Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 41

Should the infobox include the following footnote attached to the party's political position (described as right wing)?

Parts of the Republican Party have been described as center-right^[1][2] or far-right.^[3][4]

Will Thorpe (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support; a clear majority of editors supported the removal of 'center-right' from the 'political position' section of the infobox but there was some opposition and there were attempts to find a middle ground option.

Numerous reliable sources including from the past few years identify reasonably-sized sections of the Republican Party as being either center-right or far-right, and as both of these categories carry important distinctions in policy and ideological terms, and represent sufficiently notable contingents of the party (refer to the congressional membership of the Tuesday Group or the Freedom Caucus), this clarification is worth inclusion in the infobox.

Footnotes are used in the infoboxes of other Wikipedia articles to clarify arguably finer details than this of a party's political orientation, including on the articles for the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.

Both terms are widely applied enough to sufficiently relevant sections of the GOP to negate the criticism which may arise from WP:UNDUE – as does the fact this acknowledgment of the GOP's fuller ideological spectrum has been relegated to a footnote. This, I contend, ought to be an acceptable middle ground when all factors are considered, which does the best job at informing the reader at a glance of the party's political orientation/s whilst leaving further detail for the article body, and doing all of this in an appropriately balanced way reflective of reliable sources.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

it has been discussed and rejected many times, please see earlier discussions before opening another rfc 62.217.191.221 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not the same matter. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify – there have been discussions about what the 'Political position' section should read, but at least no recent dedicated discussions about a potential footnote. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: This would clutter the infobox too much. I generally oppose footnotes in infoboxes, but they are sometimes necessary for clarity. In this case, I oppose ur footnote because it is unnecessary and would add clutter to the infobox. EarthDude (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: As I've opened up a topic in the space down below, the Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference still retain their "center-right to right-wing" labels, which is understandable as people like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski still remain active in Congress. Even Trump supporting people like John Thune are not explicitly affiliated with Trumpism, noted by how he and actually many other senators are not in the list of politicians associated with Trumpism. The only reason why the GOP in this page and the "List of political parties in the United States" page had their ideology changed was only due to one man: Donald Trump. If both chambers of the Republican legislature are still deemed as "center-right," then I think that justifies enough reason to bring back (unless of course, we change those too). This has no need for sourcing; you can just go to their wiki pages and see what their positions say, and see that not ALL of them favor Trump the way Matt Gaetz would. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"opened up above" I mean DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@DougheGojiraMan Do you mean to support, then? Will Thorpe (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If it means putting center-right back, yes. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The info-box didn't have a position for both parties on the spectrum for many years. We should consider just removing them from both articles. I've frankly grown sick of the contentious discussions about them, particularly for the Republican Party's talk page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 that may be advisable. The ‘ideology’ section does a good job as surmising where the party stands, Will Thorpe (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be better IMO as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still banned from editing the article until March 18, which I don't plan to appeal. I have a source from The Economist titled "Hard-right parties are now Europe’s most popular." Right-wing populism is not just an American phenomenon, and according to the source, conservative (center-right), social democrat (center-left), and hard right parties each get about 1/4 of the vote among European Union countries. The hard-right in particular has made large gains according to the source.

Regardless of whatever we pick, and personally I prefer just removing a position, the trends in American politics are hardly isolated. For various debated reasons, conventional conservatism has been in decline in many Western countries.

Here are some quotes:

• "The origin of Europe’s recent hard-right surge is difficult to pin down. Some theorise that, beginning with the financial crash in 2008-09, voters were driven away from the mainstream and towards the extremes by economic anxiety. But the evidence for this is mixed. Europe is the richest it has ever been. And hard-right parties often win substantial support from the well-to-do. You could hardly look at the Netherlands—one of the wealthiest countries in the world, per person—and cite economic anxiety to explain its hard-right-led government."
• "Another often-heard argument is that the hard right represents a backlash against the migrant crisis that came to a head in 2015. Irregular immigration to some European countries has remained very high. Again, this theory is imperfect. In Germany, like many other countries, the hard right’s support comes predominantly from areas with little immigration. In fact, the association between immigration rates and support for the hard right is weaker than you might expect. Ireland has one of the largest foreign-born populations in Europe, for example, but no major hard-right party. The inverse is true of Poland (see chart 2)."
• "Instead, the rise of the hard right is probably the result of a mix of factors. A succession of crises from 2008 onwards have weakened confidence in European leaders. And although Europeans are getting richer, many feel anxious about their economic security and social status. This makes them more sensitive to cultural changes such as immigration—even when those changes are happening far away. These trends are compounded by changes to the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media. The hard right’s growing support also has a ratchet: each time the parties increase their representation, they are normalized in the eyes of more mainstream voters."

Link: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/28/hard-right-parties-are-now-europes-most-popular JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The party's position should be stated as 'Right-wing' with 'Factions: Center-right to far-right'. This seems to be how most sources portray the party nowadays and I think it's a very easy solution that I'm surprised hasn't yet been seriously proposed. I am also strongly against removing the position from the infobox altogether — I don't really understand what some editors think makes US political parties so unique that justifies not listing a political position when the vast majority of articles on parties worldwide have them without issue. This is especially the case considering how clear sources are on the fact that the GOP is right-wing. Loytra (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Loytra I would support this, thought it seemed to meet pushback in the 120-comment RfC above. I hoped this might be accepted. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support –– I think this provides a good enough compromise that also helps to illustrate the party's right-wing big-tent composition, naturally consequential of a two-party system. Additionally it acknowledges the historically developing- and continuing polarization of the party towards the right. –– Chat-qui-Aboie (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That would add too much needless clutter to the infobox. The simple label of "right-wing" already implies that the party is a broad right wing one, instead of either center or far right positions having too much influence over one another EarthDude (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I like the idea, but the whole point of an infobox is to be relatively robust, broad, and free from clutter. Asterisks like this and their discussion belong in the body. Just10A (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the exact position of the Republican Party (and for that matter the Democrats as well) is quite contentious, the position was omitted from the infobox of both parties for a long time and has lead to numerous RfCs at this point. I think we should place a moratorium on future RfCs as well. Aydoh8^[contribs] 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree on moratorium. Just10A (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy procedural close requested. There is a discussion about this. It's on this page. Please add this there. And for the love of all things holy, can we discuss literally anything else? Carlp941 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated previously. Cheers.DN (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - not needed as above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If we want to paint it with a broad brush, we could say for example Center-right to far-right and I would actually support this labeling. Or we could leave it as "Right-wing" as it is now to show it as a general right-wing party. If we did change it to my first suggestion, I would support changing the Democratic Party to Center-left to far-left as there are reliable sources that describe some members of the democratic party as far-left. Although I generally disagree that any members of the republican or democratic parties are far-right or far-left. And labeling the Republican Party as far-right would be very controversial obviously. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any current members of the Republican party that would fit the definition of "centrist". I propose that either centrism be removed, or changed to center-right. Joejoe1864 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. Any ideology needs strong academic sourcing. A single news source is insufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Cortador (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: It has extremely weak sourcing, and some other sources contradict it too EarthDude (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It lacks adequate sourcing, and we have lots of sources saying that centrism in the GOP has declined or is almost entirely gone. There are still moderate or centrist members of the Republican Party, particularly at the state level (i.e. Phil Scott of Vermont). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 For the latter point, 'centrist' or 'centre-right' deserves to be mentioned as a faction. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. The current source is a single news article. Carlp941 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed centrism for now since this isn't a formal RfC, and there's no indication at all for a consensus to keep it. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

There are definitely a strong amount of moderate republicans in the party, it was ridiculous that the centrist faction was removed when it accounts for 10-20% of the party Brandon4433 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Move to centre-right; there are plenty of reliable sources to back this, some of which I have provided elsewhere on this talk page. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

We keep getting alert after alert for possible AI-generated contact over the past week or so. This should be investigated. Moxy🍁 00:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ZergTwo (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Far right should be seriously discussed and included, because these issues, are serious reasons for authoritarian and fascistic characteristics and thinking which mark the policy of the Republican party.

Firstly, natalism has been criticized on human-rights and environmental grounds. Some reproductive rights advocates and environmentalists see natalism as a driver of reproductive injustice, population growth, and ecological overshoot. In politics, journalists have linked the pronatalist movement with far-right eugenics: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/04/first-thing-us-pro-birth-conferences-links-to-far-right-eugenicists-revealed https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/28/natalism-conference-austin-00150338 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/03/r-word-right-wing-rise

Secondly, criminalization of abortion in many states ruled by republican senators, a clear trait of authoritarian, fascistic thinking and anti women's rights: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/executive-summary https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-sweeping-consequences-of-the-far-rights-plan-to-effectuate-a-backdoor-national-abortion-ban-in-project-2025/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/trump-project-2025-abortion-rights-inauguration/

Elon Musk, Donald Trump and many other republicans have been very supportive of them. JBlade73 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support adding Right-wing authoritarianism to the list of ideologies, and changing the political position to read "right wing to far-right". Joejoe1864 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose for now. Neither of those sources directly states criminalizing abortion is a clear trait of authoritarian, fascistic thinking and anti women's rights, nor the Republican Party endorse far-right eugenics. Furthermore, far-right politics is a form of right-wing politics, so mentioning the former would be redundant. For such a controversial topic, material that will likely be controversial must be verified by many reliable sources, which the websites you used do not. In addition, WP:NPOV must be treated with special care in this article, which adding far-right as a political position of the Republican Party is not. Unless there is compelling evidence and arguments that justify this proposal, such a change would diminish the quality of the article.

Note: strikethrough an argument I raised to discourage future arguments from criticizing that argument. ZergTwo (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You can go look up on the Natalism page the same arguments are given. The sources are very valid, I don't know what are you talking about. How is making abortion a crime not authoritarian? You clearly didn't read any of the articles. It is literally against women's right I clearly mentioned women's right in my title. Abortion was legal in Texas, Alabama and many other states ruled by republican senators before how is that not a change? Abortion is a right it is enshrined in U.N human rights declaration https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/

how is that not authoritarian and fascistic it clearly goes against U.N and human rights only dictatorships support such behaviors. No other real democracy has made abortion illegal it is unprecedented. Only dictatorships do that.

Your argument was clearly done in very bad faith and I hope it isn't taken seriously by anyone. JBlade73 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is about including far-right as a political position of the Republican Party, as you stated in the first paragraph of the opening post. However, the post I am addressing, which is written by you, does not. Therefore, there is nothing worth criticizing that post because it does not address the proposal raised here. I will also strike the "criminalizing abortion" argument of my vote to dissuade further replies from addressing that argument. Also, please assume good faith. ZergTwo (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? That Joejoe1864's argument and mine to include right wing authoritarianism is not far right? I gave very valid arguments for why all I said is right wing authoritarianism. Right wing authoritarianism is far right there is no discussion about that. You want to argue that right wing authoritarianism is not far right or what? How is all I mentioned not authoritarian? Even you acknowledged yourself when I mentioned criminalizing abortion and women's rights and so on. Or you don't know what natalism means? You can go here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism#:~:text=Natalism%20(also%20called%20pronatalism%20or,and%20therefore%20advocates%20high%20birthrate if you don't understand what I am talking about. JBlade73 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I've stated before, with supporting reasons, that adding far-right as a political position of the Republican Party is a net negative for the article.

Natalism is not the subject of this proposal. Please stop mentioning it. Additionally, your argument also appears to mostly reason that right wing authoritarianism is far right, which is not the proposal of discussion. Also, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process because your edits could discourage future participants from engaging in this discussion. If you choose to respond to this post, please stick to the topic at hand—your proposal to include far-right as a political position of the Republican Party—and be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. If you don't, it would be a waste of my time to continue discussing with you. ZergTwo (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So you are asking me if I want to include far right? Or if my argument is to include far right? I literally started with the word far right. Or you want to say what I said is not far right? I really don't understand what you are trying to say? I said far right should be disscused and included? How is that not a discussion about far right? JBlade73 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing that the Republican Party should be labelled as far-right instead of right-wing? ZergTwo (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No I said that far right should be included. Right wing to far right means inclusion of far right. I don't know if it should be strictly far right but I said far right should be included and I leave up to the mods how far right should be included just that JBlade73 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So you want the Republican Party to also be described as far-right? ZergTwo (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I clearly said that. JBlade73 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a right-wing to far right party for comparison Party for Freedom. 1101 (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea and? What you want to say? JBlade73 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump has supported UKIP and Fidesz and met with both of the leaders of the parties Orban and Farage and both are right wing to far right JBlade73 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like Britannica references "Trump’s far-right social positions and outspoken hostility toward immigrants", and given Trump has been the leader of the Republican party for years at this point, I think right-wing to far-right would be a fair analysis. But, unfortunately, we'll want a change like this, which may be viewed as controversial, to be well-sourced, and involve no opinion or own analysis, if that makes sense. 1101 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea I know it is very crazy this has been going on since last year. Every mod seems afraid to change it how it should be and you are right and everyone who said right wing to far right is the most correct position. Like I don't know why wikipedia is afraid like it would face backlash or something. Like who is going to backlash against them? The republicans? They hate Wikipedia. Elon musk hates Wikipedia. Republicans hate education, Republicans hate educated people, they hate smart people etc. It is no coincidence that educated people are more progressive like republicans don't stay on Wikipedia or anything related to education. They are defunding and terroizing the education system and you expect them to care about being knowledged. Yeah good luck with that and I am not even biased here it is just proven facts. I have given information without even showing a grain on bias. This have been proven and researched for years. So I don't understand how the information I have given and many other people have given are not enough. Like where is the bias in the sources I don't get it? Like everything is biased now? Even information which is very obvious? JBlade73 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You might want to check out the references in this section: Factions in the Republican Party (United States) § Trumpists. 1101 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The thing you brought up has been brought up here before and was deleted. So yea.... Wikipedia is very scared and they know far right should be included but they just don't want to. JBlade73 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

"pronatalist movement with far-right eugenics" I don't get this. First, natalism is not solely achieved by banning abortions. Look for example at the natalist policies of the Soviet Union: "the Soviet government switched to neo-traditionalism, promoting family values and sobriety, banning abortions and making divorces harder to obtain, advancing natalist ideals that made mockery of irresponsible parents." The Republicans are not promoting family values, and have not legislated anything about divorces. As for eugenics, the preferred solution for traditional eugenics was the forced sterilization for sections of the population which they deemed "undesirable", such as "black women in the South and Latina women in the Southwest". The American supporters of this ideology were not advocating for an increase in the birth rates, they just wanted to "curb the population rise of non-white citizens." Since Oregon ended its forced sterilization program back in 1981, no U. S. state has been particularly eager to resume the sterilization of their "undesirables". Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Say that to him https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Black_(white_supremacist)

He is republican you clearly didn't read any of the articles and what republicans Trump and Musk will want. Abortion was legal in Texas too before but now isn't. Your argument is not valid JBlade73 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Lol yea giving Soviet Union as argument which was dictatorship yea please come up with better arguments before talking ok? Thanks JBlade73 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A left wing dictatorship that is. Like you know the difference between left wing or right wing? How was Soviet Union a right wing dictatorship? Can you tell me? JBlade73 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I give up numerous evidence and valid sources from trustworthy sources such as Southern Poverty Law and they have studied and researched Project 2025 which Trump and republicans want to enact how is Project 2025 not far right? I like that Wikipedia deleted the Project 2025 argument too. JBlade73 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

This should be added too

While its American practice was ostensibly about improving genetic quality, it has been argued that eugenics was more about preserving the position of the dominant groups in the population. Scholarly research has determined that people who found themselves targets of the eugenics movement were those who were seen as unfit for society—the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, and specific communities of color—and a disproportionate number of those who fell victim to eugenicists' sterilization initiatives were women who were identified as African American, Asian American, or Native American. As a result, the United States' eugenics movement is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to demographic and population changes, as well as concerns over the economy and social well-being, rather than scientific genetics.

Far-right politics, often termed right-wing extremism, encompasses a range of ideologies that are marked by radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra-nationalism, and nativism

Nativism is part of far right/right wing authoritarianism

Nativism is on republican party agenda I gave numerous sources for it. JBlade73 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this guy ZergTwo started coming and saying strong oppose but all his argument were bad he even crossed some of his arguments because he didn't know what he was talking about and now he asked me if I want to include far right and he said absolutely nothing afterwards like what is this? You come and talk and argue and then say nothing after I destroy your arguments like what? JBlade73 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

People need to sleep. Anyway, your behavior is disruptive, your tone is aggressive, and you are continuing to bludgeon this discussion. Most of your comments do not address the topic you are proposing. If you do not stop this disruptive behavior, you may be blocked from editing. ZergTwo (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok do it then block me let's see how that helps JBlade73 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No my friend you are the one who did not address the topic you literally crossed your argument about abortion and criminalization of it. The cope is very hard in your words JBlade73 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

People have seen everything here they know let's see how good it makes it look when you will block me and threaten me. You literally are threatening me with block because I debate my own topic? And I am the one aggressive yea JBlade73 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose without adequate sourcing and consensus. The article mentions how the Republican Party generally opposes abortion. For what it's worth, opposition to abortion is strongest among White evangelicals.

Link: https://www.nationhoodlab.org/abortions-regional-divide/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Then by your logic Christian right should be removed too JBlade73 (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing against stating that the Republican Party opposes abortion and reproductive rights in general. But what I do not support is labelling the Republican Party as authoritarian and fascist without adequate sourcing and consensus.

See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. Particularly, it appears you want to "Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue," but that is simply not the purpose of Wikipedia.

One other thing is that the number of legal abortions went up after the Dobbs decision, not down. Long story short, it appears pregnant women are able travel to states where abortion is legal.

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807017663/?bestFormat=true&k=after%20dobbs%20how%20the%20supreme%20court%20ended%20roe%20but%20not%20abortion&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k1_1_11&crid=2YSZIDM22QPMQ&sprefix=after%20dobbs JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes because Republicans don't have control over all states that should be pretty obivous. We are specifically talking about areas dominated or controlled by Republicans. But like I said there are a lot of members in that party who think otherwise. Do you understand now? I even gave numerous information about it. Like January 6 United States Capitol attack obvious signs of attack against democracy and so on perpetuated by Trump and his "followers" and I also gave a list of active white supremacists and neo Nazis like Don Black which are members of the Republican Party. Like what exactly are you trying to say? That Democrat's senators having autonomy over their states is a counterargument against right wing authoritarianism which is present in Republican Party, Republican States and is obviously wanted to be implemented by the Republicans? Btw even in obviously authoritarian states like China and Russia people can leave and go wherever they want I don't understand what you trying to say by that. I think you are confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism? Fascism doesn't necessarily have to be totalitarian, Fascist Spain was authoritarian not totalitarian. JBlade73 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've edited a lot of pages, including the page on Totalitarianism, where I personally labelled with sourcing Francisco Franco's rule of Spain (1936-1975) as totalitarian with sources.

Anyway, abortion and reproductive rights aren't even close to the top of voters' priorities, even among female voters or 2024 Harris voters. Roughly half of the weighted sample of this poll are Harris voters and women.

The top priorities for voters are mostly related to the economy, not social issues.

• The top priorities for voters in order are: inflation/prices (25%), jobs and the economy (12%), health care (12%), taxes and government spending (8%), civil rights (7%), climate change and the environment (6%), national security (6%), civil liberties (4%), education (4%), crime (3%), abortion (3%), guns (2%), foreign policy (1%), and criminal justice reform (0%).

Link: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_Uo7FRzc.pdf ; See page 33, Question 5 cross-tabs JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Is Fascist Spain considered totalitarian on Wikipedia? It doesn't matter what you said if it isn't consensus on it. Why are you changing the subject? We weren't talking about Harris and democrats voters??? What are you talking about. Please stay on topic. JBlade73 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"Trumpism" should be added to ideology 169.224.2.231 (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

See the footnote next to populism. — Czello ^(music) 10:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologise to add to the endless discussions again, but should 'Center-right politics'^[1][2] be included in the list of factional ideologies in the infobox? Will Thorpe (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Will Thorpe (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Support; easily meets source requirements and is discussed both on this page and on the factions page. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

N.b. the provided sources could be updated with more recent ones quite easily. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we should remove factional ideologies from the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Soft support/comment, I'd prefer a different label be used for the ideology of the party's moderate faction, such as moderate conservatism or liberal conservatism or something similar. Of course these would need to be backed up by sources as well, but I generally don't like positions being listed as ideologies in a party infobox. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Just thought of a different potential ideology to describe the moderate republicans, bipartisanship, which I know for sure from some previous discussions is well-sourced, would just need to track down said sources should the label be added. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Does that even count as an ideology? Bipartisanism is just willingness to achieve political compromises, instead of having any particular ideological goal. For example, I have often heard people accusing Barack Obama of constantly seeking bipartisan solutions and never setting any clear goals for his party. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose See the related RfC EarthDude (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose have any of you who want to add support even watch the news or open the TV lately? How are the tarrifs and anything that Trump is doing so far center right? Nobody in the Republican Party is opposing his tarrifs or what is doing. If you meant far right should be added yea that would make more sense. JBlade73 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on abortion I have already a full topic about it which has been forgotten JBlade73 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

In the span of a single decade, Donald Trump has turned the international trade order from free trade to one harkening back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, with reportedly average U.S. tariffs on goods at 22% after today's announcement.

A decade ago, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership free trade agreements were being negotiated. Today, April 2, 2025, Donald Trump announced 10% baseline tariffs on all countries, and varying "reciprocal tariffs" on some countries. Donald Trump has destroyed the international trade order that presidents Reagan and both Bushes had supported.

I've tried to incorporate this into the lead, but I think there's room to improve it. I cannot overstate how large this shift is on economic issues.

Link: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/04/03/trump-takes-americas-trade-policies-back-to-the-19th-century Link: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/04/02/business/trump-tariffs-liberation-day JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You should not add your personal opinions to the lead. Trump has introduced tariffs, he says, in order to get other countries to drop theirs. If true, that means he supports free trade. OTOH, some analysts believe the tariffs are meant to fund his tax cuts. Furthermore, Trump is not the Republican Party.

This is an encyclopedic article, not a newspaper. The reasons for current events may not be known for some time, if ever. We don't have to update the article for everything Trump says or does. TFD (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree Trump never rejected neoliberalism he literally copied the slogan of Reagan (M.A.G.A). Reagan also put tarrifs and nobody is calling him anti free trade. He literally is the pinnacle of neoliberalism JBlade73 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @JBlade73 I found the perfect way to describe Trump's economic policies--mercantilism. The Mercantilism article literally explains Trump's goals. Trump's obsession with imposing tariffs, reducing trade deficits, wanting everything manufactured in the United States, transactional approaches with other countries, etc. are all textbook mercantilism.

• Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade.
• The concept aims to reduce a possible current account deficit or reach a current account surplus, and it includes measures aimed at accumulating monetary reserves by a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods.
• Mercantilism promotes government regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting and bolstering state power at the expense of rival national powers. High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, were almost universally a feature of mercantilist policy. Before it fell into decline, mercantilism was dominant in modernized parts of Europe and some areas in Africa from the 16th to the 19th centuries, a period of proto-industrialization.

Long story short, Trump is trying to impose the global economic order that prevailed from roughly the 16th to 19th centuries back. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of sources portray the policies of Trump and Biden as mercantilism. But before saying the two parties are now mercantilist, you would need sources. Also, one substantial difference is that the U.S. does not have and cannot have extensive colonial possessions. TFD (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces In the past two days, all the major stock market indices (Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite) have crashed at least 10% as a result of Trump's mercantilist policies, namely his "Liberation Day" speech and "reciprocal tariffs." Trump is unfazed, because his goal isn't the stock market, but rather enacting mercantilism and ending American trade deficits.

Donald Trump's tariff policies aren't geared to help rich people, they're geared to satisfy his belief shared by his supporters that free trade, neoliberalism, and trade deficits are bad. Trump was able to win the Rust Belt swing states running on his tariff policies, not promoting conservative economic orthodoxy about cutting taxes for rich people and the wonders of free trade and neoliberalism. What other Republicans and the Democrats failed to understand is that White voters without college degrees fundamentally resent neoliberalism and free trade, because it has largely failed to benefit them. It's a fundamentally different economic mindset, one that is nationalist, anti-immigration, and pro-tariffs.

Link for stock market: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

Source for Trump: https://www.ft.com/content/ed994477-a23a-4f48-9019-917b5dc51041 ; Trump’s aggressive push to roll back globalization

Source for nationalism: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No reasonable analysts seriously believe that Trump's motivation is helping working class white people at the expense of big business. But you have ignored my two points: (1) Biden was also accused of mercantilism and (2) you cannot generalize from Trump to the party without reliable sources that do that. TFD (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Not having a college degree does not mean one is "working class," as you can for example be retired and not have a college degree. Anyway, Trump's voters are fundamentally resentful of the social and economic status quo, and have a parochial mindset. They want illegal immigrants deported, free trade eviscerated, tariffs placed on all imports, don't care about intergovernmental organizations (i.e. World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, NATO, etc.), etc.

In Trump's 2nd term, Trump is unbound and determined to exact the agenda he and his base want. Trump's voters in the Rust Belt fundamentally resent free trade, and got a President who wants globalization torn apart and burned to the ground, replaced by a halcyon age of mercantilism. This is fundamentally a different mindset, not rooted in helping the "working class" but attacking cosmopolitanism and liberalism, including on economic issues. Trump has used the term "globalist" as a pejorative for a reason.

Quote:

• "They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums. They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule. Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging."

The World Trump Wants: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage

Trump’s aggressive push to roll back globalisation: https://www.ft.com/content/ed994477-a23a-4f48-9019-917b5dc51041 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

And how is that mercantilism? You probably meant protectionism or autarky and in that case if you really want to propose your topic seriously, Republican party should be right wing to far right or far right which you seem to reject. You can't propose what you said without adding or support the change of the ideology from "right wing" to "right wing to far right" or far right JBlade73 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@JBlade73

I'm open to including "right wing to far-right", the problem with that is a discussion of RS and consensus would need to be reached to include it in the info-box.

Protectionism is part of mercantilism, and autarky is more extreme than mercantilism. Autarky would be entirely shutting down international trade with the United States, which Trump hasn't done so far. The entire point of mercantilism is to reduce trade deficits, as Trump wants, and as the article states "High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, were almost universally a feature of mercantilist policy."

This link is behind a paywall, but here are relevant quotes:

• "But the series of shock decisions — not just the rhetoric — from Trump, vice-president JD Vance and Elon Musk are less brain-bendingly inexplicable once you realise this: their version of America is operating on an entirely different set of values from the rest of the western world."
• "Usually, analysis is done at national level, but by drilling down to different political parties in the latest raw data, I find that on everything from attitudes towards international co-operation, to appetite for an autocratic leadership style, through to trust in institutions and inward- vs outward-looking mindset, Trump’s America is a stark outlier from western Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. In many cases, the Maga mindset is much closer to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey."
• "A government seemingly driven by zero-sum ideology and a commitment to reducing international co-operation is one whose threats of a trade war you should probably take seriously despite possible economic self-harm. Likewise, a leadership team that believes geopolitics is a game of cards played by strong men and great powers is one whose support and co- operation other countries should quickly build independence from."

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/3046013f-da85-4987-92a5-4a9e3008a9e1 ; Why the Maga mindset is different JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh interesting I didn't even know protectionism is part of mercantilism interesting. Yes because I saying that in Europe parties which support protectionism are right wing to far right and far right such as Marine Le Pen National Rally she is a big supporter of protectionism. Now looking back at it kinda makes sense what you are saying since in UK Farage is pro imperialism and he would definitely want British Empire restoration if he had full control and British Empire was mercantilist. JBlade73 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

But also being a mercantilist means you engage in wars. So far Trump didn't engage in any wars maybe in the future we might consider it fully mercantilist if he does something like that. Like he is still a neoliberal by his economic policy. Like I don't think this trade tarrifs right now are enough cause to call him mercantilist. Like maybe a pre mercantilist phase? Like it isn't fully mercantilist for now. Like only partially JBlade73 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Like he has on Gaza for quite some time which if he truly does take control over Gaza like he said before, it would be definitely enough to call him mercantilist. JBlade73 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

JA1800, I think TFD is correct here. We don't know if Trump is doing this because he wants high tariffs long term or as a bargaining ploy to get others to lower theirs. We should be careful looking at the short term and presuming a long term goal, especially without clear sourcing to say as much. It really would be best if we waited to include this with a clear historical analysis, not bits and pieces provided by sources who aren't taking a zoomed out view. Springee (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how to describe Trump's tariff agenda, and while it almost perfectly fits the definition of mercantilism, I'm having trouble fitting them in context. These tariffs are a massive policy change, and I'm trying to figure out if they reflect a Republican realignment among Trump at least to help his base, particularly the "working class" voters in the Rust Belt who gave him the presidency.

Here are the facts I've been reading.

• Per RS, Trump's tariff agenda is popular among Republican voters but not among Democrats, economists, and even many business organizations, executives, and financial markets.
• I'm not sure who exactly benefits from these tariffs, and RS vary. They hurt businesses who import foreign goods, who have to pay them to U.S. customs; they likely increase prices on those goods paid by consumers. In fact, they hurt the largest businesses the most, particularly those with global supply chains.
• Trump is enacting tariffs because he believes that trade deficits are bad, believes that tariffs will help American manufacturing, and wants to collect tax revenue.

These tariffs are genuinely puzzling, because they are popular with Republican voters and Trump campaigned on them in 2024, while they are opposed by business organizations, executives, and financial markets. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Sorry, I can't be of help. But perhaps you would weigh in on the discussion I just opened below? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Actually, I am going to weigh in on this a little. I just read the paragraphs under Economic policies and Mercantilism and, particularly with the latter, they are too much about Trump. This is an article on the party as a whole and should reflect its historic position. If you have reliable sources that make a good argument that the party's positions have changed recently, that should also be added. But discussion that describes Trump's actions exclusively is unbalanced. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)