Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 19

Allows to include trumpism as a fascist subtype and christo-fascist tendencies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/republican-party-donald-trump-voter-suppression-b1868426.html

Haverda, Myra B., and Jeffrey A. Halley. "Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Adorno’s psychological technique: Content analyses of authoritarian populism." tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 17, no. 2 (2019): 202-220.

Kelley, Colleen. "The Trump presidency: Democratic fatigue or fascism?." Communication Research and Practice (2022): 1-15.

Giroux, Henry A. "The plague of American authoritarianism." 2607:FEA8:591D:E100:A415:9179:9DE0:7C3D (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Independent article is a commentary/opinion piece. I cannot comment on the two book sources you provide but it goes without saying that calling one of the two major parties in America fascist is a claim that would necessarily require quite many reliable sources to justify. Note that populism, even authoritarian populism, is not necessarily fascism. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

To deny the presence of Fascism within the contemporary GOP is really indicative of severe brain rot or intentional cognitive dissonance. The GOP is a party of Fascists and easily fall within many of Umberto Eco's 14 points of fascism (https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)

Fascism is a sort of nebulous ideology. It takes root in deeply dissatisfied populations and evolves according to the material conditions it is surrounded by. Those who argue that the GOP is a farcry from the NSDAP are only right in that the GOP are not copying the NSDAP to a tee or mimicking their speeches verbatim. The GOP and the NSDAP do, however, encompass many of the same baseline tendencies. As Francisco Franco, the Fascist dictator of Spain said "...fascism presents, wherever it manifests itself, characteristics which are varied to the extent that countries and national temperaments vary. It is essentially a defensive reaction of the organism, a manifestation of the desire to live, of the desire not to die, which at certain times seizes a whole people. So each people reacts in its own way, according to its conception of life. Our rising, here, has a Spanish meaning! What can it have in common with Hitlerism, which was, above all, a reaction against the state of things created by the defeat, and by the abdication and the despair that followed it?" This quote captures the point I am making. Fascism is a unique ideology that evolves and morphs according to the material conditions in which it was fostered in. Spanish fascism was different from German fascism and rose to power because of different reasons. Just like this unique American fascism that is the GOP is different from all other types of fascism, and rose to power for different reasons. Just because the Fascism that the GOP embodies isn't the exact same as any other kind of fascism is irrelevant. Fascism is not categorized by one party or one type of fascism. Fascism is a reaction, a tendency. What exactly the fascism is reacting to is unique to the place in which the fascism is rising. Comrade Toaster (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a preponderance of reliable political scientists who classify it that way? Because otherwise any connections based on your own interpretation of the definition of fascism amounts to a novel synthesis of ideas. You need to show that a preponderance of mainstream, reliable, recognized experts in the relevant field do so classify their political positions as such. --Jayron32 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to some of this - see Fascism in the United States#Donald Trump and allegations of fascism and Talk:Donald Trump#RFC: Should 'far-right politician' be included? for more information and sources. I do think the Umberto Eco thing might be original research, but the Henry Giroux is totally legit. Andre🚐 18:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we could include fascism as an ideology and still claim that the article follows NPOV. I do think a very brief treatment of the accusations of fascism in the Trump era would be due. It is a bit strange to Ctrl-F "fascism" and see it included as an accusation by Gingrich made against Democrats. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it your position that it can never be NPOV-compliant to describe an active political party as fascist? No matter how much fascist ideology takes over said party? — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, if the preponderance of reliable sources and political scientists described it that way, per Jayron32's message above, it would be due. If a preponderance of mainstream, reliable, recognized experts start writing that fascism is taking over the Republican Party, we'd have to follow the sources and include that. Right now I don't think fascism has taken over the party, as there is still a faction of non-MAGA Republicans. Andre🚐 01:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Strongly support. January 6th and constant lying about the legitimacy of 2020's election are well-documented and easily enough evidence for this. And there are prominent Republican voices (e.g. Matt Walsh) who even self-identify as fascists. GarethPW (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypg3fMFzS8 Anastrophe (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an extremely obvious dog whistle. GarethPW (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose You would need to show that experts had come to the same conclusion, which they don't. There are a lot of precedents in U.S. history that Trump might have drawn on, such as populism and nativism, rather than the writings of Mussolini. TFD (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please specify the precedent for an armed mob storming the Capitol for the purpose of overturning the legally constituted result of a presidential election. Since there are a lot of precedents, maybe even you have 2 or 3 to share. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Although they didn't storm the capitol, the Tilden / Hayes election is the closest comparison. Hayes himself was literally shot at in his home. It is very likely that many people working for Trump were looking heavily at that election for inspiration during their various efforts to overturn the results - especially the fact that it was ultimately decided by party-line votes by the electoral commission, and most crucially by Republican dominance of the Supreme Court. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

According to a 2016 article in the Washington Post, there had been 475 coup attempts since WW2, of which 236 were successful. Few if any of these coups could be described as fascist. Many of them were instigated or supported by the United States government. You need more than that to prove they are fascists. The fascists in Italy and Germany incidentally came to power not through coups but from the unanimous or near unanimous support of liberal and conservative legislators. TFD (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add a political position to the GOP, it’s center-right to far-right + Trumpism, Anti-Trump, American nationalism should be factions Produda (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

These suggestions are all being debated in various threads above; please discuss further there. — Czello 07:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on political position regardless of sources/ideologies provided have repeatedly failed in the past due to the fact there is no binding platform (this applies to the Democratic Party as well) and controversy over what falls under the listed position. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. Trumpism isn't actually a faction in the modern sense, it's just the part of the party that supports the leader, which is common to every party. TFD (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  If Trump goes away and DeSantis or Cotton is the leader, there will still be a faction of hardliners of the party (Greene, Boebert, Hawley, Cruz, Blackburn, to name a few) versus more moderates (like your Collins, Murkowski, Romney, etc). If Bernie Sanders goes away there will still be progressives and democratic socialists. Trumpism is just the name we use to describe right populism or whatever else it may be called. It's a movement, not a man. He's simply the current emblem. Andre🚐 01:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW there's a lot more sources using Trumpism as a term than there are other recent presidents (). And just skimming those sources I do think it's fair to say that there's coverage of the fact that Trump leads or created his own ideologically distinct faction within the party in a way that is not true of other presidents (eg. Bush largely led / represented the religious right faction of his party; Obama and Clinton brought together various factions but didn't introduce a new one to Democratic politics.) The last president who realigned his party was probably Reagan, and Reaganism is a term (though I'd argue that having more sources than Trumpism is a function of it having 40 years to accumulate them, and in that case many of those sources refer more to an economic theory than a political faction.) But that does show a more compelling reason why we might want to wait on listing Trumpism, in that depending on what happens in the next two years the faction's name could change, it could reach ascendancy within the party to the point where it's no longer considered a "faction" (as happened with Reagan), or it could fizzle. Honestly I feel a bit skeptical about the whole idea of factions in the infobox, in that they're complicated, subjective things that require a degree of discussion to provide context from the sources. I do think we should discuss Trumpism and Reaganism somewhere in the body, though - it clearly has enough coverage to warrant a sentence or two somewhere. I suppose one could argue that we're already discussing them without using those terms, though. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Reaganism (currently a redirect) and Trumpism are analogous and both realigned the party, and reliable sources do use them both extensively. Whereas a "Bushism" was used as a jokey term for a malapropism, and we even have an article on it! I don't believe there was Barackism or Obamism, or an Obama doctrine. Nor does there seem to be much of a Bidenism. Wikipedia doesn't need to enforce a consistency, we follow what the sources say. The sources decided that there is no Bidenism, but perhaps Dark Brandonism? Andre🚐 00:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Everyone repeatedly finds reasons to say no to adding political positions to both the Republican Party and Democratic Party, and not agree to the reasons to add them. Other arguments against adding political positions have included left/right should be left up to individuals to decide on their own, listing Conservatism as an ideology is sufficient because conservatism is always right-wing, or defining political positions is completely pointless and can change from country to country. So, I don't think political positions, in terms of left and right, will ever be added to either party's infobox. Ray522 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Most certainly not far-right, every party has an extremist wing but that would be an extremely controversial and unsourced allegation. The far-right is still the fringe and therefore not a recognized wing of the party, same as far-left being vague and unnecessary for the Democratic Party infobox. Bill Williams 12:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You're mistaken, the far-right is the dominant faction of the Republican Party, not the fringe. Meanwhile the Democratic Party barely even has anybody within it who could be plausibly described as far-left. We need to stop pretending that the two parties are mirror images of each other. That's false equivalency. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with about 95% of this. Andre🚐 02:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 If it was the dominant faction then it couldn't be described as extreme or on the far right of the political spectrum. Something is only extreme when it deviates from mainstream opinion. 24.53.78.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It only matters how reliable sources describe it. Not logically if it is coherent. Andre🚐 19:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Being the dominant faction within a single political party does not mean the far-right ceases to be extreme and becomes mainstream. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed centre-right to right-wing would be the best to implement should position be included. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I will take i words back, I wouldn’t say center-right or far-right I’d just keep it has right-wing Produda (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion demonstrates why the field was removed in the first place, because everyone has a different conception of positioning along the left-right spectrum. The only agreement is that they are to the right of the Democrats. TFD (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

At least in the U.S. with regards to the spectrum anyways. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Such things tend to happen when you have a nebulous two-party system where both parties are effectively big tents of the entire left and right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A late August 2022 addition to the lead says, "In the modern day, the demographic base skews towards working class voters". But that's not accurate and it's not supported by the citations. RS specifically say that it's "white working class" voters and that the party does not win the overall working class vote (more specifically, the party does not win the non-white working class vote which is approximately 40% of the total working class). This NPR piece looks at the GOP's attempted branding as a "working class" party, noting that the support is primarily a white working class phenomenon and that Biden won a majority of voters earning less than $50,000 year while Trump won a majority of voters who earn over $100,000 a year. The August edit is misleading. Thenightaway (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was sure that that was there before. It's clearly essential, yes; I don't think there are many high-quality sources that support the idea that the Republican base skews towards all working class voters, since the demographics don't bear that out. --Aquillion (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above. It should be limited to the white working class; per the sources and election results, there is no GOP lean of working class voters as a whole. RedHotPear (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a fairly ridiculous claim. Toa Nidhiki05 17:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The modern Democratic party is the party of the professional class. The Republican party increasingly is in opposition to this class, and is becoming more Hispanic and Black than it was before. 2600:1012:B056:4966:A90A:F600:E7FE:C52E (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there is a typo that you made a mistake of while I googled the GOP, the Gop is in the senate minority not the majority anymore, if you have time please change that, but I perfer you to do that becuase im not a expert on wiki. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack45678 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear since the rise of Trump and the "anti-woke" current in the GOP that there is an ideological stream of national conservatism. I think some examples of National Conservative beliefs in the GOP are social conservatism (pro-life, anti-LGBT, pro-religion, etc.), anti-immigration sentiment, skepticism of NATO and other international institutions, and less of a hard line on fiscal conservatism. I think some examples of prominent Republican office holders and ideologues of this view would be (debatably) Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley, (arguably) Marjorie Taylor Greene, Saagar Enjeti (former Republican), (arguably) Ron Desantis and others.

I'm not too familiar with the wikipedia procedure for proposing changes to protected articles but I think National Conservatism should be added as a faction of the Ideology section on this article. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

These aren't really actual wings. There's a substantial amount of overlap with social conservatives/Christian right, and maybe a handful of commentators. It's about as real as Reformicons were. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)