Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What specific text should we use to implement the result of the previous RfC concerning description of the Southern strategy in the lead section? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Background (lead)

This RfC is a follow-up to one that took place last year, which asked Should the lead include mention of the fact that the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and that the party appealed to racial conservatism after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The close to that RfC, by S Marshall, is the baseline point from which this one jumps off, so I am copying it in its entirety:

This intriguing RfC concerns whether to mention the Southern Strategy in the lead of our article about the US Republican party. The Southern Strategy carries overtones of racism, so the matter is rather fraught. Editors have found it difficult to agree.

The RfC is structured as a simple, yes/no question, but the discussion that follows reveals a lot complexity, nuance and thought. At first glance the debate looks like a "no consensus", but on closer reading editors have in fact reached a number of clear conclusions. They are:

Q: Did the Republican Party shift its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the party appeal to racial conservatives after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
A: Yes.

Q: Should we make an edit to the lead that reflects this fact?
A: That very much depends on the edit. Editors express very grave concerns about how we could make such an edit without giving the topic undue weight, and these concerns are fully backed by policy.

The proposer does not suggest a specific edit to this article, but in this discussion considerable progress has been made towards deciding what such an edit would look like. From the discussion below, it is possible to determine some of the characteristics that any such edit would need to have before it could gain consensus support at a future RfC. They are:

1: Obviously, an acceptable edit absolutely must not frame today's Republican Party as a racist party, or as a party that is in any way sympathetic to racism.

2: Any potentially acceptable edit would need to have very low prominence in the lead, perhaps being placed somewhere in the middle of the third paragraph.

3: It is likely that a potentially acceptable edit would use in-text attribution as well as an inline reference to a reliable source, because with an edit like this, it matters so very much who is saying it.

4: Any potentially acceptable edit would need to be as brief as possible, while remaining consistent with point #3.

In the light of these findings, I also find that I should not edit this article as a result of this RfC. I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that arguments that attempt to relitigate the conclusions of this close, or propose wordings that go against it, are firmly outside the scope of this RfC. Editors who make such arguments are likely to have their !votes discounted by the closer, and they may be deemed disruptive if they persist.

Following the close, edits attempting to implement potential specific wordings were reverted, and the matter was referred back to the talk page for discussion on the specific wording, where further discussion stalled. Since then, the status quo (see Option A) has been retained (the only modification being the correction of an MOS:EGG issue last month), and this RfC now seeks to resolve the specific wording question.

Options (lead)

(Drawn from the prior discussion.)

• Option A (status quo): Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics.
• Option B: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics.
• Option C: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to anti-black racism, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.
• Option D: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to racially conservative Southern voters, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.
• Option E: Starting in the 1960s the party's core base shifted towards southern states in presidential politics.
• Option F: Remove mention from the lead.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Added options E and F based on comments below Springee (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Survey (lead)

• Option C. It's unfortunate that prior attempts to agree on wording were blocked by editors who denied the existence of the Southern strategy, were unhappy with the close, and took advantage of its openness to try to inappropriately relitigate the issue. But here we are. I think the first clause in options B/C is superior to the one in option A, which is overly specific. Historians widely agree that the shift took place in response to the Civil Rights Movement in general, not those two laws in particular. Regarding the rest of the sentence, the fact that the party appealed to anti-black racism was established in the prior RfC via overwhelming scholarly evidence, as affirmed in the close, and is therefore not open to debate here. It is unquestionably due, and I support direct and non-euphemistic language that reflects the historical record (thus C over D). Merely juxtaposing the civil rights legislation with the shift and leaving readers to infer its cause, as in options A/B, is insufficient. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option E, second choice A or B It has not been shown that the GOP as a whole appealed to anti-black racism. That claim is very much in dispute with historians. A number of historians have argued that the shift from blue to red (that should link to the southern realignment not the Southern Strategy) was due to socially conservative suburban voters deciding the GOP was a better fit for them as the number of Dixicrats diminished over time. These voters were not motivated by a desire to hold back African Americans so much as just looking out for themselves. Hence voting against programs like school bussing etc. No one disputes that some politicians would use clearly racist appeals to win votes but it is disputed if there was ever a top down strategy who's objective was to appeal to racism vs appealing to things that voters unhappy with the Democrats might respond to. Note that appealing to racially conservative voters does not mean actually using racist appeals. Of A and B, B is better because it is less specific about a particular law causing the realignment. As a number of historians have pointed out, the timing of the realignment and the passage of the laws in question don't line up that well. The prior RfC doesn't support C and it would be disputed by historians. Springee (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: Having added two additional options I would favor a factual statement that the party center shifted south without stating how/why since that is a point that is debated by historians and per IMPARTIAL Wikipedia shouldn't pick sides. There is also a concern regarding imply racism in the lead related to events that happened half a century ago. Springee (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Option D was added after my comment above. It is also not acceptable because it implies the cause of the southern realignment was the top down narrative [[1]], ie these voters would have stayed with the Democrats were it not for the carefully crafted message of the GOP. Since a number of historians have noted issues with this idea, noting that the realignment started sooner and took much longer than the top down narrative would allow for, there is more in play. The bottom up narrative generally sees the south changing to red as it became more suburban (a demographic traditionally more GOP leaning). Since scholars do not agree on the cause we can not imply a cause which D does. Springee (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  You can assert as much as you want that some historians dissent from the view that the GOP appealed to anti-black racism. That doesn't change the fact that it is a minority viewpoint, and that the substantial majority of political historians believe otherwise. This is appropriately reflected, with in-text attribution, in options C/D. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, it's a gray area. Basically all historians will say you can find examples of appeals to racism. What is disputed is if there was a deliberate plan to use coded language to appeal to racists. The fact that even a minority of historians dispute means we can't treat it as a consensus view. We also don't currently know if the newer bottom up theory has since caught up or surpassed the top down narrative. We have source from perhaps 15 years back that says the bottom up narrative is newer yet gaining adherents. Finally, as Alexander notes, the problem with coded messages is how do you decide if the message is legitimate or actually intended to appeal to racism? This is why I bring up school bussing. It was clearly unpopular but is a promise to end it coded racism or addressing a problem that affected a lot of no-racist voters? Regardless, since scholars aren't in agreement as to why the south realigned we can't say it was because of appeals to racism. Springee (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  And here we go with the attempts to relitigate the history established in the prior RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, my comments are consistent with the prior RfC closing. The closing established that the GOP sought the votes of racially conservative southern voters. It does not establish how this was done. Option C attempts to claim how it was done and is thus not compatible with the prior closing. Springee (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Close as malformed There is no reason for this RfC. It's frankly disruptive that it was proposed to begin with. The questions are skewed and one option directly violates previous consensus. This RfC should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C of those presented because IMO options A and B fail to give the topic due weight, but I'd like to suggest an Option D which hews as closely as possible to the close wording of the previous RfC: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to racially conservative Southern voters, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades Loki (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Saying "racial conservatism" when what we really mean is (and what political historians directly characterize as) "anti-black racism" seems to me to go against MOS:EUPHEMISM. We should call a spade a spade. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Racially conservative/racial conservatism is a term from the scholarship on the subject.(See Aistrup, The southern strategy revisited and Valentino, Old Times There Are Not Forgotten). I suspect it's a term picked because it reflects not just outright racism but issues related to unintentional bias/indifference. These terms are specifically used in the scholarship discussions in the Southern Strategy articles. Springee (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Racial conservatism" is used far less often than "racism" in the scholarship. Two anecdotes do not show otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• None of the above. (A) and (B) are bad, "more reliably Republican" implies it was ever even slightly reliably Republican, which it never was until then. (C) is bad because it doesn't present any support for "most historians". All three of them imply the causality of the "successes" of the Civil Rights Movement, which also needs support. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Jpgordon: In the prior RfC, quite a few sources were provided for support. Copying the ones compiled by Snooganssnoogans:

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a very skewed list and leaves out a number of the scholars who either dispute the SS version of the southern realignment. It also ignores that historians looking at the southern realignment or looking at the history of the various campaigns may have simply not mentioned the SS because they felt it wasn't worth discussing. This is one of the issues with the SS article. It's easy to find the historians to discuss the topic but much harder to find those who wrote about the subject but gave the SS no consideration. Certainly they are part of the consensus or lack their of regarding the merit of the SS-realignment narrative. Springee (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources (as far as I can tell) talk about what "most historians" think on this. As far as I know, there is a consensus among political scientists on this point. But not historians.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. I'd say Option C is a problem because first of all it ignores the debate on this issue (see the southern strategy article) and secondly, it's not so much historians who say this....it is in fact political scientists. Most of the heavyweight historians (and Presidential biographers) do not share this belief that this shift was solely due to racial politics. It (also) completely ignores the Democratic Party's shift on non-racial issues to the left. At the end of the day, if the GOP got their gains from the southern strategy, a lot of Democrats didn't buy it. (Starting with Bill Clinton who ran in 1992 as a "New Democrat".) And by the way, I agree with a poster above that could call this RFC malformed since it seeks to include material not part of the previous RFC. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D (this RfC is very new, so please add this to the top, Sdkb, even if you find it to be a euphemism it would be helpful to have as an option given the connection to the previous RfC closure) - We're talking about the southern strategy, so let's just use similar language to the first line of that article. Accordingly, I don't think we need "most historians say" here. "Racially conservative" is indeed a euphemism, yes, which is less prominent than racism in the sourcing but there are some who feel on principle that we shouldn't use the word racism. Personally, I don't have a big problem with it because they're both better than A or B, which aren't that different from one another. The issue with both A and B is that they omit the "why" or "how". In other words, they say [because civil rights] --> [???] --> [the south became more republican]. But how are those things related? Where in the subject of civil rights did republicans find alignment with the south? It's something we can take for granted in the US (or maybe not, based on some of the threads here and at the southern strategy talk page), but it's not sufficiently clear. D + C are the only ones that draw that connection. I'll also add that more than just the one source would need to be cited here, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Option D added. I hope we can limit it to four and not end up with options E/F/G/H/I/J because RfCs that do that almost always end in chaos, but your point about the connection warranting the listing is valid. On the sources to include, I used just the Zingher because it's the status quo and because MOS:LEADCITE discourages excessive citations in lead sections, but for something like this, I agree it would be fine to have more. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: Ah, I didn't realize it also had the "most historians" bit, which seems unnecessary (and potentially confusing). Similar to how southern strategy doesn't hedge the first sentence because of a minority perspective (which should be and is covered, but not in the basic summary because that would be profringe). BTW I partly rewrote my !vote above. As you were the only person who responded, and it doesn't affect your response, it seemed ok, but if there are objections I'll go back and do the striking, etc. business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A apart from removing the word "more" from "with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican" (per jpgordon), I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. Strong oppose Option D, "Racially conservative" seems like a bad attempt to both call people racist and to not call them racist at the same time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, yeah, more or less, but although racist is more common in the sourcing, it seems there are some who oppose using the word racist on principle. It's just rather awkward to omit the connection between [civil rights] --> [???] --> [southern states turn republican]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anything but option C. In my opinion, we cannot blue-link anti-black racism in the lead of the article about the US Republican Party and still claim to be a neutral encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: could you elaborate why, if "racially conservative" is less common in the sources, we should use that term instead? Does the first sentence of southern strategy also mean that we are not a neutral encyclopedia, given it makes the same claim? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  For three main reasons:-

  Firstly: The sources are, quite rightly, academic studies written by professionals and aimed at a professional audience that understands the context, while Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia read by an audience that doesn't understand the context. In other words, the intended audience of the source is well aware of all the nuances of the relationship between Republicanism and anti-black racism. Wikipedia's intended audience is not, and people reading the lead of an article may be brand new to the topic. This is why the source can appropriately say "anti-black racism", but if Wikipedia did it in the lead, then that would have an unintended framing effect.

  Secondly: Because our role as encyclopaedists is to tell our audience what the sources mean. As long as we do that, we don't have to copy exactly what they say. In fact, if we do copy the sources' exact word choices, then we're not writing an article, we're plagiarising (or, in much more extreme cases, violating copyright).

  Thirdly: Because there's no duty on sources to be NPOV. Wikipedians sometimes have to construct a NPOV article from POV sources, and in this particular case, I would contend that all US sources are POV. That certainly includes the University of Chicago. I feel that a scrupulous application of the NPOV filter should raise alarm bells about bluelinking anti-black racism in the lead of this article.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  aimed at a professional audience that understands the context, while Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia - so Wikipedia should use the more confusing, less clear term "racially conservative" that scarcely exists in the mainstream publications rather than "appeals to racism" which is an extremely well known concept?
  to tell our audience what the sources mean - as you've supported A and B, too (implicitly), this means that what the "sources mean" is not about racism, which does not seem consistent with your previous close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  My previous close was my assessment of the community consensus. In this RfC, I'm choosing to participate rather than close, so my view isn't necessarily what the community thinks and isn't required to be consistent. I don't necessarily advocate using the words "racially conservative". All I said is that we should avoid using the words "anti-black racism" in the lead of our article on the US Republican party. It's quite a simple, specific objection to a word choice.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  We could and would still claim it. Whether it would further reduce the number of people who believe us is another matter. A lot of people think that ship has already sailed. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A or B While the Southern strategy and its racial implications are obviously real, options C and D use quite strong language that should only be used when there is total consensus among experts and historians. Since there is no such consensus, less categorical and more neutral language should be used. I could be convinced on D, but definitely not C. Eccekevin (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Request closure of this non-neutral RFC- The editor who started the RFC gave the impression that the previous RFC concluded that "southern strategy" was to be added to the lead and now we only had to decide how to word it. That is not true. There was no clear consensus to add it to the lead in the RFC and I still oppose it for reasons stated previously.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Option A was already present in the article prior to the previous RfC. Stop trying to shift the status quo by saying "added" when what you mean is "retained". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option C though I can't say I'm really satisfied by the choices. GordonGlottal (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option A as the least WP:TENDENTIOUS option. KidAd • SPEAK 08:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option F Options A through E all have problems with WP:V -- see 1976 United States presidential election. C and D go against the conclusion of the previous RfC as they suggest that the Republican Party is sympathetic to racism. Options A and B make the probably not WP:V and definitely WP:UNDUE assertion that the Republican-supported Civil Rights Act was responsible for the shift. Option E at least avoids all of those pitfalls. Option E avoids several of those pitfalls, but there is still the minor detail of WP:V. Option F is therefore the best, with Option E a distant second choice. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C This seems like the logical choice.Sea Ane (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• These all seem ludicrous. With respect, none of these options seem viable. it is not the southern states that shifted their party loyalty. and it is not the Republican Party that shifted its political or regional strategy in any way. rather it was the Southern Democrats who had somehow preserved their party allegiances to Democrats based on no logic whatsoever;. their link with the Democrats made no sense at all. once the Civil Rights Act was passed, this became obvious to everyone, even if political beginners, and even the southern US Senators, and Representatives, and voters; so that was why the Southern Democrats all shifted over to the Republican Party, which was all too glad to welcome them. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D in that order, which most accurately reflect the mainstream historical consensus. Strenuously oppose all other versions because they fail to mention race at all, which is unacceptable in that it fails to accurately summarize the historical consensus on a core part of the party's history. --Aquillion (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) The previous RfC did not recommend addition of such text in the lead, so it is misleading framing to say this RfC is to "implement the result" of the previous RfC, and some of the options presented seem to wish to sidestep the result of the previous RfC. But of the available choices, option E or B are the best, per Springee. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, or alternatively Option A. Really, anything but Option C is probably fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Status Quo is fine. Probably not perfect but none of the listed alternatives are obviously superior, and there are neutrality concerns for some of them. Point is, it implements the results of the last rfc well enough, and is reasonably good at satisfying MOS:LEAD's guidance that the lead proportionally summarize the body. At this point energy is being spent here that would be better expended on the article body. If there are concerns at some point in the future that it fails to adequately summarize the body due to content shifts then start another rfc. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, then A I'm not too concerned with the current state of the lead, although Option B looks slightly better than what we have currently. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (lead)

What is prompting this new RfC? Has there been some recent discussion that suggests the prior RfC should be discounted? If we have no new sources or new arguments then this looks like an attempt to relitigate in hopes that the mix of responding editors will have changed. That seems like a poor reason to open the question up again. Springee (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, please see the #Background section, where I thoroughly explained the context (with which you are very familiar). The prior RfC is being explicitly drawn upon, not in any way discounted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But option C isn't supported by the closing of the prior RfC so why would it be an option? Springee (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

How is option C inconsistent with the close? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple, the prior closing said there was consensus that, "Did the party appeal to racial conservatives after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? A: Yes." That doesn't say what the appeals were or that the appeals were specifically racist. Another issue with option C is that the prior RfC didn't conclude what "most historians think". In effect you are trying to legitimize an option that you prefer but is not supported by the prior closing. Springee (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an appeal to racial conservatism that is itself unrelated to racism? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Easy, opposition to school bussing. Many people were opposed to school bussing and not all the reasons were related to racism. A racist person may be unhappy that bussing is bringing minority students into their schools but other were concerned about the impact to their local schools[[2]]. Expansion of Medicaid and other social safety nets are another example. A person may oppose those programs because they disproportionately help minorities. However, a person also may oppose expansion based on the cost of the program and fear of running up the deficit. Get tough on crime/drugs bills are yet another example (though my feeling is more people see them as ineffective now). People see a wave of crime (as the US had in the 1980s) and they want harsh punishments feeling that will reduce crime. Some may want this because they think it will keep minority populations in check. Others are simply scared of crime and think this will help. This group may not even realize how negatively such a law will impact certain portions of the population. I wish I could fine the article I'm thinking of at this moment. I think it was something by Gerard Alexander. Anyway, the article notes the problem with any dog whistle is that, by definition, it must have an ostensibly non-racist explanation else it's an overt appeal to racism rather than a hidden appeal. This presented a problem, how do you decide if a person who is swayed by the "dog whistle" argument is acting on the racist aspect or the non-racist part? Going a step further, how do you decide motives of the person making the argument? This is why a number of scholars have said the southern strategy narrative doesn't fit the southern realignment. They note the blue to red transition started before the 1960s civil rights laws and completed well after. Anyway, this is also why I see C as problematic. Some of the scholars who are big on the bottom up transition narrative still note that racial issues were involved but they don't agree it was as simple as one side decides to win votes by changing their message to discuss specifically southern, racial issues. Springee (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note, my above examples all assume something that could be a dog whistle. You might also see things like appeal to strictly religious values (conservative views on things like smut/porn, abortion, protection of religion in school), business friendly regulations, funding for programs that largely benefit rural/suburban populations like infrastructure enhancements etc. These are messages that, presumably, would appeal to some of these racially conservative voters but have very little to do with race. Springee (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying that the GOP appealed only to anti-black racism. Of course they made other sorts of appeals during this period. But unless you have sourcing that establishes that those appeals were as salient to the political realignment as the appeals to racism, the racism is what warrants mention in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But now you are claiming a causal relationship as justification for inclusion. You are claiming the cause of the realignment was appeals to racism but that is very much disputed. Again, not all sources say the actual appeals were meant to be appeals to racism even if they are race related. Bussing was a product of race related issues but, as my PF article noted, many who opposed it weren't concerned with black vs white, they were concerned with how bussing was negatively impacting their own schools. But even if we assume all the GOP messages were really intended to be racist, that wouldn't address the view that many historians have that the transition was from the bottom up, not top down. You again are trying to push something that does not reflect a consensus view among historians. Springee (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're appealing to people concerned about the impact to their local schools, you are not "appealing to racial conservatives". It may be an issue that happens to align with racial conservatism, but that isn't an action that appeals directly to that crowd. By the same logic, you could argue "appeals to racial conservatives could just be saying 'I like ice cream' because racial conservatives probably like ice cream, too." This is obviously not what anyone is talking about when they talk about "appealing to racial conservatives" -- the "racial" is there for a reason. That people who like ice cream (or who have concerns about busing unrelated to race) are not mutually exclusive of "racial conservatives" doesn't change the meaning of "appealing to racial conservatives" being directly connected to race except through rhetorical gymnastics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But ending school bussing was one of the specific issues that Nixon et al focused on and a message that was viewed as a dog whistle by some commentators. Bussing was seen by at least some as forced school integration. If you were opposed to integration on purely racial grounds then you would be opposed to bussing. Hence why it was considered to be a coded appeal to racists. A racist against school integration would support the policy as well as a non-racist who was unhappy about the impact to the negative impact to the local schools. So how do we tell if the politician specifically meant to appeal to racism or if the person hearing/supporting the message did so because they were against integration or because they were unhappy with the negative impact to their own school? Hence we say a message that targeted racially conservative voters but wasn't necessarily racist. Again again, that ignores areas where the recipients of a policy are say rural vs urban (with an assumption that rural is largely white and urban more African American). Springee (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Springee. An argument could be made that this RFC is malformed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The framing of the close Q+A directly mirrored the original framing of that RfC. It did not take any stance on whether to use "racial conservatism" or "anti-black racism" or something else, so it is perfectly appropriate to discuss that here. "Most historians say" is directly in line with the close's directive to include in-text attribution. I should also note that S Marshall was pinged in the opening of this RfC, and he is perfectly capable of weighing in if he feels Option C goes against any consensus formed in the prior discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should attach some significance to the fact S Marshall hasn't commented yet? I just found out myself about this a couple of hours ago. Unless you know something about his schedule we don't....I don't think that means anything.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear there is a big difference between "appeal to racial conservatives" and "appealed to anti-black racism". The former describes who but not the message is for. The latter describes the message. The RfC said there was consensus who was targeted (the party appeal to racial conservatives) but not what the message was. Springee (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A Option D has been added....but the cited source for it says nothing about what "most historians" think. (But only the abstract is available.) In fact none of the cited sources talk about what "most historians" think.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been specifically asked to comment on whether option C is permissible in the light of the prior RfC, and my view is that yes, it is permissible. On Wikipedia, RfCs expire through the passage of time, and nearly 12 months have passed. Even if option C does amount to repeating a question that's already been decided, it's still reasonable to revisit it. There may be new sources to consider, and there's certainly a fresh political context.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You closed a well attended RfC. The language in your close left people to continue arguing over it like it's a divine text. Such is Wikipedia, I guess, but that takes some time, especially when some pretend it never meant anything and others stall progress by repeatedly pushing fringe theories that the RfC you closed should have put to bed. Now it sounds like you're vacating your close altogether. The consensus among the sources has not changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fully agreed with Rhododendrites on this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've added an option E and F based on the discussions above. It was rightly pointed out that this RfC presented a false set of options as we can be compliant with the prior RfC without choosing any of the 3 choices which are all biased in a certain direction. Thus I've added an option E which simply states the shift happened but doesn't explore why and option F which is, we remove the content since it doesn't have to be in the lead at all. Springee (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC

  Sdkb please do not remove the options I've added without explaining why you think they aren't justified first. The close does not say this content needs to be included nor does it restrict how it would phrased if included. Since you started this without getting any input as to correct possible options I have added some. Springee (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I included the options that had been discussed in the prior RfC and were most plausibly consistent with the consensus found there (as described in the closing statement). Few editors in that RfC argued, as you have, that the GOP did appeal to "racial conservatism" (as you insist on calling it) but that the lead should not mention it or should not link to Southern Strategy; the two sides were mainly that it did and the lead should mention/link it or that it didn't. The close found in favor of the editors saying it did, so I based the options around that. I object to your additions, which you are clearly willing to edit war to force them in. I'll mention the advice that S Marshall gave after the close of the prior RfC: you probably do need a new RFC on what the specific wording should be. Make it clear in the RFC question what we've already decided ... Editors will try to relitigate the previous question but you can safely disregard any such behaviour. Nobody who's got any business closing an RFC would give that any weight. Forcing that relitigation into the RfC question itself is plainly disruptive. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)You framed this RfC in a way that limited options vs what the prior close would allowed. The language "racial conservatives" is from the scholarship on the subject which seems to be a better source vs media articles. The close did not say the article should link to the Southern Strategy. If the prior RfC ended up with options that were not part of the original question but are allowed by the closing then we should respect that. Do keep in mind that those who were opposed the first time still have a voice. Those who argued, as you put it, that the GOP didn't aren't automatically excluded from discussion as to how to include text if we decide the GOP did. Ultimately, the problem here is that you stated this RfC without allowing some level of discussion first. Springee (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Center-right and center-left should be introduced

"Center-right" and "center-left" should be introduced to this Republican Party and Democratic Party respectively. There is no need to play around with words anymore. State it like it is. How come all the countries in the world have center, center-left, center-right definitions in their political parties and only US political parties don't have this designation. 202.9.46.48 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I would classify The Republican Party as a right wing party with factions ranging from center-right to far-right.What do you believe? Fel23 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. While there is general agreement that the the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats, there is no agreement as to placement of either party along the left-right spectrum. Use of left-right placement does not add any clarity, merely confusion. There is also the problem that both parties are and were more particularly in the past broad tent parties that both drew membership from across the political spectrum. In any other center right party in another country, Marjorie Taylor would not have been expelled from the party. TFD (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Most state affiliates of the Republican and Democratic parties have "right-wing" and "center to center-left" as their ideologies, respectively (the articles List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) link to the state affiliate articles, for example, the Alabama Republican Party and the Alabama Democratic Party). Since the state affiliates have basically the same platforms as the national parties, wouldn't it make sense to include this political position on the national GOP and Dem articles as well? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

No, per What about other content?: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists...in some other page."

Parties are placed along the left-right spectrum based on our perception of where that ideology belongs. The info-box already states the ideology. It provides no additional useful information to add - in the next line - where the editors of this article believe that ideology belongs in the spectrum. It's like having a line for a person's educational attainment (high school graduate, BA, MA etc.) and in the next line say whether this is a low, medium or high level.

TFD (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Liberal Democracy to the "Factions" section

Liberal Conservatism is a major faction within the republican party, particularly among more centrist republicans. In fact, it could be argued that it was the dominant faction of the Republican Party after they turned away from Neoconservatism post Bush and before 2016, and that it currently has far more influence than Neoconservatism because of the sheer stigma pro-interventionism carries with it nowadays. Harry Hinderson (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Harry Hinderson:: Trumpism is now the majority faction, but it is arguable that the more moderate faction advocates liberal conservatism. To add it to the infobox, you would have to find a reliable source, though. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert of Trumpism descriptors

@Toa Nidhiki05: Regarding this revert with the edit summary 'Again, making an extreme claim of "fascism" requires actual evidence, not just political commentators. That's an incredibly inflammatory claim.' Whether the label "fascist" is inflammatory or positive or negative or simply an academic classification, the claim appears to be notable and well-referenced. I simply copied that from the summary from the introduction of Trumpism. That article goes into detail about comparisons between Trumpism and other movements which have been called fascist, and why various observers apply that label to Trumpism. Various commentators who agree and disagree in applying that label to Trump are also covered on Fascism in North America#United States. -- Beland (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, though I assume it's well-known, Wikipedia:Summary style says the summary of an article in a parent article should be "quite similar" to the lead of the child article, which is why I thought it should be non-controversial to copy that material up. -- Beland (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not uncontroversial to claim the Republican Party is fascist. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Well, that label is being applied to the Trumpist faction, not the entirely Republican Party, and the text makes it clear it's not a label all observers agree with. I don't see why this language is acceptable on Trumpism but not here as a summary of that article? -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't avoid noting controversial things just because they're controversial. We just give them in-text attribution and require solid sourcing. Beland has done that here, and the fact that you still refuse to accept it doesn't negate that. There is a solid case to be made that enough consensus exists among reliable sources about the GOP's anti-democratic trend that we don't need to qualify it with the in-text attribution, and if we discuss further, that's a plausible outcome. But to revert mention of it entirely is blatantly non-neutral. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, Toa N is correct, this material currently doesn't have consensus for inclusion. Per BRD please don't restore until a consensus has been established. Springee (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't a question of controversial rather DUE and RECENT. So much ink was spilled discussing Trump so it's relatively easy to find sources that say something negative about the man and to a lesser extent the GOP. However, this isn't an article about Trump or Trupism. This is the larger, more broad view article. Are the claims that the GOP is moving towards authoritarianism more than the typical partisan noise? How do we define "authoritarian"? Is it just in comments/statements or in legal actions taken? This is the sort of thing where we should wait for a scholarly consensus or at least debate and cover it that way vs a list of commentators who may or may not all be notable/reliable for such an opinion. As for why it is OK in the Trumpism topic, well that first is an article focused on that topic. Also, per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we shouldn't assume that just because it made it in that article that is should be. In summary, I think this is the sort of material that should be added only when we have clear hindsight rather than when we are still dealing with the fall out of the last election/COVID etc. Springee (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Trumpism isn't random "other stuff" that faces similar questions, it's literally the article Wikipedia:Summary style says this section should be "quite similar" to the intro of. The intro there prominently mentions fascism, so this summary should as well. The article Trumpism already explains in detail why this term is not coming out of nowhere and aligns with Fascism#Definitions to a certain degree - Trump was charismatic, anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-conservative-establishment, centralized power, undermined civil society like the press, tolerant of white nationalism, was romantic about the past and the past national identity ("make America great again"), obsessed about projecting a masculine image, and encouraged mass rallies and vigilantism. According to that article, Stanley says in fascism, "The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors", which certainly sounds a lot like Trump. One can certainly argue this is an inappropriate label, and that Trump was simply a populist conservative, and the text from Trumpism highlights that viewpoint as well.

I don't think there's any need to wait for an assessment on this topic; it concerns mostly how Trump relates to trends in the 20th century and up to his contemporaries. All that has already happened. How Trump relates to the rest of the 21st century and whether or not his policies were good or vindicated in the long run will take many decades to decide, for sure. Reagan's legacy is still a bit up in the air, after all, and I mean we're still arguing about whether or not George Washington was a good guy because he both helped found a democracy and owned slaves. But those are different questions than describing what Trump's style of government was. -- Beland (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"Some commentators" is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL. Some commentators say that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or that Biden is a communist. Presenting fringe views without noting that they are rejected by experts is unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WEASEL, they're not weasel words if you're citing the exact commentators, so no, it's not a "clear violation". As to FRINGE, who are the experts that reject these views? (Even when you have a case where experts reject a view, if it's still a popular one, that doesn't mean we don't note the view. FRINGE is for views that are, well, fringe, not just in the minority or wrong.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If we provide the names of commentators in text and cite them, then it is not WEASEL. But if we say "some commentators" and cite commentators in footnoes, then it is WEASEL. That's because "some" is an unquantified number. But in this case we are referring to a handful among thousands.

An article originally published in the History News Network says the "vast majority [of 19 historians of Fascism consulted by the author] did not consider Trump a fascist."[3] They included Stanley Payne, the foremost theorist on fascist ideology. Roger Eatwell, the expert on fascism and the far right also said Trump was not a fascist.[4] Similarly with Robert Paxton.[5] These three writers are probably the foremost experts on fascism today.

I understand there is political ground to gain by calling the Republicans fascist. But seriously, fascists outlaw opposition parties and kill, imprison and censor their opponents, shut down legislatures, cancel elections, and launch wars and invasions when they come to power. TFD (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Those three articles are all from 2016, before Trump was elected or took office, so they're pretty worthless, as circumstances have changed drastically since then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

In Griffin's 2018 book Fascism, he writes, "A second area in which the term is subject to distortion is in political commentary, debate and protest. To call opponents 'fascist' instantly delegitimizes and demonizes them in the eyes of their critics, whether they are the Republican Tea Party, President Obama, President Trump, [etc.]."

That's the thing with fringe views, not many experts take the time to comment on them. It might be hard to find recent examples of the leading experts on astrophysics explaining why the moon landing wasn't faked.

TFD (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should replace Right-wing populism with Trumpism in the infobox. It won't solve this argument, but it would more accurately (and uncontroversially) define its ideology as (as stated) whether to describe it as right-wing populist is disputed. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Fascism in North America#United States points out that various experts (including Paxton) changed their minds and started applying the "fascist" label to Trump over time, especially after the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and 2021 United States Capitol attack. With regard to the manifestations of fascism in policy and action, keep in mind there's a big difference between what is possible in a fascist dictatorship vs. a fascist-leaning minority political faction in a still-functioning democracy. And also that Trumpism is sometimes described as "fascism lite" or "a new form of fascism", and so some differences with historical forms of fascism should be expected.

• "outlaw opposition parties and kill, imprison and censor their opponents" - Recall the chants of "Lock her up!" Trump led against Hillary Clinton and Gretchen Whitmer. Any attempt by Trump to actually do that would have failed, since the U.S. still has a functioning and independent judiciary. Because of the functioning right to freedom of speech, Trump was unable to censor directly, but recall he attacked the press as "fake news" the "enemy of the people" which according to Enemy of the people#Donald Trump is the same phrase used in Nazi Germany and resulted in death threats against the Boston Globe. He told his followers to listen to him and ignore everyone else and constantly spoke directly to them on Twitter. He barred two CNN reporters from various press events because he didn't like their questions, and made bigoted remarks to a couple of reporters to their faces. He encouraged violence against Trump opponents at his rallies,[6][7] and not only opposed Black Lives Matter but encouraged police brutality.[8]
• "shut down legislatures, cancel elections" - Even before his term began, Trump continually refused to agree to accept the results of a free and fair Presidential election unless he won. When he finally lost in 2020, we got several anti-democratic responses, including everything from pressuring election officials to rig the results for Trump to the January 6 insurrection. We're still dealing with Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. Remember that Trump said he expected the justices he installed on the Supreme Court would guarantee his victory, and when COVID-19 came along, he proposed delaying the Presidential election (which would be unconstitutional). The common term used to describe to Trump's insistence that he won is "big lie", which is a tactic and terminology borrowed straight from Nazi Germany.
• "launch wars and invasions when they come to power" - This is contradicted by Fascism#Nationalism with or without expansionism. Consider the non-interventionism of British fascists, decolonization under Franco, Belgian fascists supporting neutrality in WWII, the non-interventionism of the fascist Silver Legion of America. If you want to compare Trumpism to a fascist regime with military expansion goals, there are some similarities if you compare apples to apples. Hitler established himself as a dictator in 1933 after coming to power in a democratic election; it was not until 1938 that Germany's first exercise of military strength annexed Austria by threat of force. Until then, Germany was in a phase of military buildup in violation of its treaty obligations. Trump also favored increased military spending, and dropped certain disarmament treaties with Iran and Russia. But Trump never obtained dictatorial powers, and is certainly closer to the non-interventionist strains of fascism. Despite launching air strikes in Syria, threatening North Korea, reversing friendly relations with Cuba, and saying he'd fill up the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Trump came to an agreement to end the war in Afghanistan, and tried to negotiate peace deals in the Middle East and with North Korea. (According to America First (policy), that nationalist slogan is traditionally non-interventionist.) His idea of American empire-building seemed to be more capitalistic than military, given he threatened to leave NATO if other countries didn't pay their fair share, launched a bunch of trade wars, and attempted to buy Greenland.
• Fascist regimes have also imprisoned and killed members of ethnic and religion minorities. Trump took various actions, some within his power and some objected to by the courts, to imprison, deport, harass, and lock out certain ethnic and religious minorities with the Trump Muslim ban, the Trump administration family separation policy, stepped up ICE enforcement, the Trump border wall, attempts to end DACA, proposal to end birthright citizenship, make getting asylum very hard and more expensive, and using every other lever of power until immigration to the U.S. was nearly halted by the end of his term. (See Immigration policy of Donald Trump.)

It's not my job to decide whether "Trumpism" should be labelled as a form of fascism. But given these details, I find unconvincing the argument that we should dismiss as frivolous the experts who do apply that label because Trumpism bears no resemblance to fascism. There are clearly similarities that can support a legitimate argument, even if there are also details that support legitimate arguments in favor of other labels.

Though this material apparently already had consensus for inclusion in Trumpism, perhaps it would help to clarify the current level of support for the label "fascism". "Some commentators" is accurate, given that a number are cited, but also vague as to whether this is a majority, big minority, or small minority. We don't have to go around counting the number of opinions favoring "fascist" or "not fascist" explicitly; though I'm not sure this is a fringe view anymore, TFD is right that scholars who disagree with this label might not comment on it at all. We could simply count expert commentators who apply labels, and describe which fraction of them apply which labels. It would be nice (if not essential) to find secondary sourcing that does that for us, like the outdated articles you pointed out. A "fascism yes or no" survey would also give a better idea of the level of support for this label, as some commentators may find "fascist" a correct label even if in their own commentary they use other labels which they find more salient. -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2021

I was surprised to read Paxton's article, particularly since he was included as an expert contacted by a writer for Vox in October 2020 who were unanimous that Trump was not a fascist.[9] Paxton even refused to call Franco's Spain and Vichy France fascist, even though they were closer to the model than Trump. The same writer again contacted fascism scholars on Jan. 14, 2021, and Paxton was the only one who agreed with the term, while the others, including Griffin and Payne disagreed.

Two of America's most prominent historians, Sean Wilentz (who is a supporterand personal friend of the Clintons) and Eric Foner (who studied under Hofstadter) both avoid the fascism label and place Trump within the U.S. political tradition.[10][11] You can look to America's history of populism, political and racial violence, and political (and even some real) witch hunts to explain Trump, without blaming Italian influences.

In any case, Paxton's change of mind doesn't meet WP:REDFLAG.

TFD (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Trump is not a fascist. The great minds of Wikipedia debating this, even after the foremost expert on the topic denies that Trump is a fascist, should really scare everybody into the many biases of this website donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You could find just as many sources calling the Republicans fascists as you could find calling the Democrats communists. This isn't some radical political blog, and there's no way we should start giving life to these fringe perspectives. A definite no on any mentioning of fascism as a party philosophy or link to it, unless we want to start a project-wide free for all on other parties and politicians using cherrypicked sources. Davefelmer (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, American politicians on the right use "socialist" and "communist" labels as inaccurate attacks against all Democrats, but what do the experts on socialism say? The idea that there is a socialist faction of the Democratic Party is objectively true. Bernie Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and got substantial support, and several members of the Democratic Socialists of America have been seated in the House of Representatives. Though the Democratic Party as a whole has been fairly free-market compared to socialist parties in other countries, socialism actually polls better among Democrats than capitalism,[12] and many major initiatives of Obama and Biden have involved government intervention in the economy to serve social good over economic good, like equalizing access to health care, child care, paid leave, and broadband. Many Americans oppose such policies because they feel they are causing the country to veer toward socialism, and it would be weirdly inaccurate to avoid saying that, given what a major issue it has been in the last few elections. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research on party positions

Content sourced to a peer-reviewed study in a leading political science journal was removed with edit summary "No".[13] The study assessed the policy positions of the two parties and the interest group sectors that these positions align with. Furthermore, the findings are uncontroversial (the Republican Party represents the interests of business and the affluent, whereas the Democratic Party represents the interests of the less affluent) and in line with other experts.[14] I fail to understand the removal. It is intrinsic to political parties to explain what interests they represent. For example, social democratic parties tend to represent organized labor whereas agrarian parties (like Centre Party (Sweden)) represent rural interests and agricultural interests. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I (for one) don't necessarily oppose such a addition.....but I can see why it was a issue on a couple of levels. First off you added: "The modern Republican Party's economic policy positions align with those of the wealthiest Americans, as well as with corporations." But from the abstract of your source it says: "The Republican Party and business interests are aligned across all issue areas and are more often aligned with the opinions of the richest Americans (especially on economic policy)." [emphasis added] That's a bit of a difference considering the GOP does push pro-small business policies and rhetoric. Speaking of that, we already say (in the "Business community" section): "The Republican Party has traditionally been a pro-business party. It garners major support from a wide variety of industries from the financial sector to small businesses." There probably wouldn't be much push back if you augmented that section with this (i.e the wealth aspect).....and put it a little less POV-ish.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording the contents of the study. I assume you're fine with using it as a source for the existing sentence that the Republican Party is a pro-business party (although the sentence can specify that this holds across all issue areas). How about a sentence on the alignment between the party's economic positions and those of the most affluent? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is definitely RS. I just wouldn't word it so to say that the GOP's economic policies only aligns with wealthy and big corporations. They are (obviously) pro-big business/wealthy (as multiple RS attest to).....but they are (also) pro business in general. It would probably be best to use such language as "skew to" or "tend to favor" with regards to polices & the wealthy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the findings of a recent journal article, per weight. If as you say those findings are uncontroversial, then a reliable source should say that. In any case I don't think you have summarized the situation correctly. Both parties represent big business interests and their main policies reflect this. However, they differentiate themselves by appealing to different demographic groups. The Republicans have traditionally appealed to white male middle class Protestants, while the Democrats have used client politics to attract minorities. Today the Republicans have successfully sought the votes of rural, uneducated and poor white voters, while Democrats have made a successful appear to white exurban middle class women, which is a reversal of previous decades. TFD (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comment contains bad original research contradicted by the study and irrelevant asides (what groups the parties appeal to). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the paper, so I am summarizing how the parties are perceived. It may be that the paper was written in order to challenge this perception. The Democrats don't "represent[] the interests of the less affluent." The most you could say is that they better represent them than the Republicans, or at least do so rhetorically. But they only do that when they coincide with elite interests. Anyway, since you are the one who wants to show that the two parties represent class struggle, you should be able to find a better source. TFD (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple high-quality sources directly and unequivocally state that the Democrats are more likely to represent the interests of poor voters (which is not the same as saying that represent the interests of the poor in a universal sense, only that they are more likely to do so than Republicans and that this is considered a defining feature of the division between the two parties and, therefore, a defining feature of the Republican party's politics, at least in academia.) I've presented two additional sources cited by this one below; if you want more, I can provide them, but I know you've complained in the past that I've overwhelmed you with sources. Either way, I'd like to see at least some sources supporting your alternate take if you want to keep asserting it, since I've produced three reasonably high-quality sources saying the opposite, now, and most of them themselves cite and summarize multiple supporting sources to establish it as a well-known and well-accepted aspect of America's political divisions (rather than simply being research papers presenting it as a new / surprising finding, as you seem to be interpreting it.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Today the Republicans have successfully sought the votes of rural, uneducated and poor white voters Just to be clear, I do not think that the bolded bit is true - the higher-quality sources that I've seen discussing the dynamic you're referencing have carefully drawn a distinction between education and wealth. They overlap into the broad rubric of "class" but are not automatically the same thing; my understanding is that Republican support is highest among whites who are low-education but comparatively high-income. Even if that were the case, though, that has no bearing on what party does when it is in power; sources overwhelmingly indicate that the Republican party is more responsive to wealthier interests and that this is a defining feature of its politics. I don't think it's defensible to completely omit that given the sources below, but if you have sources reflecting your take on it and tying the two things together then go ahead and find them and we could work the change over time or the perception-vs-reality aspect into the paragraph in question. --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Summarizing the source in question for people who lack access to it...

• The Republican Party and business interests are aligned across all issue areas and are more often aligned with the opinions of the richest Americans (especially on economic policy). From the abstract.
• We find that affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent.
• Issue-specific measures of public opinion at different income levels also show that Republican representatives are more responsive to their affluent constituents on key votes, whereas Democrats are less responsive to the affluent (Rhodes and Schaffer 2017). Ref is to Rhodes, Jesse H. and Brian F. Schaffner. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12(4): 185-204.

• That ref says: However, individuals with Republican representatives experience an “oligarchic” mode of representation, in which wealthy individuals receive much more representation than those lower on the economic ladder. (Abstract)
• In contrast, among individuals with Republican representatives, the relationship between income and representation is positive regardless of the data used, suggesting a model of representation that is most similar to linear inequality (if not Oligarchy).

• Evidence from the Senate confirms the same differential partisan pattern over 39 roll-call votes and 8 legislative sessions (Lax, Phillips, and Zelizer 2019). Ref is to Lax, Jeffrey, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer. 2019. “The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate.” American Political Science Review 113(4): 917-940.

• That ref says: Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence.
• Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased towardthe preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently. (An extended discussion of four other papers that support this conclusion follows, but I'll avoid it here for now unless someone really wants to see all this, since I suspect this rabbit hole could go on for a while.)

There's more that goes into their own research, but overall the section of the paper that summarizes prior research is more useful to us (it's a secondary source on the other papers it cites and establishes that, yes, this is a widely-accepted view that goes back a while rather than just a recent finding.) I would cite the Lax, Jeffrey, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer paper as well, which summarizes its own extensive list of citations. But overall it's clear there's sufficiently extensive coverage of this point that it needs to be in the article in some form. The wording could be work-shopped based on the other papers referenced, and people could dig for sources to support additional takes (such as TFD's theory, above, though I didn't find anything in the listed sources to support it so far), but I don't think it's defensible to omit it entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC on adding "Paleoconservatism" to infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I WP:BOLDly wanted to add Paleoconservatism to the infobox, but User:Toa Nidhiki05 reverted, claiming it is not a "major faction". Should he be overruled, and my edit reinstated? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Question: what is the sourcing that you are basing this bold addition off of, Goodone121? (Summoned by bot) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I am relying on the wikipage for the ideology. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You will need reliable and independent sources. Using other articles is circular, so you will need something besides that. (Of course, the sources that article uses might provide somewhere to start looking to see if they support your proposed addition.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Goodone121: Setting aside the merits of your edit, you might want to read WP:RFCBEFORE. It would be better that we all discuss this in a less formal setting and see if we can reach a consensus, before we get into the rigmarole of an RfC. Unless there's a past discussion here I'm missing, I'd politely suggest you self-revert on starting the RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I believe this is better, to get a final answer. @Seraphimblade: The infobox's hidden comments said nothing about needing cites, so I use it as a special case, of having a rebuttable presumption against the normal requirement. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider a "rebuttable presumption against the normal requirement", or even precisely what that's intended to mean. Article information is expected to be verifiable, and there is no "infobox exception" to that. Now of course, sometimes infobox material, much like material in the lead, is instead cited later in the article, and as long as that's the case that's fine. But an infobox is not a dumping ground for unreferenced information, nor an exception to the verifiability requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Goodone121 masquerading as Bettering the Wiki: When you're done reading WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:V, please turn your attention to WP:RFCOPEN, in particular the part in bold saying you should Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Your statement is not neutral, it's based on no reliable evidence, and the whole RfC is premature. Please withdraw it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Remove “the most from any one political party” from the sentence “There have been 19 Republican presidents, the most from any one political party.” There have been 21 Democratic Party presidents: List of presidents of the United States 37.159.107.33 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• You'll have to tell us where your get your figure of 21, since Democratic Party (United States) says there have been 16 Democratic presidents, not 21. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I also count 16 on the page you link to(counting Cleveland once). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)