[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Political alignment

All or nearly all political parties are described in Wikipedia as being centre, left, right, etc. Why isn't the republican party's alignment (presumably "right") shown?Royalcourtier (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not correct to state that "all" political parties are labeled in such a way. At any rate, the problem is that doing so opens up a gigantic can of worms without any real, significant gain from it. It can be argued that the Party should be labeled as Right-wing, far-right, as Right-wing, as Center-right, right-wing, or as Center, center-right. It all depends on who you ask, and reliable sources come to contradictory, exclusive options. Practically, after all, the party includes both Susan Collins and Ted Nugent. There's a general prior consensus not to open that can of worms. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
To resolve controversy and also to provide new data, we should add a new label of pan-Right, which links to conservatism. If you're way ahead of me, go forward 115.118.252.62 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC) (not logged in yet)
I completely agree with User:Royalcourtier. The GOP is broadly a centre-right party and I frankly don't understand why United States parties should be the only ones without a position in the infobox. Each and every party of the world, especially catch-all parties (from the UK Conservative Party to the German SPD), are home different ideological trends, but, still, they have a position in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Checco. It's standard to have a political position in the Infobox, this is a 'world' encyclopaedia after all, and the main US (and Australian) parties shouldn't be an exception to this. Also Checco says, many political parties are broad-based with varying ideological trends and factions, particularly major/governing parties, but they still can be categorised as a unit on the political spectrum.--Autospark (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Autospark: What can we do to fix this problem? Where can we raise the issue? --Checco (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, I think, that the mainstream U.S. conceptualization is that the Republican Party is center-right, while the Democratic Party is center-left. That's very arguably not actually true, because the center of the U.S.'s politics is already center-right in a global context, which makes the Republican party decidedly right-wing, while the Democratic Party is center to center-right. We'll have to decide which perspective (American or global) should take precedence before we can settle the issue.Hangmanwa7id (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The can of worms are currently opened at Talk:Freedom Caucus, a caucus within the Republican party, so please chime in there because I think the same arguments apply. Iselilja (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Hangmanwa7id. The Republican Party is centre-right and the Democratic Party centre-left both from a global and an American point of view. In fact, while on some issues Republicans and Democrats might be more conservative than some of their European counterparts, on others they are more progressive than the European mainstream. --Checco (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. The Republican Party is right-wing (conservative) and the Democrats are centrist (liberal), but both parties have different individuals who are either more left or more right. E.g. Randall Terry (Democrat) is pro-Life, the Bush family (Republicans) is not. I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets, you cannot set a political alignment for those two parties like for European ones. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand what is wrong about my comments. I subscribe to the theory on American exceptionalism, but American parties are not so exceptional as some people think. The Republicans are broadly a centre-right party, while the Democrats are broadly centre-left—and European parties tend to be internally diverse too (moreover, in Europe, there are many mainstream centre-right parties which are to the right of Republicans and several mainstream centre-left parties which are to the right of Democrats). Btw, George H.W., George W. Bush and Jeb Bush are all pro-life; only Prescott was not convincincly so. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's like I said: the Republicans are right-wing, the Democrats centrist. There is no left-wing party in the congress though there is the Socialist party in some state parliaments. If George H.W. and W. Bush are really pro-Life, why didn't they abolish abortion totally or partially? Plus, Jeb Bush as Governor has executed Pro-Lifers from the Army of God. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like you are not very informed (and also a little bit confused: Bushes, abortion, Army of God, etc.). The Democrats are centre-left (not left-wing) and the Socialist Party is not represented in state parliaments. --Checco (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, then explain it to me please! And the S.P. is maybe not represented at the moment in any state parliament, but mostly! The USA have 50 states (if you don't count the D.C.)! --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Noticed there was an edit that added a "better image" couple months ago that got rid of anything negative about the republican party in the page, making them look far more appealing and less extreme then they actually are.. why is this? 137.28.226.25 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that the political center of gravity in American politics is centrist? I think you'll find few people willing to classify the American "center" as anything left of center-right. Socialism has been almost universally demonized for the better part of a century, both major parties favor free trade and globalization in practice, Republicans favored the Iraq War much more than Democrats opposed it, and the Democratic Party proceeds with great caution on social issues. Many issues that other countries consider common sense are controversial here, like universal healthcare, unions, or environmental laws. Progressives are still considered fringe elements, while people like Ben Carson and Donald Trump can command large audiences from the Republican Party. Need I go on?Hangmanwa7id (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to go on as your arguments are pretty clear—and, again, I totally disagree with such explanations. The Democrats are not less progressive than most social-democratic parties in Europe and, on some social issues, the Democrats as a whole are to the left of many European social-democratic leaders. The main difference with Europe is that American parties are better at integrating the most extreme elements of the political spectrum and, while Trump and Carson are indeed extreme, they will never be elected President and they won't probably win the Republican nomination too. In Europe there are far-right and far-left parties, and mainstream parties are in retreat, while in the United States Republicans and Democrats are both mainstream and inclusive to an extent that fringe parties do not emerge. Almost every American President, Republican and Democrat, centre-right or centre-left, has been ultimately a centrist. This is the genius of American democracy, its political culture and, of course, its electoral system. --Checco (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
One issue that hasn't been fully explored -- this is a party specific to the United States, so shouldn't the political center in question be the political center of the United States, not some hypothetical world political center? Given the diversity of world political systems, it would be hard to come up with the world political center anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.120 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, IP user. The political center in question should be primarily the center ground in American politics. However, as I long argued, the Republican Party is broadly a center-right party both from an American and a "global" point of view. --Checco (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias in other languages describe the political position as "center-right to right-wing."

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

I'm sorry; I'm new to this and have no idea how it works. I was responding to the page on the republican party; specifically the neoconservative section. It's possible I'm in error, and since the source quoted was a book, it's very hard to confirm, but I am almost positive that the neoconservative movement came from disgruntled conservatives, not "disenchanted intellectual liberal Democrats" as this page says. Again... I'm not going to go buy this book, but this sounds horribly inaccurate to me... and I truly hope at least someone at wikipedia has gotten this book and confirmed the source; because I'll trust y'all if you really confirmed it; but I can't confirm it without buying the book and I won't do that. And I'm almost positive that statement is false. So much that I don't believe it. Have you confirmed this source? Do you really believe the Neoconservative movement was founded by "disenchanted intellectual liberal Democrats"? Idk I may be wrong; and as I said, I can't check the source without going out and getting the book, but it sounds like a kings bounty of bullshit to me.

Nosral1990 (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The reliable sources are unanimous that it was former liberals who formed the neoconservative core. There a good statement of this at the following book, click on the link to read the text. Murray Friedman (2006). The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |pagse= ignored (help) Rjensen (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who's in charge?

Is the Republican Party part of the US government or totally independent? (No political parties are mentioned in the Constitution.) Legally, what form does the Republican Party take? Is it, legally, a non-profit corporation or something else? Does it have a Board of Trustees/Directors? How are major decisions made for the Republican Party itself (not the Republican Caucus of the Senate or the House)? What role does the RNC play? What about the people on the 50 State Republican Parties; do they have a vote? Who has ultimate authority over what the party will do in the future? Do the rules change during the actual convention?

For example, what if the Board of Trustees got together just before the 2016 convention and decided, by majority or unanimous vote, that Donald Trump would not be the Republican nominee for president? And all delegates bound to Mr. Trump would not be seated? I know this would create the biggest brouhaha since the Civil War and would totally doom any prospects of victory for other Republican candidates but legally, would the trustees (of either the Republican Party or the RNC or both) have a chance in court? During the convention, the Credentials Committee decides who will be seated but if the trustees act before the opening gavel, do they control? At least as far as creating a major crises? Who controls which people serve on the Credentials Committee? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Republican favor voter ID laws

Please mention the GOP favors "voter ID" laws and Democrats are split (for and against). Reference is "Popular support" in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States Please notice that Blue states have voter ID laws while Red states do not. Reference is "State-by-state requirements" in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.31.170 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested source

There is a very good book that I notice has not been referenced here: Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. While it is mainly about Lincoln's managing his administration during the Civil War, the foist half is about how he got there - and thus about the evolution of the Republican Party. I especially find interesting the views of Seward and Lincoln on the role of government, which are somewhat unlike the views of today's party. As I have not edited this entry before, I don't want to add anything without a discussion among the veterans of the page. What do you think?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

good idea but not here--it belongs in the much more detailed Article article on the History of the United States Republican Party. Rjensen (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive GOP nominee

The consensus on this article seems to be that naming Trump the presumptive 2016 GOP nominee counts as WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure it really meets the guidelines for WP:CRYSTAL, given the Republican National Committee has declared the primaries over and its chairman has named Trump the presumptive nominee. If it does, then surely the WP:CRYSTAL argument would also apply to the following WP articles, which also name Trump the presumptive presidential nominee? What's the difference?

--Jay942942 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased?

This article mentions the impeachment of Clinton, but fails to mention his acquittal. That's hardly neutral. The whole 20th century section reads a bit like a brochure instead of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.87.21 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The article now mentions the acquittal. Are there any constructive suggestions that you would like to present for the page? Alexander Levian (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

political position

How come it seems like every major political party in the world gets a "political position" from right to left on Wikipedia, but the entries on the GOP and Dem Party don't? I don't think there should be special rules on that for the two big American political parties, even if the labeling can get contentious. GOP should be center-right to far-right, Dem Party center-right to center-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.201.83 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The labeling is contentious. It will always be contentious. The "political position" parameter should be removed entirely. Whenever the debate springs up regarding U.S. parties, questions arise almost immediately: Should we take into consideration what "center-right" means in the American sense or a more general Western sense? Which sources are independent enough to provide for an actual reliable notation? It's not worth it, not for a U.S. infobox, or as I have argued, for any country. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least state that the GOP is to the right of the Dem party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.31.170 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree we can state that the GOP is to the right of the Dem party. With Trump near the nomination, it's hard to place the GOP in 2016. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
GOP is a right-wing populist ultra-conservative party, compare with the Democratic Party. Marxistfounder (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Just put them down as right-wing and the Democrats as center. In reality, the GOP ranges all the way from center-right to far-right and the Democrats range all the way from center-right to center-left, but basically all scholars would agree the Democrats are a centrist party and the Republicans a right-wing one. 2601:5C2:100:2989:A0CC:39A7:B335:8A52 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but in order for us to list their position as thus, we need reliable sources. Who are these "all scholars" that "would agree"? Would you mind listing them and said works so we having something to go by? Alexander Levian (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they nominate Donald Trump as their candidate, there can be absolutely no doubt that the party needs to be described as far right. Far right even seems like a very cautious description; European far right parties like NPD (which is described as far-right ultranationalist in the article) seem moderate in comparison and do not advocate the overt racist policies that the Republican Party's lead candidate advocates. A party that advocates banning all Muslims from the country[1] cannot be described as anything else than far right, ultranationalist, anti-immigrant and racist. --Tataral (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Toa is correct. If you want to change the political position listed in the article, we will need more than your opinion. Given the lack of reliable sources making said claim, I don't think we can say that there is "absolutely no doubt" about the party's status as far-right. Alexander Levian (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to note, even that source does not actually support Tataral's claim. This is to say nothing of problems inherent to assuming that a political party necessarily matches the beliefs of any given candidate. NotARusski (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The Republican Party is also centrist.--The SBC Guy (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The SBC Guy I think we've agreed to simply leave the section blank.Awesomewiki64 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Positions section

The article reads:

"While many advocate exceptions in the case of incest, rape or the mother's life being at risk, in 2012, the party approved a platform advocating banning abortions without exception."

This statement is nothing more than a left-wing myth. The language in the 2012 platform is no different from 2008 (or 1980). It is officially silent on which specific exceptions would be allowed. Notably, every recent nominee (with the exception of Reagan, the last Republican to actually win the presidential election twice) has specifically supported these exceptions. See: [2] [3] [4]. 174.2.222.208 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Republican Party Platform 2016 Approved on 07/18/16 on the National Republican Convention on Cleveland, OH - The Territory of Puerto Rico - Future admission as the 51st state of the Union.

Republican Party Platform 2016 Approved on 07/18/16 - Please add this to the article. This is related to the United States Citizens residing on Puerto Rico.

The Territory of Puerto Rico

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union.

Reference: https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.162.147 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference: https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.162.147 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Someone must have mentioned this already, but the "New Deal History" section should really be edited for accuracy- Gerald Ford was not elected to the office of President. He wasn't even elected to the office of Vice President- he was appointed to both under the terms of the 25th amendment. Sorry if this isn't the correct place to put this, but I couldn't figure out where to submit a suggestion for this.50.160.170.24 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The current wording "saw election or succession of Republican presidents" (emphasis mine) is fine. Calidum ¤ 18:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

The Education section within Demographics features research done by the Pew Research Center from 2012 that suggest higher levels of education for Republicans in most categories. However, the exact same organization published an article in 2015 that suggested the exact opposite, with democrats leading in every category of education. It seems misleading to me that this older research would be presented as fact while more up-to-date research is not mentioned.

Reference: http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-2014/#education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.100.50 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideology section

Upon editing the infobox, I did see the "review positions....." bit, so I did end up reverting my edit. Being lazy, I only checked a few of the previous discussion that debate whether its a right or centre-right party, however, this is a little different. Under the tab "Minority" it is listed "Right Wing Populism", now basing the argument that the GOP have voted for someone who represents this to be their nominee, it is hardly factual to include it in the "minority" tab and should be moved to the "Majority" tab. Thoughts? Luxure Σ 07:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, I undid my undo, for the reasons above. Luxure Σ 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request – History

The sentence, "The Republican Party first came to power in 1860 with the election of Lincoln to the Presidency and Republicans in control of Congress and again, the Northern states" is vague and confusing. "Again, the Northern states" presumably refers back to the previous sentence but is not really necessary. Both Lincoln and 1860 should also be linked. I suggest instead: "The Republican Party first came to power in [[United States elections, 1860|the elections of 1860]] when it won control of both houses of Congress and its candidate, [[Abraham Lincoln]], was elected president." The following sentence should also be changed from "It oversaw the preserving of the union..." to "The Republican administration oversaw the preserving of the union...". 95.44.50.222 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: the second phrase is acceptable. It refers to the subject of the previous sentence which is surely unchanged — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. Thanks. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Introduction Section

In the sentence that reads ". . . is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being its historic rival, the Democratic Party", the phrase ". . . the other being its historic rival," should be changed to read "along with the".

The use of "historic" is ambiguous and possibly partisan--Does it refer to the rivalry or the Democratic Party (DP)? If it is interpreted as referring to the DP, it connotes a subjective opinion since historic can mean "important, remarkable, celebrated," etc.

If this request is not accepted then, at least, change the Democratic Party page from "along with the Republican Party" to read "the other being its historic rival, the Republican Party." What's good for the goose . . . 50.134.56.142 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am an always have been a supporter of conservative republican and beliefs. I am at this time confused about the republican party. Why is the republican strong arms supporting Trump. He was a chose of the American republication VOTERS. Why focus on the past and not the future of the republican party. If H.Clintion is elected due to no support from the republican congress and senate I will never vote republican again.

Frustrated Voter, Jackie B. Nichols 75 years old retired vet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.217.60 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Helper201's edit

I noticed he/she gave the reason for removing the "Centrism" link from the infobox as, basically, being WP:undue weight; I don't see it that way, as a.the moderation was cited, and b.he/she gave no countercite for his/her claim.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, it was plainly marked as being in the minority.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2016

The party was founded in Eping NH. 64.223.227.191 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

1wjl1 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Update this for the 2016 elections, Republicans now have 51 Senate seats, 239 seats in the House and 34 governorships.

Not done for now: Any change in counts is only after Jan 1, not as of now. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016

Delete "(in the Electoral College)" under "Outcome of election" in the table "In presidential elections, 1856–present". This is superfluous and is applied inconsistently since all of these elections were ultimately decided in the Electoral College.

Thucydides2 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It's a little confusing but I added a quick note that when the Electoral College is mentioned it means that they won only the EC but not the popular vote. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? There is nothing inappropriate about this content

Seriously? Why, exactly, was this edit reverted? Was it really just because I originally added it on Conservapedia? That is, honestly, a terrible reason to revert this edit. I cited three reliable sources (U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, and Governing), and I did NOT cite right-wing sources like Breitbart. I also took extra care that my wording was completely neutral and acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. So is the reason that I originally added this to Conservapedia and then adapted this for Wikipedia really why my edit was reverted?

I received this ridiculous message on my talk page, claiming that I was engaged in "disruptive editing" (seriously?), "original research" (seriously!?), "personal analysis" (again, seriously!?), "writing [a] ref [my]self" (as if I make up sources?), and advancing a position, all of which are completely false. I originally added this material to Conservapedia, using reliable sources (believe it or not), and then I decided to add it here because this info is notable. It is notable that the GOP won the largest amount of governorships since 1922, or the most state legislatures in its history, and that the Democratic Party will only have full control in 5 states. I did not write this to demean the Dems, but to show how successful an election this was for the GOP. It broke records, and there is nothing biased about mentioning this. I simply wanted to disclose that I originally added this material somewhere else. This material should be restored. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Remove Reince Priebus as chairman of the RNC. Snakeskinsam (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: Why? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

"pro-life" is not an accurate description of the common position on abortion rights. the term should read "anti-abortion rights". I live and breath and I'm therefore "pro life". I'm also in favor of abortion rights, unlike the GOP position. "Pro-life" also contradicts the widely held GOP position in favor of capital punishment. Alt-Resist (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

"relection" should be "re-election" Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for spotting the error. --Chewings72 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

Ideology [[Historical: Abolitionism Classical liberalism Progressivism Paleoconservatism Modern: Conservatism Social conservatism Fiscal conservatism |fiscalpolicy = (Historical) Center-left (Modern) Center-right

|socialpolicy = (Historical) Center-left (Modern) Center-right]] 2600:8800:2400:22:E430:25C6:6197:1F4E (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

In the section detailing congressional seats in general and midterm elections, Dwight D. Eisenhower is listed in blue. Eisenhower is a Republican; he should be in red. 18.189.106.243 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done Having looked over the article, it seems that Eisenhower's name is correctly shaded in red for the duration of his presidency. Perhaps you are confusing the times when there was a Republican presidency, but a Democrat majority of seats (in the House or the senate respectively). — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete analysis of Republican influence.

The article states that the greatest areas of Republican influence are the Mountain West and the Great Plains states, utterly ignoring the near total Republican control of the South. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.222.9.246 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct grammatical error / Importance of RealClearPolitics source

Paragraph four leads with the following sentence: "As of 2017, the GOP is documented as being at it's strongest position politically since 1928."

Please change "it's" to "its", as apostrophes are not just shorthand for "here comes an s!"

Moreover, this entire paragraph and its citation, while factual, seems speculative and out of place. Legislative majorities and executive branch power can be clearly verified from a source that is not an "election analyst" employed by a news website published over two years ago. Not sure if it's quite in violation of Wikipedia:RS, but worth discussion. 73.93.141.83 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: have corrected the grammar issue, going to leave the harder stuff open for discussion Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Morphdog (t - c) 13:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2017

In the Congressional elections section, it states that Republicans made a net gain of one seat in the 1982 Senate elections, when in fact, they has not net change as a result of the election. Please change the result from 1 gain to no change. 2601:241:300:C930:1DFD:7EA:C1EA:BD4C (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sabato's Crystal Ball has this article mentioning past midterms and the net change in the President's party. It states that there was no net change in Republican numbers in the Senate in 1982. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/rooting-for-failure/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:397D:79C2:AA95:221F (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

In the section detailing congressional seats in general and midterm elections, Dwight D. Eisenhower is listed in blue. Eisenhower is a Republican; he should be in red. 18.189.106.243 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done Having looked over the article, it seems that Eisenhower's name is correctly shaded in red for the duration of his presidency. Perhaps you are confusing the times when there was a Republican presidency, but a Democrat majority of seats (in the House or the senate respectively). — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete analysis of Republican influence.

The article states that the greatest areas of Republican influence are the Mountain West and the Great Plains states, utterly ignoring the near total Republican control of the South. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.222.9.246 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct grammatical error / Importance of RealClearPolitics source

Paragraph four leads with the following sentence: "As of 2017, the GOP is documented as being at it's strongest position politically since 1928."

Please change "it's" to "its", as apostrophes are not just shorthand for "here comes an s!"

Moreover, this entire paragraph and its citation, while factual, seems speculative and out of place. Legislative majorities and executive branch power can be clearly verified from a source that is not an "election analyst" employed by a news website published over two years ago. Not sure if it's quite in violation of Wikipedia:RS, but worth discussion. 73.93.141.83 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: have corrected the grammar issue, going to leave the harder stuff open for discussion Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Morphdog (t - c) 13:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2017

In the Congressional elections section, it states that Republicans made a net gain of one seat in the 1982 Senate elections, when in fact, they has not net change as a result of the election. Please change the result from 1 gain to no change. 2601:241:300:C930:1DFD:7EA:C1EA:BD4C (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sabato's Crystal Ball has this article mentioning past midterms and the net change in the President's party. It states that there was no net change in Republican numbers in the Senate in 1982. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/rooting-for-failure/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:397D:79C2:AA95:221F (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Georgia

please change ((Georgia)) to ((Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia))— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:2443:d963:f0e1:816c (talk) 16 April 2017

The party's collaboration with Putinist Russia

One editor claims that the material briefly mentioning the FBI's investigation into the collaboration with Russia "has more to do with Trump than the GOP". This party has nominated Trump as their presidential candidate and he is described as their leader, so it has everything to do with this party if Trump and his campaign, and thus this party's campaign, colluded with the authoritarian regime of Russia, the foremost enemy of the United States and self-declared heir to Stalin and Soviet communism. --Tataral (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

This party matches the Wiki definition of Neoliberal in a very fitting matter, more than just economically liberal, especially of late, with the party focusing on deregulation and fiscal spending. Should we add "Neoliberal" to the ideology section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirusNotSirius (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

While I actually agree, that's still just our opinion (or even WP:OR). Do we have reliable sources unambiguously calling the party neoliberal? Fitting the definition on the Neoliberal article isn't usually considered enough. Also, given that there are several factions (Republican Main Street Partnership, Republican Study Committee, Freedom Caucus, etc.), it may be more accurate to say that there is a neoliberal faction. Although we still need the reliable sources clearly stating that they are neoliberal. Alexander Levian (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republicans

The party's LGBT wing, Log Cabin Republicans, have been removed from the infobox with the reasoning that they aren't official, however they are official, they are affiliated with the Republican Party and have connections to the RNC. Fan4Life (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any official connections, but Republicans don't really have official groups like this. I could be wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Toa is right on this one. The Log Cabin Republicans are a non-profit organization in which all members are Republicans, but it is not officially linked with the Republican Party. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this party labeled as far right?

or if you only count as far right neo nazis and similar groups then at least "right wing" instead it only talks about some minority factions.

hello? donald trump WON the primaries. not that the he altered many party positions but i think it's extremely obvilous now. Adrian234567 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's ridiculous to assume one election can change the very fabric of a political party. Archer Rafferty (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Far-right is too... well... far, but there is no consensus among media and academic experts as to its precise position on an American left-right spectrum. The term "right" is most appropriate, as it encompasses both the centre-right and far-right elements of the party, but a few Wikipedian hardliners have prevented the posting of that for years. --Ðrdak (T) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

technically speaking "far right" is somewhat abstract. for instance a former greek party called "popular orthodox rally" was described as far right.. then golden dawn entered the picture. anyway like i said "riht wing" could be used as a more precise term. "but there is no consensus among media and academic experts as to its precise position on an American left-right spectrum" true but every other political party of every other country is given a label based on objective historic-academic criteria. not based on it's own country's bubble. otherwise by that logic netherland's PVV should be labeled "center right moderates" simply because it will probably win the next elections. while the republican party isn't simply because(i assume) most people in english wikipedia are from the usa.

anyway i am new to wikipedia editing and unfamiliar about how it works but there are some protected pages right? so.. couldn't this issue be solved by a majority vote or something?Adrian234567 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

how about we at least call it "centre right to right wing"? as it stands right now the page says...nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian234567 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is only a faction, but they are undoubtedly a hard right party. It's bizarre that US parties have no political alignment represented, and kinda shows how the America-centric nature of Wikipedia. Every other major political force in the world has this represented, the US should too. The Republicans have everything from center-right (Kasich) to far-right (King), the Democrats have everything from center-left (Warren) to center-right (Manchin). If you want to simplify that, you could just call the Dems center and the GOP right-wing. But it's bizarre to have nothing. Zellfire999 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I find it really weird that there are no political positions listed for the GOP and the Democrats. The Republicans should be listed as right wing to far right. Calling them centre right would be incorrect, since the centre right label is used for parties like Germany's CDU which are closer to the Democrats without a doubt. Even the UK Conservatives are much closer to the Democrats than Republicans, and they are centre right. CommunistHipster (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And who says that European parties are the benchmark for political parties? None. Simply saying this party should be put under "far-right" just cause, is no way to act. --Joobo (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the Republican party should be labeled as "Center-right to Right-wing" overall because that is where it is on the American political system (I agree that it would be considered "right-wing" or even "far-right" if compared to European political parties).Ezhao02 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I support calls to reflect this party's political position as "far-right" or in any related terminology. Epicity95 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right to factions?

Multiple sources have alt-right as a faction of the GOP. It's different (but related) to right-wing populism and should be added.

Don1182 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

Under political ideology, add Right-wing politics 86.156.244.138 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

there is a ceate where there should be a create. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:181A:59F0:7F01:3CBF (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Election symbol

I think we should place the "Republican Disc" file in the "election symbol" parameter of the infobox. The Libertarian Party article has this feature. Raku Hachijo (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republican Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 - Adding white nationalism to Ideology discussion

A user recently added White Nationalism to the list of ideologies in the info box. I reverted the change for being controversial, and believe further discussion is necessary before something of that nature is added. Based on a previous section on this talk page, there is evidence to show the Republican party does not endorse White Nationalism as a whole. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 02:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Without the Republican party ever endorsing White Nationalism, I don't see how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a Republican ideology. Some Republican officials may have had contact or past ties with White Nationalists, but that is a far stretch from the entire party supporting White Nationalism. A handful of incidents does not equal party-wide support. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 02:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It was placed in the factions section of the infobox, even if it does effectively paint the entire party in a negative light due to the fact it's a loaded label being triple-cited. Nuke (talk)
If ThinkProgress is an adequate source to define the GOP by a single registered membber, would it be fine for me to cherry-pick an article from a similarly conservative website - say, National Review - identifying a member as, say, a communist? Toa Nidhiki05 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: I previously added "white interests," but white nationalism is not only a controversial label, but describes a mere subfaction of voters concerned with white interests. If I added black nationalism to the Democrats, even though Keith Ellison made statements to that regard, it wouldn't be black nationalism like the New Black Panther Party we'd be describing there, but a subgroup among blacks who support the interests of their racial group. Furthermore, for WP:NEUTRAL reasons, I believe that similar demographic interest groups would need to be listed on the Democrats' infobox likewise; and as a final note, some of the sources, in relation to the overcite undue weight issue, some of the sources seemed bizarre -- for instance, it cites that John McCain did a photo op with Svoboda, despite the fact that some dispute this claim ([5]). And another citation in the revision calls the Party for Freedom fascist as a means of denouncing the Republicans as white nationalist, in addition to relying on the fact one Representative in Iowa is named. And the other reference deals with one individual member of the Republican Party -- might as well just put Trumpism in there with these sources. Nuke (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose:No unbiased reliable sources call this a Republican ideology. Even if some fractions of the base support it, there are no elected officials or leaders that endorse it. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republicans listed in infobox as "LGBT wing"

Responses/Survey

Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else.

  • Support:The Log Cabin Republicans should be listed in the infobox of the Republican Party, as they represent the LGBT wing of the party's constituents. Nowhere does it state that for political parties, only official wings of the party can be displayed in the infobox (in this case wings of the RNC), and is demonstrated by there being several organizations that are listed which are not official "wings" of the party. These include College Republicans, Young Republicans, Teen Age Republicans, National Federation of Republican Women and Republicans Overseas. These are political organizations targeted towards certain factions of the Republican Party, ans the LCR is no different. Also, this would not be the first Wikipedia page to list the LGBT wing of the party (see Democratic Party (United States), Likud, Conservative Party (UK), etc.). These parties represent LGBT interest groups on their infoboxes, so shouldn't the Republican Party's page list its LGBT interest group?--AirportExpert (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert
  • Oppose LCR isn't remotely as official as the other groups, which exist primarily to support and elect Republican candidates. There is considerable controversy, for example, when local wings of the College Republicans voted to endorse someone other than Trump, because it runs counter to the goal of electing Republicans. LCR is a Republican group, but its primarily goal is to lobby the party on gay interests (Per the website: "Log Cabin Republicans work to make the Republican Party more inclusive, particularly on gay and lesbian issues"), not to promote and elect GOP candidates. Moreover, it isn't as remotely accepted as other groups: there have been disputes in the past as to how Republican it actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the LCR has no official recognition from the Republican National Committee, and all currently listed wings do. Nuke (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a difference between officially recognized wings of the party (Such as the ones AirportExpert listed above) and an advocacy group like LCR. As far as the Democratic Party's LGBT wing, The Stonewall Democrats actually receive funding from that party's national committee. So it's pretty well established that they are an official wing of the Democratic Party. But as of right we don't have anything to show that the Log Cabin Republicans are an official wing. Alexander Levian (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

fix seats from 52 to 51 due to election source https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/alabama-senate-race-winner.html 71.169.153.34 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Although most media have "called" the Alabama Special Senate election, the Alabama Secretary of State has not yet certified the results, so they are not completely official. In a day or two some-one will probably update this once the results are certified. WP:NODEADLINE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

DEAR CONGRESS OF THE USA ;ALL THE PUERTO RICANS PEOPLE WANTS THE STATEHOOD I PUERTO RICO NOW WE CAN'T WAIT NO LONGER WE NEED IT NOW PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:8003:C8A6:D8FC:8483:B39:5B14 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

2017: very little GOP support for white nationalism

We have a newbie who wants to claim the Republican party supports white nationalism. Polls say no they do NOT.

  • 9% percent of GOP respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
    • 64% percent of GOP respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
  • 7% percent of INDEPENDENT respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
    • 61% percent of INDEPENDENT respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
  • 7% percent of DEMOCRATIC respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
    • 73% percent of DEMOCRATIC respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
  • Source: September 14th, 2017 A new Reuters/Ipsos poll done in collaboration with the University of Virginia Center for Politics' see the detailed numbers online here Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Butt Hole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.21.185 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Lukacris (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

Please change this paragraph...

"The Republicans' dominant worldview was once social liberalism, mainly in the form of abolitionism, and economic reform. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party, leading to a switch of political platforms between the Democratic and Republican Party."

.. to...

"The Republican Party started out as a party dominated by classical liberals who supported abolitionism. In the early 20th century a social liberal faction formed within the party, before it split of in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran as an unsuccessful third-party candidate in the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party. When this party dissolved a few years later some followers switched to the Democratic Party, where social liberalism in the form of Modern American liberalism grew to become the dominant ideology over the course of the 20th century.

This paragraph which I want changed was recently added by user R9tgokunks, if my reading of the history log is accurate. It stood out to me as soon as I read it, as it seems like a gross simplification and inaccurate account of the complex history of the American two-party system. R9tgokunks' paragraph furthermore provides no source for his account of history. He implies that social liberalism in the United States took the form of abolitionism, but social liberalism didn't emerge until the latter half of the 19th century, centuries after the abolitionist movement in the United States, and social liberalism didn't appear in America until the early 20th century. Also, until recently the parties was much less homogeneous, with there being multiple competing factions within each party, meaning that a statement such as there having been a "switch of political platforms" between the parties is a way too simplistic account of history. My version doesn't have any source either, though. So I would suggest removing the paragraph entirely if my version is not deemed any better.

Thank you! :-) Johansunden (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've messaged R9tgokunks about this. Stickee (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
the early GOP -- before the Civil War--supported all sorts of social reforms, as part of its Whig heritage. The early GOP was NOT abolitionist-- it did not call for the abolition of slavery before 1862. (It demanded an end to the expansion of slavery, in the West, the South, and in Latin America.) The History of Rep Party article is designed to cover the history, not this article. As for "classical liberal" (ie libertarian) no--those were the Democrats. GOP favored tariffs and govt spending on internal improvements (eg Railroads, ports). Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen:, i'm sorry but I can't seem to understand. Is this in support of the wording? -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm changing the wording to this until we can come up with a consensus on the content of the paragraph.
"The Republicans' dominant worldview was once [[social liberalism|social reform]], especially supporting [[abolitionism]], and economic reform. In 1912, [[Theodore Roosevelt]] ran as a third-party candidate in the [[Progressive Party (United States, 1912)|Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party]], leading to a switch of political platforms between the Democratic and Republican Party."

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

that does not work so i dropped it--it is unsourced and partly false. GOP explicitly opposed abolition until 1861. "economic reform" is too vague to be useful. "social liberalism" is too vague for pre-1890 era. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you Rjensen, your latest version of this paragraph is great. I think it would be improved additionally if the word 'liberal' in the "a highly liberal platform" part was made into a hyperlink to the page about Modern liberalism in the United States, and the word 'conservatism' in the "conservatism on economic issued" (also you misspelled 'issues') part was made into a hyperlink to the page on Conservatism in the United States. (Given how "conservatism on economic issues" in American colloquial usage denotes economic liberalism, which could make this wording confusing without the clarification that such a hyperlink would provide). Cheers! Johansunden (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for suggestions--i will follow them all up. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Well... that paragraph initially seemed to be a lead-in for the following one, attempting to show how the party's platform has changed. Now it's just a stray paragraph... -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I reworked it to have a two-minute capsule history, Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Rjensen, your edits did a few things very wrong
  • Your edit removed a source I added
  • You also you improperly added (<ref> Liberal New Deal Democrats dominated the Fifth Party System (1932 to 1960s) at the national level. Only Dwight Eisenhower won a presidential elections (1952 and 1956). The weak liberal Republican element was overwhelmed by a conservative surge begun by Barry Goldwater in 1964) and fulfilled by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan remains a heroic party icon.<ref>)
  • That is not valid as a source at all. You cannot source statements with your own WP:OR, you have to find articles, etc that do that for you (WP:SOURCES).
  • Lincoln and his close supporters were seen as classical liberals, as shown in James G. Randall's Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, and here [6], and I could also find other sources stating this if you like. I'm going to re-add that to the article. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Normally the lead does not need footnotes except for quotations. Randall is one of my favorite historians, but what he means by "Lincoln the liberal statesman" requires you to read his famous book. Randall refers to Lincoln's moderation and His strong opposition to the Radical Republicans. Liberalism for Lincoln means democracy... Equal rights and freedom for all men. Randall says: "what does conservatism mean? If it means caution, prudent inherence to tested values, avoidance of rashness, and reliance upon unhurried, peaceful evolution, Lincoln was a conservative." Randall identifies conservatism with reaction and indifferent apathy toward human problems. Randall says Lincoln rejected do-nothing government, he favored government help for the promotion of education, emancipation of slaves, Department of Agriculture, the Homestead act. I think Randall (writing in 1946) is suggesting Lincoln resembled Franklin Roosevelt --the New Deal for the common man. Randall also examines the role of John Bright,, emphasizing public welfare of all people, and abolition of slavery. Randall defines Lincoln's liberalism: "in his magnanimity, friendship for the soldier, humor, tolerance, opposition to oppression, readiness to reason with his people, and careful effort to maintain the Union cause on an enlightened level, Lincoln developed his statesmanship in liberal terms." [p147] he was not a classical liberal along the lines of Adam Smith Ricardo Malthus, etc [p 145]...Randall ridicules laissez-faire economics [page 145]-- something Lincoln never supported. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Political Position (infobox)

Most western parties Wikipedia pages show their political position. I think it is fair to say they are a centre-right party at the very least. However, they increasingly have some strong far-right elements. Look no further than President Trump's election platform and talking points: "Ban all Muslims" "Build a wall"

Here are some sources:

Centre-right to Far-right Andersen, Kurt. "How the GOP Went Crazy". Slate Group. Retrieved 13 February 2018.James, Frank. "Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years". NPR. Retrieved 13 February 2018.Martin, Lawrence. "In the new Washington, there is only far left and far right". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 13 February 2018.O'Malley, Nick. "Republican Party schism: Is the Tea Party leading the GOP into electoral oblivion". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 February 2018.

I think their position is somewhere between centre right and far right. We all know that the US has a two-party system and that both parties are big tent parties to a certain degree. It makes sense that they have a large ideological spread. After all, the ideologies parameter shows multiple contradicting ideologies.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that international academic publications see this much differently. . Nathaniel Persily (2016). Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-107-08711-8..--Moxy (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That article is so pathetically partisan it doesn't even warrant consideration. There's no imaginary international political scale. The US has two parties, a big tent right-wing party and a big-tent left-wing one. There is no standard for membership in either party, no standard for party approval of primary candidates, and effectively no candidate having to agree to a party manifesto. This has been discussed numerous times and there has repeatedly been no consensus to include anything, nor should there be. Toa Nidhiki05 03:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I concur with above comment. As much craziness is going on with Republicans right now, it's best not to narrow it down.The way it is now is best. We can deal with the various ideologies and craziness elsewhere. There are a wide variety of beliefs amongst all these voters, largely because there is only a two party system with only two tangible choices, unlike Europe, so people go wherever is closest. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well to be fair I am not really narrowing it down by saying it is between centre-right and far-right. If I anything I am saying that there is a diverse set of views that are right of centre.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "There's no imaginary international political scale" ....not sure where to start on this non academic reply......when there are 4 main models. But agree best we dont list anything as Americas views on the political scale is out of step with the rest of the world. test your self --Moxy (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing in the lead

This book and others by actual political scientists, instead of partisan commentators, place the GOP among the most conservative in the world, far "surpassing European center-right parties" yet not a member of the far-right.

Because of this, would anyone object to this wording? I propose we add to lead that it is "Considered to be on the right-wing on American politics, and political scientists have described it as one of the most conservative in the world" and list the infobox as right-wing.

There is a near universal consensus that the Republiczn party neither center-right or far-right. Republicans neither has the moderation of European center-right parties or the political radicalism of groups like Greece's Golden Dawn or Hungary's Jobbik. Despite a lot of the partisan bickering, this seems like an area we could get consensus on fast.

MichiganWoodShop (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There is no political position as there is not imaginary global political system. Moreover, US political parties have no membership requirements, members and politicians don't have to adhere to any platform to run for office, and control is incredibly decentralized; this is in comparison to the strong-party structures of other countries, where manifestos are incredibly important and parties often have to approve candidates. Parties generally have no control over who runs in what districts and what their beliefs are or what their votes will be. Effectively, the two parties are big tents of the left and right, respectively. All of this has been discussed repeatedly and there has been no consensus to add any political position.
Even putting that aside, your source was deceptively edited. It's not even a global comparison, but a comparison between the US and four countries. It says it is more conservative than the center-right parties in those countries - not that it is right-wing or isn't center-right itself. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox

FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"America First" Ideology and Republican Party Transformation

I am surprised that, in this article, there is little mention of the "America First" wing that emerged with Donald Trump. It seems to be that this ought to be differentiated. Thus far, it seems to take the Republican Party in several directions: 1. Trade Protectionism. 2. Lack of interest in growth of the national debt. 3. Appeal to the working class. Consequently, a movement of upper-middle class and better educated voters towards the Democratic Party. 4. A "Presidential Party": a party whose ideology is not so much a driving force as is its commitment to a particular leader, such as "United Russia" and Putin. 5. Return to international isolationism, while retaining options to project predominant force to attain international goals. 6. Dramatic reduction in antagonism towards traditional Great Power rivals, such as Russia. 7. A radicalization of many of the other traditional U.S. conservative policies.

Isn't this a rather unique mix of policies, and a major shift in Republican Party ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibycusreggio (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not including position because people can't agree is stupid

The majority of people consider it as solidly right wing. Because there are centre-right and far-right factions doesn't mean that it is the normal. The Republican party is considered right wing 90% of the time. Alex of Canada (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct ....but as seen above ....like the denial of evolution.....there is a segment of editors here that dont even think there is a standard. Best move on....cant argue with people that dont have a basic understanding of the Political spectrum.Jonathan Sperber (1994). The European Revolutions, 1848-1851. Cambridge University Press. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-0-521-38685-2.--Moxy (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Why bother arguing with the people who don't understand? Pretty much every expert believes they are right wing, and the people arguing against that are either biased or uninformed. We shouldn't hurt the article to please them. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For the past decade or so the younger generation of conservatives have dismissed the label. Can't really blame them as there is so much negative press about the right side from previous generations. We have this generation now editing here. They view right-wing as defamatory..Department of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh..although conservatives embrace that particular label—conservative—they generally reject others, such as right-wing, racist, extremist, and far right, as negative or belittling.--Moxy (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing positions

The following positions are missing:

  • Health care
  • Voting rights
  • Criminal justice
  • Campaign finance
  • Trade

I also think that we need to make clear that there is a divergence between GOP elites and the base on some issues. GOP elites are for instance more pro-trade and anti-Obamacare than the base is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we also need to make clear what an elite it. I abhor Newspeak. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This shouldn't be too hard to do. Someone somewhere has obviously written on all of those matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Fiscal Conservatism

Why is fiscal conservatism listed under "factions" instead of "majority"? Ezhao02 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be confusing economic liberalism (which is listed as majority) with fiscal conservatism. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ideology

On the right hand side, with the ideologies tab, shouldn't it list Classical Liberals with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.251.53 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why? Alexander Levian (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be added Trumpism?Paul Lincoln (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe as a faction. Do you have sources showing trump's political ideology is distinct from the othre ideologies listed and are held by Republicans in congress? Alexander Levian (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 - Adding "white nationalism" to factional ideology

Both before and since Trump's election, multiple members of the Republican Party[1][2][3][4][5][6] - both elected and running - have held inexorably white nationalist positions. While it is certainly incorrect to argue that it is a guiding ideology of the party, there is clearly a faction of the GOP steering in this direction, and it should be added as ideology. Docktuh (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2018 (EST)

Sources

  1. ^ Haltiwanger, John. "A record number of white nationalists are running for national office in 2018". Business Insider.
  2. ^ Frej, Willa. "White Nationalist Who Marched In Charlottesville Elected To Local GOP Office". HuffPo.
  3. ^ Lerner, Kira. "White supremacists are running for office as Republicans. Will the party stay silent?". ThinkProgress.
  4. ^ Rosario, Justin. "Republican Candidate Goes Full Nazi: Jews "Pretend" to be White to Undermine the White Race". The Daily Banter.
  5. ^ Beauchamp, Zack. "A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die". Vox.
  6. ^ Korecki, Natasha. "'I snookered them': Illinois Nazi candidate creates GOP dumpster fire". Politico.
Fringe elements are undue. We're not adding Marxism to the ideology box of the Democratic Party either. — JFG talk 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well you wouldn't, because there is nothing Marxist about anything in the Democratic Party, but the white supremacists in the Republican Party are obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
More on what they said, if we can say that there's a democratic socialist section of the Democratic Party (when the DNC itself is very clearly not so, and DSA members are clearly the minority) then it is becomes entirely inappropriate to ignore this section of the GOP, especially given all the evidence on the matter. Docktuh (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (EST)
Well the main problem is the sources. First, four of those six sources talk about candidates, not elected officials. Second I'm not sure how reliable we can consider an opinion piece from Vox that simply asserts that the party is driven by white nationalism to be. And it does so without naming members that belong to said faction. And finally, the Huffpost article says that one white nationalist had become "the state GOP’s precinct committee officer for Precinct 129 in Whitman County" which hardly constitutes a faction. With that said, once we see enough of these candidates get elected and even forming organizations that work within the party to promote white nationalism, then I'll support including them in the minority ideology section. Alexander Levian (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

????

split status?

expedite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.128.241 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

I think the political position for the page should be added in. The position should be "Right-wing to far-right" as it reflects the party's shift in ideology following the 2016 election. The party's support of neo-nationalist policies also reflects that right to far-right shift. Nonagram babies (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your request begins with "I think..." What YOU think counts for little when it comes to article content. What matters is what reliable sources say. There is also the problem of finding a clear political position for any party, particularly one with so many members. Obviously different people in the party have different views. Attributing a single view to a party just doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: Provide reliable sources that say what you think not just what you think. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/?utm_term=.915248223932, https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread (from 2012), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/symmetric-polarization/544059/ attributes some of it directly to Trump, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/opinions/health-care-history-gop-zelizer-opinion/index.html, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/cpac-2018-s-extreme-message-proves-gop-has-embraced-its-ncna850936, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-republican-party-leave-democrats-members-us-president-a8432196.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-convention-issues.html, and of course there's the fact that Nixon signed the EPA into law and now the GOP wants it gutted to benefit extraction industries and polluters. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional wings

The party website lists several "GOP Groups" at the bottom of the page, but those do not appear in the infobox here. They include:

  • Black Republican Activists
  • GOP Hispanics
  • RNC Women
  • GOP Faith
  • Asian Pacific Americans
  • Young Leaders
  • Veterans & Military Families

Shouldn't these be listed in the "wings" section of the infobox? Why would they NOT be there?


— TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Centrism

Centrism is listed as one of the factional ideologies in the infobox. I take issue with this, not because of partisan reasons, but because there is little evidence to suggest any members of the GOP have strayed far from the ideology of conservatism, certainly not since the 1970's at least. Trialer992 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Earliest discussion I can find. I tend to agree to keep centrism in the infobox. Especially with the citation as is.--intelatitalk 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Surely it's a mistake going back in history. It's current ideology we presumably need. It's funny. As I wrote that I thought, that post itself is classic conservatism. Looking to the past when we should be looking at now. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Source reliability - socialsecuritywaste.com

See [7]. An IP editor contends that the source used for the second paragraph of Republican_Party_(United_States)#Education is not reliable sourcing. I kind of agree at a quick glance - that is a blog or blog-like analysis of Pew data, so we should probably base it on the Pew source if it is in there and drop it otherwise - hence I report the issue, but I will not touch that article. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The text should of course be removed. If a source to substantiate the text can be found, it can be reinserted. One editor just restored this text with the absurd assertion that this was sourced to the WSJ. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was looking at the wrong thing. The stats are from the Pew Research Center, which is a non-partisan think tank.Exzachary (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Then cite Pew, not some random-ass website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

GOP=Grand Old Party

Most Americans are likely unaware that the rest of the world hasn't a clue what "GOP" means. Most of the world likely also doesn't even know what "Grand Old Party" means. It would improve the article immensely if some kind of note was included, especially in the lede, since the way the article is written, it reads like it was written by a self-centered, unaware type person. I made the change, but it appears self-centered and unaware won out and the change was reverted. Santamoly (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Republican_Party_(United_States)#Name_and_symbols explains it nicely. ZaneGlaze (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Good grief! Do you expect that a non-American would discover that un-Godly link? That suggests just more unconscious thinking! The article suffers from this kind of clueless participation. Santamoly (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seat changes, don't take effect until terms begin

Be on your toes folks. After tonight's election results, many editors & IPs will be erroneously changing the seats numbers. This changes shouldn't be made, until the new members actually take their seats. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Republicans now have 193 seats instead of 235 72.65.126.150 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/politics/house-control-midterm-election/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.126.150 (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. No, they will have less seats but a) the final count is not yet completed with some races still being counted and b) seat changes only take place when the new Congress starts, which is January 2019. See above as well. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_7&oldid=1140197407"