Talk:Democratic Party (United States): Difference between revisions

Archives

---

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2
3. Archive 3
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5
6. Archive 6
7. Archive 7

The Democratic Party (also known as The Democrat Party)

Response to Primalchaos and Jersyko concerning use of the phrase "also known as The Democrat Party". I understand what you are saying, but is WIKI about accuracy or about political correctness? Regardless of the positive or negative connotation some choose to place on the noun 'Democrat' or the adjective 'Democratic', the issue here is not one of spin. The specific issue is whether the 'subject' of the Wiki article, the American political party commonly known as 'The Democratic Party' is 'also known as' -- or known by -- other words. And also whether those words are ones commonly applied to the subject, and commonly understood to mean the subject. If the answer is yes, then incorporating the words that the subject is 'also known as' is a valid and appropriate usage, and that includes whether or not one chooses to interpret those 'other words' in positive or negative light. I will also post this message on the article's discussion page. Fungible 09:40, 05 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is already a page for the history of the political epithet at Democrat Party (phrase). Any such references in this article will be removed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jersey Devil. The use of "Democrat Party" in a disparaging manner is well documented in reliable sources as demonstrated at the article linked by JD; there's no valid reason to use it in the first sentence of this article. Also, please note that in order to to link to user pages, one must include the word "user" in a wikilink. For example Jersyko is not my user page, User:Jersyko is. I moved the comment you posted at Talk:Jersyko to my user talk page at User talk:Jersyko. · jersyko talk 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. The word phrase is noted in the "Name and Symbols" section and that is more than accommodating for this. Popular disparaging word plays like "Micro$oft" for Microsoft by its critics don't show up in their article and with good reason. See Satiric misspelling. Settler (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One could also say that the Republican Party is also known as the Repugnant Party, but such a statement would be no more appropriate than the parallel remark about the Democrat Party. Encyclopedias are not about propagating insults. Paul (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Center-Left?

How are they Center-Left? They can be called Center(liberal) at least, but they are not any more left than that. I think we should change it unless someone can prove that they are center-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to the "Center-Right" Republican Party, the Dems are "far left". It just all depends on who you ask: however, the consensus is that the Dems are "center left" and the GOP is "center right". --Midnite Critic (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then they are Socialist, Social Democratic, or Social Liberal, Which they aren't. Compare the Democratic party to the New Democratic Party of Canada which is socialist/social democratic and they don't match. Now try matching them with the Liberal Party of Canada, which can range from Social Liberal to Liberal and they don't match "completly", but do a little bit. Now the Conservative Party of Canada, which is not as right as the Republicans, but still is Center-right, and they don't match, but they do match a little bit too. If you look at this they are a Liberal Conservative party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In countries with a well established two party system "left" and "right" tend to be defined by the respective positions of those two parties far more than any abstract concept of some over arching "left" and "right" spectrum. Unless you're arguing the Democrats are to the right of the Republicans, it seems pretty clear that they're the centre left part of US politics. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would call the Republican Party right-wing, bordering on far-right, and rate the Democratic Party as barely avoiding center-right status (despite the best efforts of the DLC to push it in that direction). 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • On the national level, the Democrats are simply considered left, and the Republicans are simply considered right.
  • On the international level, the Democrats would be considered center-right. They're more pro-business than their counterparts in Europe or Canada, even with the arrival of "Third Way" politics in those parts; and they usually (though not always) advocate moderate regulation of the economy, as opposed to nationalization as the social-democrats in Europe have supported for ages.
  • On the international level, the Republicans would be considered far right. Partly because business has more power in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada, which encourages the GOP to move even further to the right; partly because of the hard-core nationalism seen in foreign policy; partly because of the theocratic inclinations of the Religious Right, which have no counterpart anywhere else in the world. (The closest equivalent would be the neo-nationalist movements in Europe, like the French Front National or Jorg Haider in Austria, but they don't have the kind of power the fundamentalist movement does in the United States. Not even close).
  • Will the GOP in its current form ever mellow out? Certainly would be nice, but they'll be a far right party for the forseeable future. 147.9.233.254 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the democrats are centre right. Since this website is an international one, I don't see how the national level would matter. Unless of course you are advocating that wikipedia should only cater to Americans. http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by HUGENAT2 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugenat2 hit the nail on the head. Judged against parties such as the British or Canadian Conservatives and the Gaullists, the Democrats definitely qualify as center-right. The mere fact that a majority of them oppose single-payer health care indicates this. See my remarks on the Republican Party talk page.Amyzex (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time Political Compass is not a reliable analysis that trumps the conventional terms, it is a website trying to promote its own subjective interpretation and says nothing about its methodology. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In the mostly two party system that the US has, one is Left and the other is Right. All this Republicans are far-right and Democrats are center is subjective nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.4.52 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is center-left, not left-wing. Left-wing positions that are taken for granted in Europe, Canada and parts of Asia, in the U.S. are either soft-peddled, toned down, moderated or completely abandoned by the Democratic Party in an attempt not to appear "too extreme."

- Instead of government nationalization, they tend to only advocate regulation, respecting the integrity of the private sector while the purely left-wing reaction is usually to nationalize it.

- Have since the Reagan revolution embraced deregulation and the private sector to a certain extent, balancing between labor and business (see Bill Clinton and Third Way) where the purely left-wing reaction would be pro-labor, damn business.

- Have to soft-peddle their stances on social issues such as abortion, darwinism and gay marriage where a purely left-wing reaction would be to endorse and applaud all of them.

- Have as often as not embraced the unilateral, aggressive streak of U.S. foreign policy.

The Republican Party by contrast is rabidly far-right, proudly and openly pursuing policies which in most other democratic nations have been dismissed not only as extremist but pure lunacy.

- Welfare state; seventy years after the New Deal, the GOP is still happily trying to privatize social security and attacks even the slightest increase in government welfare programs. In no other major democracy can a party so adamantly oppose guaranteed health care, or even think about attacking retirement security.

- Business and labor; while the Democratic Party since Roosevelt has tried to strike a balance between labor and business, the Republican Party is overwhelmingly pro-business and hasn't even the slightest interest in unions and try to run them out of business every chance they get. (Enough of them still don't even believe in minimum wage).

- Ultra-nationalist rhetoric; see the blind worship of the U.S. military by the population, the knee-jerk support for any politician who waves the flag and apple pie in voters' faces. The war in Iraq could not have happened in any other major democracy. Nor would draft-dodging scum like Bush and Chambliss been able to run against war veterans and present themselves as "patriots."

- The religious right. Nowhere else in the world, democratic or not, could a political party seriously question the theory of evolution and be seen as anything other than complete lunatics. The fucking *Vatican* believes in evolution. That something like the religious right can exist in the U.S. (and there is no equivalent on the left) and actually be taken seriously is a testament to just how far to the right the nation is.

The Democrats are not left-wing, not by international standards. They're center left, advocating moderately leftist position but with far too many concessions to the free market, nationalism, religious fanaticism et al to be called truly left-wing. Nor are the Republicans run of the mill right-wing, they're extremists advocating a system that died between sixty and forty years ago in the rest of the free world.

Cheer up. In Europe, it's the other way around... "right-wing" parties like the UMP or CDU are actually center-right, while the "left-wing" parties could be characterized more as far-left. 147.9.229.4 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, but please don't let your very obvious political bias cloud your judgement too much 147 71.216.157.246 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By international standards the democrats are center right and the republicans are far right. I think people think that the dems are left wing to try to distinguish them from the reps. 24.79.129.48 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

Democrats in the House of Representatives and United States Senate near-unanimously voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists against "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation. Most elected Democrats continue in their support of the Afghanistan conflict, and some have voiced concerns that the Iraq War is shifting too many resources away from the presence in Afghanistan.

The fact that a large minority of Democrats oppose the war is certainly notable. I added this: Some Democrats also oppose the invasion. In spring 2008, Gallup found that 41% of Democrats called the invasion a "mistake" while a 55% majority disagreed. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It could be added that those democrats opposes the war now that it is politically inconvenient however when politically advantages after September 11th, 2001. Of the democrats that voted on the war only one, voted against war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.206.180 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also added Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage while 2008 candidate Barack Obama does so. Most Democrats have supported other civil rights laws such as extending hate crime statutes to cover violence against LGBT people. and Democratic Presidental candidate Barack Obama advocates a withdrawal of combat troops within Iraq by late 2010 with a residual force of peacekeeping troops left in place. I know this page has been a battleground in the past but I can't see anything controversial about these statements. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for Obama's support of same-sex marriage? I think he's opposed to federal legislation banning same-sex marriage, but that's not the same thing. —KCinDC (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... his position is actually the most absolutely nuanced that any person can get. He:

1) Personally opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. 2) Yet he sent his congratulations to couples who recently got married. 3) Has not expressed support for legislative measures to legalize it. 4) Yet he opposes iniatives banning it. 5) And he supports court decisions legalizing it.

[1] [2] [3] [4] GOOD GRIEF!

The Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage while 2008 candidate Barack Obama does so should probably be removed.24.32.204.89 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. And since 'when' does Barack Obama support same-sex marriage?! SweetNightmares (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding Social Democracy

Could those people whom keep adding Social Democracy cut it out. I say this as a Democratic Socialist whom would love for the party to be more left-wing. The Democrats are far from being anywhere near Social Democrats however, far! Indeed they would almost be Conservatives from a world-point of view. No major elected official, or non elected offical, from the Democratic Party espouses Social Democracy.

And to those who claim some members hold Social Democratic views; perhaps, but I'll bet one or two Republicans also hold fascist or national conservative views, and yet we aren't adding that to their article are we?--Saffron831 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"outright" vs "caucus" majority

The article said "the party holds an outright majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate." I have changed this to "the party holds an outright majority in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

The original was qualified that way because they didn't hold an outright majority in the 110th Congress: "Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes." Notice correct use of the past tense in the 110th Congress article

dbw (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal International

I can find no evidence to support the claim made on this page that the democratic party belongs to the "Liberal International" organization. They are not listed as members on the organization's website. Frankly, I would be downright surprised if they were members, considering the fact that democratic politicians run away from the "Liberal" label like the plague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.5.98 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I have removed that bit. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a good chuckle out of the phrase "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities;". Review the historic voting record and it's comical how wrong this is about ethnic minorities. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.157.113 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for your opinions.

There are many internet forums for discussing your opinions about whether the Democratic Party is centrist, centre-right, centre-left, liberal, progressive, whatever. Wikipedia is NOT one such internet forum. All posted material must be cited from reliable sources per Wiki Guidelines.

One thing we do NOT do on Wikipedia is debate things on talk pages and try to come to a consensus on what Wikipedia's opinion on something is. Wikipedia doesn't have opinions on anything but Wikipedia policy, or at least ideally we do not. As such, debating about whether the Democratic party is "Liberal" or "Centre-right" or whatever is pointless, unless you are providing a RELIABLE AND DEMONSTRABLY NON-PARTISAN source for your claim.

I will do my best to protect this article from unscrupulous preaching of opinion, even if it means we won't (just like EB doesn't) have a sentence addressing what so-called political ideology the party supposedly espouses. Same for the GOP article. MarcelB612 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Center-left incorrect

In the lead it states the Democratic Party supports a center-left platform. That's quite incorrect. They are center-right. Centric if you want to be kind. Everywhere but the United States recognizes this. Anyone with any background in political theory can easily tell you the Democratic platform is center-right. I've update the lead to reflect these facts. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You've provided absolutely no source for your claims. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, if a true center-left/social democratic party came in the US it would easily be regarded as "communist/socialist". In world-politics, if similar parties like the Democrats and Republicans existed in a country they would most likely both be to the right of the center, and thus cooperating easily in coalitions and such. Besides some individual social issues like healthcare and so on, in reality US elections is voting for either "free market liberalism" or "slightly regulated free market liberalism". Of the full spectrum of politics, the current political state in the US is actually quite narrow. (For the record, I am not social democratic myself) User:Gabagool/sig 16:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To expand, the only thing I could agree with the Democrats being Center-left is that they might be socially Center-left/Centrist. If someone try to say that the Democrats are fiscally Center-left they truly can't have any kind of understanding of economic politics. In my country, Norway, I think the true full political spectrum is nicely representated (in Sweden for instance, it is not as much, as all major parties pretty much revolve around social democracy/liberalism): The major "left"-bloc consisting of (from far-left): Socialist Left Party (socialist)-Norwegian Labour Party (social democratic)-Centre Party (centrist), and the "right"-bloc of (from center-right): Christian Democratic Party (christian democratic)-Liberal Party (social liberalism)-Conservative Party (conservative liberalism)-Progress Party (national conservatism/classical liberalism). In Norway the parties that probably most closely resembles the Dems and GOP would be the Liberal Party and the Progress Party. The reason that Americans tend to believe that the Democrats are "left-wing" is in my mind merely because of the fundamentally strong standing of free market capitalism in the society, so that even the modest regulations will automatically be deemed as socialistic/leftist. This is because a national politically standard is potentially pretty relative, in the Soviet Union for instance the Democrats would probably be viewed as far-right. I suggest at least firmly establishing in the lead that the Democrats are only center-left by American standards. User:Gabagool/sig 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Education section misleading

The graphs give the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who are 4-year college graduates, but that is the wrong thing to use. We should use a graph of the percentage of 4-year college graduates who are Democrats and Republicans, and reword the section appropriately - while it is true that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats have college degrees, this is largely because the Democrats have millions more voters who are black and hispanic, and thus have below-average rates of college degrees. If you look at the absolute percentage of people with bachelor's degrees who are Democrats and Republicans, it gives a far more accurate picture. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this current means of comparison would be misleading. While I agree that it would be good to include the additional statistic you suggest, these two different means of comparison merely seem to demonstrate different aspects of the differences in the constituencies of the two parties. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing 'campaign'

What reasoning is there to remove the word campaign from 'promoting Democratic campaign activities'? -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)