures like this. My opinion is based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Kingsindian (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether cabinet-level officials and presidential speechwriters are "leaders" or merely "associated" is a legitimate question, but the text in dispute doesn't call them either. Assuming that it benefits the reader to know that prominent and outspoken Republicans have existed left of the GOP center since 1976, what is the best way to phrase the statement? Is there a reason that WP:WEIGHT would tend to eclipse WP:COMPREHENSIVE in this case? What in particular are you claiming is original research or has been synthesized? EllenCT (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: I am not sure how WP:COMPREHENSIVE applies here. I don't see any harmful or sensitive information which is being censored. As to the other points, the WP:SYNTH issue is that the connection between these figures should be done by an WP:RS as a part of a trend, not an editor at Wikipedia. The way to include left of GOP center dissidents in this article would be to find a WP:RS detailing such a phenomenon, which is of sufficient magnitude and notable. For example, the preceding paragraph cites The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans. Kingsindian (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There are at least a dozen examples, with reliable sources on their dissent well-cited in their individual articles: Amo Houghton, Colin Powell, Jim Leach, Joseph Cao, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and possibly Michael Bloomberg, depending on which issues in particular you are looking at. Are you saying you don't think any can be included as prominent recent examples as dissenters from the left within the GOP unless there is one source tying them all together as part of a trend? Why? What part of policy is that based on? The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans ends in 1976. How is it possible, given your opinion on excluding subsequent dissenters from the left, to keep the readers from thinking that dissent from the left within the GOP didn't end in 1976? Does the Republican Main Street Partnership fill the bill as representing a "wing" or "faction"? By the way [21] is a source from this year that leaves no question on David Stockman's position for more progressive taxation. EllenCT (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
two comments here -- EllenCT herself calls this section "More recent progressive wing". As for the new names yes they are the more moderate republicans (do not call them "left") but except Collins they all have retired from office & four have officially quit the GOP including Specter, Jeffords, Chafee and Bloomberg. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the name of the talk page section has what exactly to do with the article text in dispute? Powell is still a Republican, as are Stockman, O'Neill, Bair (not "Blair" as you repeatedly write) and most of the others except for the four you mention. But what does it matter -- if someone was a Republican for 30 years and they quit in 2005, does that mean they are no longer a "long time Republican"? The salient feature is that they were critical, and yes, critical from the left of the Republican mainstream. Honestly it is hard for me to believe that you are not just trolling at this point. And is it too much to ask for you to use WP:TALK reply indentation formatting? EllenCT (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: The 3O process is informal and non-binding. You are free to ignore me, if you feel

I am wrong. As to a source documenting a trend, yes, that is very important. It need not include all of the people, but it is not legitimate to pick out some people like this yourself. If there are indeed so many people who hold liberal ideas within the GOP, it should not be hard to find a source connecting at least some of them. I see you have opened an RfC for this, so I will not comment any further. Good luck with your edits. Kingsindian (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

NAC:Rough consensus is against the inclusion of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described? EllenCT (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes because otherwise the reader is given a very biased view of the party, with no hint of dissent for almost 40 years, contrary to WP:NPOV. This is my preferred text and references, but after the discussion above, I now think that Amo Houghton, Colin Powell, Jim Leach, Joseph Cao, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and Michael Bloomberg should also be mentioned. EllenCT (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No -- the dissidents appear from time to time but they retire from politics or leave the GOP -- as happened to all but Collins of the people listed by EllenCT. They do not form an organized faction and act entirely alone. Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Republican Main Street Partnership is a counter-example, but even if it did not exist, leaving the reader with the impression that dissidents simply have not existed for decades is the sort of bias that violates the WP:NPOV policy. If there is a reliable source saying that most Republican dissidents end up leaving the party or retiring, then that fact should be included. EllenCT (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Lumping liberal Republicans (who, along with conservative Democrats are basically extinct federally) with moderates is by no means reasonable. Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For myself, I am convinced that there are a significant number of moderate/progressive politicians that could be discussed here. But, Wikipedia takes a higher level of "convincing;" specifically, I am content with disparate sources proving isolated members to be progressive, but those same disparate sources are insufficient for the article. All they are good for, IMO, is for catalyzing a search for a solid unifying source; without that, I would have to vote no. This RfC is not framed to include the sources, so I am willing to wait till EllenCT can provide such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested in doing busywork for people who think Colin Powell is unworthy of inclusion without more convincing sources. Thanks anyway. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, as it would create an WP:UNDUE section, They may exist, and it maybe verifiable, but unless it is also balanced by those who believe that the GOP has moved too far to the left, then it would provide a balanced view of those who believe that the GOP has gone too far one way or the other. Perhaps the individuals should be listed in a Criticism of the Republican Party (United States) sub-article which includes both verified points of view that the party has gone too far to the left, or too far to the right.
I can't imagine a section about how the Democrat Party has moved too far to the left would be supported by active editors at that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No Per RightCowLeftCoast and the in-depth discussion elsewhere on this page that this proposal's language is OR and SYNTHESIS Capitalismojo (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe While criticism and controversy sections should generally be avoided, in the case of a policy topic - which an entry about a political party is - I think they are unavoidable. Mainstream Republicans of Washington is another example of widely RS / reported criticism (I was going to ping the creator of that article to comment here but it appears he was just blocked yesterday). There is also ample information to create a similar section for the Democratic Party entry (e.g. Zel Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc.). DocumentError (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not like this. The content in question is a very subjective and tenuous synthesis. Even the manner this RfC is phrased is loaded and leading. If a substantial wing of current and prominent Republicans stake out a divergent position within the party in the manner EllenCT is asserting then the sources will be plentiful and unambiguous. GraniteSand (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tea Party Republicans refuse to vote for Establishment Republicans

It is pretty widely acknowledged that prior to the election there was plenty of evidence that conservatives would stay home when election day came[3], and post-election analysis is pretty clear that at least 3-4 million conservatives did just that. They stood in strong refusal to vote for Mitt Romney.[4][5][6] This causes a lot of anger between the two camps. 64.134.180.210 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

yes. the technical term for that is suicide. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Separation of powers and balance of powers

"More recently, California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with the support of 16 other states, sued the Federal Government and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the right to set vehicle emission standards higher than the Federal Standard,[47] a right to which California is entitled under the Clean Air Act. As a result, Schwarzenegger, with the support of 16 other states, sued the federal government and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the right to set vehicle emission standards higher than the Federal Standard." The second sentence is completely useless because it repeats exactly what was said in the former sentence. I am not an active contributor, so I don't feel like editing this out. -- 58.7.140.249 (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Needs to mention the near switch of ideologies between old Republicans and modern Republicans.

The article says “The name reflects the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.” While most old Republicans believed in the importance of regulation in order to maintain a fair economy and country, most modern Republicans are somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum, especially in government. In the case of politicians, most are in favor of ventures into other countries, a focus on oil and military, and the deregulation of corporations. To my knowledge, there have been many more cases of corrupted Republican politicians than Democratic politicians withing the last century. All of the deregulation primarily driven by Republican politicians has also ironically let to a sort of aristocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:E554:1:50A0:7710:A659:AD76 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Christian right

Article should mention the Christian right, and detail republican campaigns to teach creationism instead of science, and also detail their efforts to deny climate change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.136 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The article already discusses climate change extensively. Would you elaborate on what you think is missing? This article needs to maintain a healthy balance in content, and it's essential that the article doesn't go very deep into one particular issue--especially if it's an issue that's not at the center of American politics today. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the article should mention the christian right and detail republican campaigns to teach creationism instead of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Add a Reagan Era subsection

Ronald Reagan is arguably the most popular Republican president. His presidency was dubbed the Reagan Era in which many Republicans praise and Reagan shifted the Republican Party. Should a Reagan Era subsection be added to show Reagan's impact on the party if not then add more info on Reagan;s great impact to the party. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Political Position

Why doesn't this page include a political position?

I had this same question, to be more accurate and detailed this page should really include a spot on the political scale, I recommend Right-wing.

I am a Republican and I agree with that placement; I am sure you can find a source saying that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.240.166 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

Please change "Penis... no really, penis." at the top right of the page to "Republican Party". This petty vandalism based on ideological views is inappropriate. 184.98.150.247 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done Cannolis (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

lets be truthful I want america back I want true freedom I hate obamacare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansand800000 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

Mansand800000 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |ideology = Historical:
Abolitionism
Classical liberalism
Progressivism
Social liberalism
Modern:
Conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Social conservatism
Neoconservatism

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Republicans say they are fiscal conservatives but they haven't governed like that. Reagan and both Bush 41 and 43 ran structual deficits and and increased spending much more than Clinton or Obama. The federal deficits increased under Republicans and fell under Democrats since 1980. Bill Clinton acted much more like a fiscal conservative than the republicans.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

72.223.17.94 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Relation to Catholic Church

The recent addition of the section "Relation to the Catholic Church" seems like NPOV to me. Why only discuss the Catholic church? I don't know the exact demographics, but I'd bet there are at least as many if not more protestants in the Republican Party and many non-religious Republicans as well. The only source that was provided in this section was a quote of Jeb Bush, which also seems like NPOV. Is Jeb Bush considered the authority on Catholic Republicans? I think this section addition should be reverted and discussed then added back if consensus is reached to do so. Abierma3 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic position has been widely reported in all the media and is covered in the RS. There are many "Protestant churches" --all of them much smaller--and the their role is covered here too. Jeb Bush was making a statement of his campaign position, --he is a leading presidential candidate and Catholic & his relationship to church teachings are relevant. This goes back to 1928 (Al Smith) and 1960 (JFK) or Catholic candidates for presidency....if nominated Bush would be the first Catholic GOP nominee. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If nominated this might be encyclopedic information. As of right now, Bush is just one of more than a dozen likely candidates, so unless you have crystal ball, Jeb Bush's opinions are not noteworthy in this encyclopedic article. Romney won the nomination as a Mormon, and this is not mentioned in the article. Someone has to give a valid explanation for why a poorly sourced Relationship with the catholic church section deserves to be under the Ideology and political positions heading alongside the legitimate sections Economic policies, Labor unions, Separation of powers and balance of powers, Environmental policies, and Social policies. This is obvious NPOV, especially when there is already a Religious beliefs subsection in the Demographics section. Abierma3 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I see no indication this is a major issue, or even a relevant section. Only one person is mentioned, the source is an opinion piece and it has no lasting implications. Toa Nidhiki05 20:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read the second source [22]: "Social conservatives in the Republican Party have long been aligned with the Catholic Church on controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. But since assuming the papacy in 2013, Francis has adopted a notably progressive tone, drawing a contrast between himself and his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. He's cautioned that the church has become "obsessed" with issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception and has appealed to Catholic leaders to focus on preaching inclusion and love." This is a neutral desciption of a potential conflict of interest inside the Republican Party and between the Church and the Republican party - and so is the section I added. Can you please explain why you consider this a violation of NPOV?
The section gives an estimation of the proportion of catholic Republicans in the United States Senate and in the United States House of Representatives. This suffices NPOV too. NewJohn (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Social conservatives are just one faction of Republicans. Catholics are just one faction of Republicans. The relationship between Catholic social conservatives and their church simply isn't noteworthy enough to deserve a major section under the "Ideology and political positions" heading in the Republican Party article. Maybe consider adding that information to this page instead. Abierma3 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If any political party is traditionally affiliated with Catholics, it is the Democrats. The Republican Party does not claim to represent Catholicism, or any other religion. Toa Nidhiki05 20:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WSJ article

I hereby move the following paragraph over from the article:

The 2016 presidential campaign was already underway as The Wall Street Journal in September 2014 handicapped the dozen or so most prominently mentioned GOP "wannabes" or potential candidates. Two are policy wonks. Representative Paul Ryan focuses on economic policies. Senator Marco Rubio has dropped his previous emphasis on immigration issues, but has issued a long series of position papers on domestic and foreign policy. Two elder statesmen are waiting in the wings: former governor Jeb Bush, and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Two potential nominees are engaged in late 2014 in rebuilding their reputation after serious mishaps: governors Chris Christie, and Rick Perry. Senator Ted Cruz is appealing to the most conservative elements by taking the position furthest to the right on economic, social, and national security issues. Three other governors are running as outsiders: Scott Walker, Bobby Jindall, and Mike Pence. Senator Rob Portman and former Senator Rick Santorum are long-shots. A unique position is held by Senator Rand Paul, with his distinctive strongly libertarian appeals on economics, foreign policy, and social issues.< ref >Gerald F. Seib, "How the 2016 GOP Wannabes Spent Summer", The Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2014.</ref>

This lengthy passage is entirely based on a single WSJ article and somebody's interpretation that this article "handicapped" Republican candidates in the 2016 (why not 2014?) elections. True or not, it is too detailed for this article here, too dependend on the single source (and OR) and also too much focused on a past, not particular noteworthy election. Str1977 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015

The link towards the bottom of the article that is supposed to link to the 'birther movement' page is nonoperational as "birther movement" is spelled incorrectly.

It says: "commenting about the birther movemen", leaving out the 't' at the end of the word "movement."

Please change "commenting about the birther movemen "[w]hy do senior Republican" to "commenting about the birther movement "[w]hy do senior Republican"

Thank you. Ejwriter 18:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Republican Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015

Change house leader to Paul Ryan 166.175.187.37 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The article already has that. RudolfRed (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Supplying citation for a "citation needed" note

Under "Ideology and Political Positions" -> "Second Amendment Rights", there is citation needed. I propose the following as a citation for this statement. http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-resist-democrats-call-for-tighter-gun-control-1449182078

Encyclopath (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Encyclopath (Ajoy Bhatia) 12/07/2015 6:18 PM PST

  1. ^ Weigel, David (August 22, 2011). "Republicans for Tax Hikes". Slate.
  2. ^ Anne Lowrey and Michael Cooper (September 18, 2012), With Tax Comments, Romney Wades Into a Conservative Rift, The New York Times
  3. ^ Vikers, Robert (June 08, 2012). "Tea party activists say they'll abstain from voting on Election Day". pennlive.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "What went wrong in 2012? The case of the 4 million missing voters". redstate.com. November 14, 2012.
  5. ^ Trende, Sean (November 08, 2012). "The Case of the Missing White Voters". realclearpolitics.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ McCarthy, Andy (November 10, 2012). "The Voters Who Stayed Home". nationalreview.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_6&oldid=1140125092"