Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 35

With regard to this edit by Firefangledfeathers, which was then immediately removed by Springee. There appears to be some context in the body on this, but please feel free to discuss. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely some body content on GOP+Russia, but I don't think it was best summarized with that new content. I was on the fence about removal. It's been long enough that there's probably some scholarship on the phenomenon, if someone cares to strengthen the sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be in the lead without some strong sourcing in the body. The sourcing shouldn't be partisan reporting claiming some GOP members seem to want to cozy up to Russia or don't support Ukraine. Rather this needs to be solid sourcing on the topic that says these people actually want to help Russia (not just saying they feel placating is the less bad path etc). The lead is not something that should be frequently changing given the subject of this article is a political party that was founded over 150 years ago. In the mean time this should be removed. Springee (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, any mention of Russophilia is unwarranted because sources don't appear to support it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the bit about Russophilia seems out of place, and can be removed. The rest seems up for debate. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples, maybe self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to reconcile all these issues per BRD. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is typical propaganda that both sides use. People who wanted to end the war in Vietnam were pro-Communist, people who opposed the invasions of Iraq were pro-Saddam Hussein, people who oppose the invasion of Gaza are anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas. Of course these takes should be mentioned, but they are opinions, not facts. TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

oh my god... No one in this talk page said "THE GOP LOVES PUTIN", we are talking about subfactions of the Trump-Populist faction. That's what it said IN THE FIRST place. Plus, you yourself seem to be biased, since all of the examples you listed are plausibly positions against the United States. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is sourcing available on the pages of individual GOP politicians in the populist camp, If you want me to go ahead and gather them LMK. @Toa Nidhiki05: 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Iallwayscomeback123, your revert reinserts unsupported context that is contradicted by the body, specifically in the Europe, Russia and Ukraine section. Unfortunately, without RS a {CN} tag comes back into play. DN (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to be the most common stance among the Republican establishment, embodied by someone like Mitt Romey considering Russia to be the U.S.'s greatest adversary. Iallwayscomeback123 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion that no longer seems accurate. The lead currently says "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia..." I might agree that the GOP used to be tough on Russia during the Reagan era, even up through Bush, but AFAIK there is no source stating that Romney currently embodies the GOP, compared to Trump. Things have really changed since 2016, and the body currently contradicts the lead in this context. That's not my opinion BTW, that's just what sources say.

1. The GOP has been softening its stance on Russia ever since Trump won the 2016 election following Russian hacking of his Democratic opponents. There are several reasons for the shift. Among them, Putin is holding himself out as an international champion of conservative Christian values and the GOP is growing increasingly skeptical of overseas entanglements. Then there’s Trump’s personal embrace of the Russian leader.^[1]

2. For years, the party treated Trump’s Putin adoration as something to be ignored or grudgingly tolerated. That’s no longer a tenable position. With Russian forces capturing Avdiivka while a desperate Ukraine waits for U.S. aid blocked by the House GOP Caucus, Trump’s apologist posture toward Russia and the Republican Party’s position are essentially indistinguishable; it’s a dynamic that has enormous consequences across the globe.^[2]

3. Large parts of the Republican Party now treat Vladimir Putin as if he were an ideological ally. Putin, by contrast, continues to treat the U.S. as an enemy.^[3]

4. American historian Anne Applebaum - "Only a minority of House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, joined most Democrats to approve $60 billion in aid yesterday. What is now clearly a pro-Russia Republican caucus has consolidated inside Congress."^[4]

DN (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The article body states that neoconservatives are now a minority, whereas the opening claims they are the party establishment. The body also states that a majority of GOP representatives voted against aid for Ukraine, whereas the opening claims that only a populist faction is isolationist. It should be the other way around - stating that the party generally opposes aid, and a minority support it. The current wording warps what the body (backed by RS) states. Cortador (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In light of this, please consider reverting from this dated and inaccurate version of the lead. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to both be careful about putting to much weight into a few commentary articles. Also the desire to avoid entanglements, especially given the US was getting out of two belt long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly explain being less included to use force vs diplomacy. Isolationism seems like a fat better explanation vs some sort of love of Putin/Russia. Springee (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say the GOP is still neoconservative on foreign policy when it comes to Russia? That is the issue here. DN (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Or takes a "tough stance" against Russia? (also part of the issue) DN (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have anything against removing that content from the lead and leaving it in the body where it can be given fuller context. Springee (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's probably something similar already in the Reagan era section. DN (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I support removal. Hopefully someone can take on improving the body content. North Korea isn't even mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. Likewise, North Korea and Iran aren't discussed in the article. Unless that has happened, mention of them in the lead paragraph should be removed as well.

There's also plenty of sources that support the GOP being divided on Russia, with parts of the party being pro-Russian now and/or regurgitating Russian taking points: 1 2 3 4 Cortador (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Foreign policy section (below), I don't see anything specifically mentioning the other countries either...

• "The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

If they exist elsewhere in the article I'd be glad to discuss how we can relocate the current text (below) in the lead...

(Current) "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, while the populist faction is isolationist and in some cases supporting non-interventionism."

With this and other pre-existing context from the article in mind, I offer the rough draft (below), and I welcome productive criticisms and suggestions with RS...

(Proposed) After 1945 and into the early 2000s, the party establishment was generally neoconservative. By 2016, populist factions that advocated for isolationist, and in some cases non-interventionist policies, began to challenge the neoconservative establishment again, as they had prior to World War II.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Id' word it like this: "Following World War II, the party establishment generally supported interventionism. After the peak of Republican neoconservatism in the early 2000s, populist factions advocating isolationist and non-interventionism gained strength within the party."

This avoids the issue that neoconservatism is more of a post-60s movement and has been diminished greatly since the Obama years i.e. I don't think the article body supports that they are still the establishment. I'd also date the rise of isolationism back to 2009 (as per article on the Tea Party), tough I agree that it again gained strength post Trump. Cortador (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't have any major issues with that. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to an article in the Brookings Institute, "The Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric." It then lists 52 actions Trump took against Russia. Another article points out that Trump was far harsher on Russia than Obama. The problem is that the rhetoric by talk show hosts doesn't reflect the reality. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

While Trump and the populist faction are in no way mutually exclusive, they are both part of the GOP, respectively. I'm not advocating for cites that use "talk show host rhetoric" for the GOP populist faction that is advocating isolationist and non-interventionism policies. For example, one of the cites I referred to, (4.), comes from American historian, Anne Applebaum. DN (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum is an specialist in Communism who wrote a number of popular books published outside academia. She supported Hillary Clinton in 2020 and most of her writing is political opinion for news media. She was also associated with the American Enterprise Institute. I don't want to argue about how credible her opinions are, but they're not the final word.

Due to the nature of the major parties in the U.S., virtually anything you say about "some members" is bound to be true. Some members of both parties have been serial killers for example. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were even active in their respective parties. We need to respect weasel-wording. How many Putin admirers are there and what influence do they have on the party? TFD (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the LEAD still seems to contradict the body with unsourced material. I would like for this update to be as objective as possible, and omit any weasel-wording. That is why I'm counting on editors here, like yourself, to help us avoid such pitfalls while fixing the problem, so I'm open to your suggestions. If you prefer the Brookings Institution as a source, they have articles that also seem to identify and shed light on the current republican party's opinions and stances on Russia. Some even include opinion polls by Pew Research on the subject, if you think we should examine those.

"Pew’s findings indicate 60% of Democrats believe that “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs”, compared to 39% who say that “we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.”Among Republicans, however, fully 71% say that we should concentrate on domestic problems, while only 29% endorse an active international role for the United States. We will find out after the 2024 election whether these differences augur the greatest change in U.S. foreign policy since the Republican Party abandoned its longstanding isolationism after World War II."^[1]

"Today, these figures are no longer on the fringe of GOP politics. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from May, an astonishing 49 percent of Republicans consider Russia an ally. Favorable views of Putin – a career KGB officer who hates America – have nearly tripled among Republicans in the past two years, with 32 percent expressing a positive opinion."..."To be sure, the Republican Congress, at least on paper, remains hawkish on the Kremlin, as evidenced by the recent 98-2 Senate vote to increase sanctions against Russia for its election meddling and other offenses. But in no way can they be said anymore to represent the GOP party base, which has been led to believe by the president and his allies in the pro-Trump media that “the Russia story” is a giant hoax."^[2] - journalist & author James Kirchick

"It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing...." "The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress".^[3] - political scientist Robert Kagan.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with neoconservatives is that they have aways been wrong from Soviet power in the 1970s and 1980s to Iraq in the 1990s and how we were winning the wars in the years after. For an entertaing history watch "The Power of Nightmares" on youtube or read They Knews they were Right by Jacob Heilbrunn. Their analysis is so unreliable, that they can ony get published by right-wing think tanks or in editorials.

Kirchick's statement that 49% of Republicans considered Russia an ally in 2016 is wrong. The total was for ally or "friendly nation." In its legal sense, that means they were not at war with the U.S. The same poll said that 24% of Trump supporters viewd Russia favorably, compared to 19% of Clinton voters. I don't have access to the actual poll, but imagine the numbers were cherry-picked.

Both sides btw are protectionist.

I accept there are differences but we need better sources to explain them.

TFD (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I feel as though we may be getting off track by looking at new citations for a consensus on to how to update the last paragraph in the LEAD.

We already have citations and context in the body that the LEAD simply needs to follow.

What about something similar to this...?

• In the 21st century, the Republican Party receives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, and white voters without college degrees. On economic issues, the party has maintained a pro-business attitude since its inception. It supports low taxes and deregulation while opposing socialism, labor unions and single-payer healthcare. On social issues, it advocates for restricting the legality of abortion, discouraging and often prohibiting recreational drug use, promoting gun ownership, easing gun restrictions, and opposing the transgender rights movement. On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative but signaled some decline with Trump's election in 2016. Since then, the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds fine. TFD (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I still think the article body doesn't support that the party is neoconservative on foreign policy at this point. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the Foreign policy section....

• ""The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That section is not backed by its sources. The Oxford Reference sources states that neoconservatives had "some influence during the administration of all Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan", whereas the article turns that into "a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency". "Some influence" is much milder than that, and does not support the claim that the current party establishment is neoconservative and/or the main driving factor behind GOP foreign policy. I suggest we just strike "neoconservative" from the lead paragraph entirely. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So far there appears to be some consensus for removing the list of countries that don't appear in the body, but your proposal for removing "neoconservative" from the lead all-together, while somewhat relevant, is not what we are discussing here. I would suggest a separate topic of discussion for that proposal. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Another version, that is a bit less clunky and more to the point.

• On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative, but since Trump's election in 2016 the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

DN (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead paragraph currently states that in "foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative". This claim is not supported by the article body or its sources. Neoconservatism is mentioned only a few times, and I don't see sourcing backing that neoconservatives are the party establishment either in general or in regards to foreign policy specifically. We could just drop the descriptor "neoconservative" here, which I don't think is ideal because we have so little sourcing on what the "party establishment" is actually supposed to be now, but that would be a start. Cortador (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So in your view, the rise of the neoconservative establishment isn't accurate? What about Reagan and both Bush 1 & 2? DN (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be better to provide details about their foreign policy, rather than use a term that was better known during the Bush administration. TFD (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That said, I have not made any decision as to whether I agree or disagree. It would help if other editors shared their thoughts on this as well. DN (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That was 20 to 40 years ago. If we want to state that the current party established is neoconservative, we need more recent sourcing for that, or avoid that term. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This article encompasses the entire history of the GOP, not just current events. DN (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That sentence in the opening is written in present tense, and thus it needs somewhat recent sourcing. It should reflect the body, and right now, the body doesn't state that the present-day (or at least recent recent) GOP establishment is neoconservative. Cortador (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove and see if anyone objects that's fine. I don't see a reason to revert it as of yet, since no one else has chimed in. DN (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see there is a dispute tag that has been there since May. If this is an ongoing dispute that's fine, but I don't see any current discussions on the subject. Does anyone still object to removing the tag? DN (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. If someone has an issue with the section, they can always start a discussion and re-add it. Cortador (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that there is a good argument that the democratic party more accurately the Free Democratic or Barnburner wings of the party should be included in the Merger of section in the Info box. I cannot edit this page and even if I can its much too important for me to feel comfortable doing so. Maybe this has been covered before but i think it would be a fairly important addition to the infobox.

Thank you,

W Wnettles03 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.

• The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
• Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.

@Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.

It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From the closer's comment: 'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)

The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.

A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.

Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The republicans under Trump are “Right-Wing to Far-Right” in my opinion. Jaybainshetland (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

This doesn't say that Republican party is far right but makes very good and interesting observations on how much right it is

Please have a read everyone 2409:40E1:100E:6F93:5B56:46AD:AB19:390C (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK Richie1509 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the "right-wing" classification should be removed, and only "center-right" should remain. The Democratic Party is listed as "center-left," and it is no less to the left than the Republican Party is to the right. Donald Trump is not right-wing or a conservative, he is a populist (and one who causes a lot of controversy at that). The Republican Party platform has shifted its position on same-sex marriage, abortion, IVF, and birth control much further to the left than it was before, and it would make no sense to suddenly classify the party as "right-wing" when it has been becoming gradually centrist overtime. DocZach (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been lots and lots of reliable and very credible sources that the republican party, in recent years, has shifted much further to the right, compared to the level at which the democratic party has shifted to left EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep I definitely agree. The source given for right-wing populism in the party itself states how that block has become the dominant faction of the party EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You make total sense, I did not know it only captured membership figures from 30 states. Now that I know that I am against adding it myself. Even if it did capture results from all 50 state then we would have to question how they got that. I am against adding it to the national parties and I suppose we should scrutinize it for state level parties. Ultimately it would be helpful to have membership figures for both parties but unless we find a reliable source we should leave it blank! Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources used to back up the claim the party is "center-right" do not appear to state such, state a point against that label, or state it as a historical position. For example, Gidron and Ziblatt state "We consider center-right parties as those that construct big-tent coalitions, drawing support from all different right-wing currents simultaneously—while other parties right of the center specialize in mobilizing voters based on narrower agendas...in the American case, this three-sided image of the Republican Party features prominently in research on the intellectual history of the American conservative movement (Nash 1996; Phillips-Fein 2011, p. 729)" but then explicitly state that "While we accept the fact that the Democratic Party shifted to the economic center during the 1990s, the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" with no statement on the party shifting back towards the center thereafter; Keckler and Rozell identify the center-right as a part of the broader conservative movement, with the latter represented by the Republican Party; Donovan appears to be referring to how in theory the electoral system lends itself to two big/dominant parties (one of the centre-left and one of the centre-right) rather than explicitly calling the Republican Party as it currently exists centre-right; and the cited link/PDF from The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties does not appear to contain the cited quote (and even if it did, it doesn't appear to reference the Republican Party at all, unless there is some context missing). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" The source is 18-years-old and reflects a rightward shift during the 1990s. It can not be used to determine the current position of the party in the political spectrum, but it can be used to cover changes in that decade. Perhaps it can be used in the article on the History of the Republican Party (United States). Dimadick (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I recently updated the description of the GOP voter base with this:

As of 2024, the party receives majority support from Arabic, Native, and White voters, and has gained increased support among Hispanics. A majority of working-class, rural, men, individuals without college degrees, and lower income voters also support the party. Traditionalist religious voters, including Evangelicals Latter-Day Saints, Muslims, and Catholics generally lean Republican.

Senior citizens are no longer the strongest GOP voting bloc, Generation X is. Age has become a significantly less significant predictor of voting support than 2016 and before.

Racially, most Native American tribes (heavily heterogeneous; the Cherokee are generally far more conservative than Navajo, for instance), Arabs, Haredi Jews, and others are more conservative than whites.

Conservative, traditionalist religious groups of all-types vote Republican according to exit polls. Many even surpassing white evangelical Christians.

Don't think these changes are objectionable but felt that I should mention it on talk. OntologicalTree (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please no news sources for analysis ...for the basics pls review Gruwell, Cindy; Ewing, Robin (2022-05-25). "News as a Source". Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Moxy🍁 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is missing from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello out there. Does anybody know why the infobox isn't showing McConnell? GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being ignored here. I've brought the problem to WP:Village pump (technical). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is to explain that ideological position is based on how RS describe the party and the politics of the country. This is not about changing the ideological position of the Republican Party in the infobox. Please do not substitute your own views for how reliable sources describe the Republican Party.

Side-note: My personal political views are mostly libertarian, that is mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though not on all issues. I have a similar set of views as Chase Oliver, who I will likely vote for in 2024.

Examples

• Many political parties around the world are socially conservative, such as in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia, but still considered to be politically left-wing because they are liberal on fiscal issues and their countries are socially conservative.
• Similarly many political parties that are socially liberal in countries that are very socially liberal, such as the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Canada, are still considered to be politically right-wing because they are fiscally conservative and their countries are socially liberal.
• Some political parties are big tent or ideologically diverse parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, with several factions. For these parties, a range of views on the political spectrum may be appropriate.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, parties that have been fiscally conservative had been considered left-wing, while parties that have been fiscally liberal have been considered right-wing. That's because mainstream political parties deal with reality. They select policies which best reflect their ideology according to time and place. TFD (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to add a point though that even with the countries political standards rather than the universal, mainstream political parties can have ideological positions that is not Centre-left or Centre-right such as Likud, Fidesz . Mhaot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The position label of a party (or person) is relative to the speaker's assumed center position. Nobody will ever agree on the correctness of a label, so why do we still use them? It's much more relevant to examine positions on specific issues (which the article already does). Dad98253 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the New York Times, the only group to substantially shift left from 2012 (last non-Trump election) to 2024 is White voters with college degrees, though Black voters still stuck almost entirely with Harris. This is D-R margins.

• Black voters went from 95-4 to 85-13 from 2012 to 2024 (R+19). But 85% is still extremely high.
• Hispanic voters went from 69-30 to 54-44 from 2012 to 2024 (R+29).
• Asian voters went from 67-32 to 58-40 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17).
• Others went from 58-40 to 49-48 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17). I'm not sure what this category is, but sure.

• White, no degree went from 37-61 to 31-67 from 2012 to 2024 (R+13). The sheer margins of 61 and 67 are still high.
• Non-white, no degree went from 78-20 to 67-30 from 2012 to 2024 (R+21). This is a big shift.
• Non-white, no degree went from 82-17 to 63-35 from 2012 to 2024 (R+37). This is a massive shift.

• By age, 18 to 29 went from 61-36 to 54-43 (R+14), 30 to 44 went from 53-44 to 49-48 (R+8), and 45 to 64 went from 49-50 to 45-54 (R+9).
• White voters went from 41-57 to 42-57 from 2012 to 2024 (D+1), which is negligible.
• Whites with degrees went from 46-52 to 55-43 from 2012 to 2024 (D+17), which is a big shift.
• And 65+ went from 46-53 to 48-51 from 2012 to 2024 (D+4), which is a small shift.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/25/upshot/democrats-trump-working-class.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Was enacted by the republicans, not the democrats. The democrats tried to filibuster it. 2600:1700:FB0:8D70:686C:3D2F:97CD:8F4F (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this somehow a suggestion for an improvement to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened after 1964? (Hint: it's the Southern strategy) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that statement in the LEAD as well. It isn't sourced anywhere that I see. As percentage of party, more of the GOP voted for the 1964 civil rights act than Democrats.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Southern strategy reference in the lead was an wp:egg snuck into the lead a while back. Though it never had a clear consensus editors were willing to edit war it back in claiming it was true. I'm sure the discussion is in the archive. Since that discussion I've found some additional references that would tend to dispute the link here. The issue here isn't if the GOP used such a strategy, the facts supporting such a deliberate strategy seem ambiguous - they don't prove it false nor do they prove it true. Rather the question is if the Southern realignment was caused by such a strategy. Here it seems, per the sources, that scholars are not in agreement. I haven't ever made this change to the lead because I need to refind at least one of the references and because a number of editors have decided it's critical to include this claim/link in the lead thus removing it would be a fight. If others are interested in pushing this change through I'll try to find the evidence over the next week or so. Springee (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• I wrote almost all of the Solid South article. Read the section on the Southern strategy, which I wrote. The reasons for why the South realigned are debated, but how it realigned is extremely clear.

The fundamental issue is that Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law, while Republican Barry Goldwater opposed it. The South stayed Democratic at the state-level, including for Congress, for decades. It wasn't until the 1994 Republican Revolution that Republicans won a majority of U.S. House seats in the South, and only after 2010 that Republicans won most state legislatures and became dominant in the South.

There is one exception to Republican gains in the South: the state of Virginia, because Northern Virginia is extremely Democratic as part of the Washington metropolitan area. The Confederate capital was Richmond, Virginia. Democrats control the Virginia General Assembly, and have won the state consistently since 2008. It was the only former Confederate state never to vote for Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken a close look at the article since I think before COVID. I'm not sure what changes you've made. I'm also not sure if I understand the difference you are making between how and why. I would agree there is the voting evidence that shows when things changed. I'm not sure if there is agreement that the fundamental issue was Johnson signed the law while Goldwater didn't. That is part of the question of top down vs bottom up reasons for changing. Especially as things move further in time from the 1960s it's harder to assume that voters are motivated by a 1964 vote in 1980 or in 2010. Regardless, I think the EGG to the Southern Strategy is a problem and should be removed (especially if I get around to finding those sources I mentioned above). Springee (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It was actually enacted by both parties, although Republicans were more likely to support than Democrats:

Senate version

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

The actual divide was between the North (where >90% of representatives/Senators backed it), and the South (where >90% of representatives/Senators opposed it). Coincidentally - Democrats held nearly 100% of seats in the South. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

^ 49.184.140.57 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism is more than just "supporting the party nominee". — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why this elephant symbol is shown as logo?? I edited this as electoral symbol previously but got reverted everytime. Donkey isn't shown as Democrats' symbol in their article. We have separate banner logo for the Republicans. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad @Completely Random Guy No, it wasn't removed for copyright reasons. There's a group of users replacing the logo with the electoral symbol without explaining their choice. Pantarch (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well thats not good, how can we go about returning it to its official logo in place of electoral symbol without causing an edit war? Completely Random Guy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First, consensus needs to be reached here, then a source should be found (we have one: https://fabrikbrands.com/branding-matters/logofile/republican-logo-history-republican-elephant-logo-and-symbol/), and finally, an invisible comment should be added near the logo explaining the choice. Pantarch (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we do a poll? Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A sort of Pantarch (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm down, just dont know how to create a poll Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the files being discussed are these: File:GOP logo.svg (logo) File:Republican Disc.svg (electoral symbol)--Pantarch (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Why mention “Republican administrations have, since the late 1960s, sustained or increased previous levels of government spending by supporting underfunded sectors like national defense, veterans affairs, and infrastructure,” in the spending section when it states vague trivialities that directly contradict the rest of the section? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty indisputable that there's a far right faction within the conservatives, particularly with the Freedom Caucus and that's quite easy to demonstrate in sources (ABC, NYTimes, Politico).

Same with anti-intellectualism as a major ideological element. Wapo, Academic, Christian Science Monitor.

We have little issue calling out these variables in other global right wing parties, we shouldn't shy away from what the RS descriptions are here, without needing to go into an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that needs clear consensus among sources. There are many sources that talk about this topic (ie the GOP). Picking just a few isn't a strong basis for such a claim. This is especially true in cases like the WashPo and NYT where the bias of the authors may be a concern. Even in academic papers we need to ask if this represents a consensus among academics or just a new paper. This is the sort of thing we really should take a very long term wait and see vs reacting to some recent sources. Springee (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no. We have no problem calling the Freedom caucus far right and that's very clearly a faction. WP:RS is met, if a contingent of editors don't like the classification WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't enough. We do need some consensus to change it, but I'm deeply reluctant to just make a claim that we need an overwhelming, uniform, and explicit consensus for something that's quite easy to meet on WP:RS grounds. We shouldn't put it in the lede, but it absolutely belongs in the ideology section of the sidebar. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism is not an ideology, and far-right has been rejected in numerous discussions. Neither of them will be going in the sidebar. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how "far right" doesn't belong as a faction (not in the lede). Anti-intellectualism is most certainly an ideology. If you have specific objections to the WP:RS suggestions above, I'm open to hearing them, but just declaring Neither of them will be going in the sidebar isn't an appropriate response here. I'm perfectly willing to discuss consensus with editors but have no time to spend on declaration by fiat against a perfectly sourced claim.

The Freedom Caucus is a signifficant republican faction and is undeniably far right. Anti-intellectualism is a noted and increasingly explicit ideological thrust. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The "far-right" isn't a faction. It's a sliver of right-wing populist members of the Freedom Caucus, which is more broadly identified as right-wing, and the Freedom Caucus itself is the smallest GOP grouping (it has 33 members, while the center-right Republican Study Committee has 173, the centrist Main Street Caucus has 67, and the centrist Republican Governance Group, which has 42). The far-right could broadly be defined as the dozen or so members who voted with all Democrats to remove McCarthy; like the similarly-tiny Blue Dogs on the Democratic Party, we don't have a dedicated section for them.

The current page is the result of broad and difficult consensus. Your suggestions, while made in good faith, will not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above never arrived at a consensus. 33 members is significant and I’d encourage you to rethink your WP:OWN attitude here. We have an abundant amount of RS passing sources that refer to them as far right and a meaningfully large faction, I don’t see any argument against its inclusion that isn’t a vibe check at present. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and edit in far-right as an ideology, following mutliple WP:RS meeting standards. Before I do that, since there's a 1RR rule active in this place, do you have a substantive and specifc objection that relates to the fact that this claim is easy to pass with RS and I'm not advocating for overweighting the statement in the lede? If there's specific concerns, then sure. There was no consensus above that it doesn't belong unless I'm missing a discussion and twice you've said something like Neither of them will be going in the sidebar. and Your suggestions, while made in good faith, will not be added.. This is not your unilateral decision and you need to not communicate with other editors this way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors are telling you not to do this. If you add it, I will revert it - this has been discussed numerous (untold numerous) times before here and rejected each time. Nothing you added changes that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You are one editor. I haven't seen a reason not to add it considering it passes WP:RS. I am open to hearing your reasons, but you haven't explained once other than to point to a non-existent consensus. You do not own this article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Springee above also rejected it. And again - your sources here aren't good. Op-ed pieces are not sufficient for this.

You may think you're presenting a new case or argument here. But trust me: you aren't. This has been debated countless times here. You can look back on the talk history. We spent literally months coming up with the current consensus. I appreciate you want to contribute, but your addition will not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Springee and you both objected on "possible bias in authors given the source", which isn't the same as a substantive argument that it doesn't belong in the article given a plethora of WP:RS and the fact that the sourcing standards have been met, directly, in the Freedom Caucus article. I, again, would like to ask you to a: provide me with a substantive argument against inclusion given that it passes wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Not something "might" be wrong, but a specific reason and b: knock off your addition will not be added. This is beginning to look a bit like POV editing in the absence of substantive responses. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I created an RfC because it's clear that a good faith discussion is struggling with this one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been ongoing for three hours, and you have two people who disagree with you and none who agree. With all due respect - maybe take a look at the mirror here before implying bad faith. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I think I was unclear. I meant that a discussion in good faith was going nowhere, not that it wasn’t staying good faith. I’ll reiterate, though, that I think you need to watch WP:OWN. You are not in a position to say that edits “won’t be done” on an article, especially if you’re unwilling to articulate why clearly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"In October 2023, a member of the Christian right faction, Louisiana representative Mike Johnson, was elected the 56th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives"

Can we add a small change after his recent re-election? That would improve it a bit. Jjbomb (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ideology is missing a Far-Right faction. The far right faction is strong in the Freedom Caucus.

Freedom Caucus leader endorses radical proposal for North Carolina to hand its electoral votes to Trump - POLITICO

Far-right congressman suggests N.C. Legislature should consider handing electors to Trump on Election Day

11 key lawmakers to watch in the new Congress

Andy Harris steers hard-line Freedom Caucus into the Trump era

Maryland Rep. Harris elected chair of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus

Theofunny (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the RfC and discussion on this topic above. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus should equally weigh all views instead of letting certain groups present more information than others. Most Wiki editors fall into the educated bucket, and studies show that educated people lean left. Why should we not counter balance this by valuing non-consensus views more? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"equally weigh all views" Is this your first day on Wikipedia? The policy in Wikipedia:BALANCE specifically prevents us from doing this: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." We have to determine the prominence of the various views before describing them in the text. Not all views are equal. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Only one reliable mass media source supports republican ideals. How could you think that weighing the rest of mass media less would not equally weigh all views? Please see my profile for when I joined. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Any evidence this is still active? The website and members list seem defunct. If there isn't any, maybe the affiliation should be removed from Infobox. Jay942942 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removal just to reduce clutter. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)