Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname Content: Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname

Eisenhower

Someone please include a picture of President Dwight Eisenhower. He is ranked highly among the presidents and would make a great example of a Republican president along with the other three already shown.

'center-right party'

This article refers to the republican party as center right. I propose that the party be presented as a right wing party. Redface1 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why. In the context of US politics, it is very much center-right, and centrists make up a decent fraction. Also, keep in mind, right-wing parties such as the British National Party are very much Kenyesian, while the GOP is very much neo-liberal in terms of economic theory. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the republican economic policy can be seen as more left wing than the BNP's economic policy. As even thought the BNP is a far right party it is not its economics that give it this place in the political spectrum but its views on immigration. And in the context of UK economic policy the fact that they use Keynesian economics is not right wing at all seeing that the economic policy of the main three political parties is mainly kenysian in practice. Therefore, the fact that the republican party is seen broadly to seek to decrease the role of the government, apart from the stimulus =), makes it a right wing policy compared with the more Keynesian democrats.

Also If we take the social policy of the Republican party and its opposition to gay marriage, Abortion and a socialised medicine are very right wing compared to other so called center right parties around the world. I know this is supposed to be in the context of American politics but It does not state that in the article and people from all over the world view the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redface1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you are comparing conflicting parties in conflicting systems, but ignoring mine. Not an accusation, just a fact.

However, in the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority (civil unions are supported, generally, but it is usually either full marriage or nothing), a majority now opposes abortion, and a majority (I believe) opposes socialized medicine - so on those particular views, the GOP is very mainstream in the United States, particularly when compared to the Democrats, who support these things. Keep in mind, libertarians and moderates make up a significant portion of the GOP voter base and caucus.

Once again, also, right-wing politics generally support either protectionism or Kenyesian economics - the GOP is fiscally conservative, and pro free-trade. If anything, the Democrats have more in common with the far-right in terms of economics.

Also, compared to the Constitution Party (the largest right-wing party in the United States), the GOP looks very much centre-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution Party isn't so much right-wing as far-right. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's flat-out false. A majority favor both gay marriage and abortion rights in America. Those are both examples of how the Republican Party is socially right-wing. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As far "socialized medicine", the polls indicate that as the universal health care bill Congress was crafting got more conservative, it lost support. Polls show anywhere from a bare majority to a massive two-thirds supermajority favoring the public option. It wasn't until Republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats got that removed from the bill with their filibuster threats that the bill started polling at less than 50% support. Thus, majority of Americans seem to want health care that's more "socialized" than what we actually ended up with. — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By any context the Repubican is a right-wing party whatever way you put it. I actually laughed when I saw "centre-right party". That's ridiculous, I'd imagine real republicans would be offended at being told they are anywhere near the centre. It's daft that people actually argue that they're centre right. Mspence835 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

'Center-right' means 'right of center', not 'center of the right'. The term itself is used to describe parties with views ranging from the center to the right, excluding far right/right wing stances. The term fits quite accurately, given the large numbers of Centrist/Libertarian GOPers in Congress, as well as the GOP's lack of adherence to right-wing enconomic theory. The modern GOP fits comfortably on the center-right, and is most certainly not right wing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On social issues at the very least, the GOP is very much a right-wing party, and should be labeled as such. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because it isn't - being right-wing disqualifies a party from being center-right, which is what the sources identify the GOP as. Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What "sources"? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The American electorate, in general, is much more centre-centre-right than people believe. For example, a Gallup Poll in 2009 found that 40% of the electorate self-identified as "Conservative", while 35% identified as "Moderate", and a slim 21% called themselves the dreaded "Liberal" word (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx). The Republican Party, Gallup found, was made up of 73% Conservatives, 24% Moderates, and a tiny 3% Liberals. The Democratic Party, on the other hand (being more centre) was made up of 38% Liberals, 40% Moderates, and a still significant 22% Conservatives.

Also, Libertarians are not "centrist" in any way shape or form. They endorse far-right economic policies (as in no government regulation, and almost no government at all except for police) and centrist social policies (they do not support the Civil Rights Act, for instance). Libertarians are right-wing, if not a little to the radical side.

Guys, it's painfully obvious that the Republican Party is much less diverse than its centre-left counterpart, especially in the demographics of ideology, religion, and race. The less diversified Republican Party believes in pretty much the same thing while Democrats have more diverse opinions (seeing as how "Liberals" are outnumbered in what people would assume is a party dominated by them). Please respond to this with some well researched documentation. It's no fun going back and forth saying "It is centre-right" "no it's right-wing!". I would like to see some research (like what I posted) to back up the idea that the Republican Party is just as centrist as its counterpart.--Drdak (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

...And if you look at it by position, the American people support liberal positions quite often. Poll data can be manipulated many ways - but this poll, to my knowledge, never defined those positions. What is one to assume the people who answered meant?

Also, Libertarians don't support a 'far right' economic theory - far-right and right-wing economic policies generally revolve around protectionism and government control of business (ie. Fascism, Nazism, etc.), not free market, free trade policies like the GOP. If you want a real example of a right-wing party, see the Constitution Party (United States) - protectionist fiscal agenda, strictly right-wing social agenda.

In addition, you appear to identify the 'center-right' as 'the right of the center' - it means 'right of center', or ideologies that go to the right of the center without being right-wing/far right. The GOP has been identified by the sources as center-right, meaning it cannot be either right-wing or far-right.

Well, regardless of what people call it, there's a noticeable difference in the constituencies of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I don't know if I would call it full right-wing, but it sure is much more polarized than the largely Moderate-composed Democrats. --Drdak (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why the infobox has separate entries for fiscal and social ideology of the party. Fiscally the center-right label is still accurate (so far), socially the Republican Party is very much right-wing. And proud of it. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification is irrelevant. Lots of people call themselves "conservative", "liberal" or "moderate" when the actual issues they support or oppose tell a different story. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification is not really irrelevant. People know what it means. Besides where do you see notable factions within the RP? The Democrats have the Progressive Caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, and even the centrist New Democrats. The Republicans have smaller factions (GOProud is a notable one) and are much more united in their opinions (less ideological diversity).--Drdak (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're looking at this from an American standpoint. By American politics the Republican is centre-right. But by international observers and academics the Republican Party is a Right-Wing party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foozy101 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that even by American standards the GOP is no longer center-right. It's been moving steadily further to the right for several decades now. 71.228.175.229 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Foozy101 - Read the center-right article - the GOP fits quite comfortably on the center right, even on a global scale. @Drdak - Look up the Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Liberty Caucus - both have good representation in Congress and lead towards centrism and libertarian conservatism, respectively. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but they are small factions that are comparably dwarfed by the Tea Party and other Right-Wing factions. Libertarianism should also not be confused with centrism, as well.--Drdak (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would propose just dropping the left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, etc titles from the article altogether. Where a person or party sits on the political spectrum is relative. What is liberal to one person or country may be conservative to another. Dropping titles like these and simply addressing the platforms would make the article a lot more balanced and allow the reader to decide whether something is liberal or conservative, not to mention easing the political tension on the board. --Navi555 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

From a global perspective, the GOP is definitely right-wing, with the dominant sector of the Democrats being centre-right (in many aspects, they're to the right of the Tories in Britain)--Phagopsych (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all sources indicate them as center-right, and their policies are to the left of right-wing parties, even in Britain. This dead horse has been beaten far too many times. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot agree with other editors, I suggest we try getting some more opinions. However, labelling the Republican Party centre-right, when this is not the most common view, is POV. --Phagopsych (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly 'common view', and even then, consensus cannot violate sources, which describe the GOP as center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that a fringe view or sources –a la John M. O'Hara– should be given undue weight, certainly nothing more than a footnote. --Phagopsych (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What "sources"? You keep saying that "sources" identify the Republicans as center-right, without identifying them. Could it be because they're unreliable fringe sources? It's quite obvious that at least on social issues, the GOP is not only right-wing, it's approaching far-right territory. 71.228.175.229 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot preserve WP:V if the only sources being used are the ones that confirm the belief that the GOP is only centre-right. Perhaps the label "Right to Centre-Right" is the most accurate, as the Tea Party demonstrates the rather extreme and large portion of the GOP right-wing nowadays.--Drdak (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, is this just a matter of whether we are judging the party based on a national or global political scale? Or do people think the Republican Party is right even in the context of U.S. politics? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue, because any and all 'sources' they present (almost all of them saying the vague 'right', which can mean either right-wing or center-right and is used just as often by Democrats to stick on Republicans as Republicans stick the label 'left' on the Democrats) are from national sources, not international ones. I do not think they qualify as 'right-wing' (or whatever they want to call it) by any standard, national or international. The term 'center-right' is broad and inclusive, and is necessarily inclusive of all right-leaning stances (ie. right-leaning moderates, conservatives, libertarians, populist conservatives. etc.). In fact, this own website defines it as 'a political term commonly used to describe or denote individuals, political parties, or organizations (such as think tanks) whose views stretch from the centre to the right on the left-right spectrum, excluding far right stances'. So, by definition, the term 'center-right' is representative of these so-called 'right-wing' elements in the GOP, as well as the moderates and libertarians. Basically, the addition of a 'right-wing' tab is not only inaccurate, it is unneeded and incorrect, as 'center-right' already covers it. Just to be safe, though, I'll quote the whole 'Ideology' section of said page:

A definition of the term "centre-right" is necessarily broad and approximate because political terms have varying meanings in different countries. Parties of the centre-right generally support democratic capitalism, the market economy, limited forms of government regulation, private property rights, and opposition to socialism and communism. Such definitions generally include political parties that base their ideology and policies upon conservatism and economic liberalism. Parties that subscribe to social liberalism are often associated with the centre-left whereas those on the right of the liberal movement are often defined as conservative liberals or liberal conservatives. Centre-right parties often ground themselves in social conservative and traditionalist values and civic or liberal nationalism; as such, most predominantly Christian states possess a competitive centre-right Christian democratic party, while centre-right parties in predominantly Islamic countries may claim to uphold traditional Islamic values (as with the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and so on.

Toa Nidhiki05 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While this issue is too political and polarized to ever be decided by full consensus, it's pretty clear that the overall views on this talk page are dominantly for reclassifying the party as "right," particularly among signed comments. To be fair, there is some support for "far-right" and for "center-right," particularly from one especially vocal user. But classifying the party as "right" represents a compromise between all viewpoints. I am therefore altering the page to read "right." If you support "far-right" or "center-right," please feel free to continue the discussion, but please let's not start an edit war on a page this important.Rppeabody (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Center-right is the best descriptor. And I see nothing approaching consensus to change the article. At best this discussion is leaning "no consensus." – Lionel ^(talk) 00:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Lionelt, no consensus. In fact, I'm the only one who has presented evidence to support his claim, so any and all arguments otherwise are borderine original research. Not only is 'right' not consensus, it is very inaccurate. Toa Nidhiki05 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No you are not. You cited the IDU, which is highly biased towards itself (it wouldn't label itself 'right' but rather 'centre-right'). I cited Gallup, OnTheIssues.org, and some other pieces that were tossed out during the undoing. The only way to decide what makes the party "right" or "centre-right" is to compare their stances on the issues with that of the general public's opinion. Polls have been done on this before so we won't have any original research.--Drdak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly sources describing this particular thing are hard to find, but I don't think yours are sufficient. The first two are about the Republican Party's "shift right", which does not necessarily mean it went from center-right to right, it could be just different degrees of center-right. Regardless, I'm still not sure if people are talking in U.S. or international political terms. If the former, then the whole country is shifting right so the Republican Party might not be moving anywhere, relatively speaking. Finally, the OnTheIssues.org source is probably WP:SYNTH. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Right is generic enough to include any centre-right fringes, which are a minority indeed. --Phagopsych (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start a RfC. This should have been done a while ago. --Drdak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment, 'Center-right' or not

Should this article continue to use the label of "center-right" for the party or use a different label for its orientation such as "right" or "far-right"?

see discussion above

Statement from filer of request

The Republican Party's current label of "centre-right" is being challenged. Supporters argue that the RP fits in with the modern definition of "centre-right", citing sources such as the International Democrat Union as proof that the RP is not fully "right" or "far-right" when looked at from a national standpoint. Opponents question the truth and verifiable nature of this label. They argue that large, influential factions such as the Christian Right and Tea Party have pushed the RP further to the Right, pointing to recent negotiations such as the United States debt ceiling crisis (in which Republicans opposed all tax increases) as proof of obstructionism.--Drdak (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Polling

• Center-right - There are centrist or even slightly center-left Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Gordon Smith, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Jane Swift, Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who was elected on a GOP ticket all three times), and many more. (At the moment, there are more GOP Senators in the US Senate who vote consistently pro abortion than there are Democratic Senators who vote consistently pro life; for instance, every single Democrat in the Senate voted for Obama's health care law.) There are centrist or slightly center-right Republicans such as Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Orin Hatch, Senator Senator Mark Kirk, Representative Mike Castle, Representative Joseph Cao, Representative Charles Djou, Governor Linda Lindle, Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Tim Pawlenty, Governor Mike Huckabee, and even President Bush (who more than doubled international aid, introduced Medicare Plan D, allowed poor African-American kids in Washington DC to escape state school: hardly a far right agenda). Then there are center-right Republicans such as Senator Pat Toomey, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Speaker John Boehner, Representative Paul Ryan, Representative Allen West, Representative Aaron Schock, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Scott Walker, and Governor Nikki Haley. And there are right-wing Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul, Senator Jim DeMint, Representative Ron Paul, Representative Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Scott. So if we take the average over all center-left, centrist, center-right and right-wing Republicans, we'll get a Big Tent party of the center-right. Thus "center-right" is a fair and accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.93.26 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for how you decided to put some of those people in the those categories. Mike Huckabee and George W. Bush as "centrist to slightly center-right"? Seriously? Bush's expansion of foreign aid was primarily military aid, and "allowing poor African-American kids in Washington DC to escape state school" is very much a conservative move; the idea that "state schools" (a term used almost exclusively by the right to bash public schools) are something to "escape" is hardly a liberal or centrist position. John McCain also hasn't been "centrist to center-right" in years. He's personally shifted hard to the right, as anybody who paid attention to his 2008 presidential campaign and 2010 reelection campaign would see. Then you put Tea Party members Marco Rubio, Allen West, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry (a man who actually threatened to secession in his reelection bid as Texas governor!) as center-right? All of them are more right-wing than Ron Paul, who you place in the right-wing category. Likewise, Paul Ryan (who proposed abolishing Medicaid and privatizing Medicare) is center-right? Give me a break. If you have that skewed a view of where the center lies, I can see how you'd think the GOP is center-right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right - When we look at the only objective measure of looking at this situation (the party's positions relative to the general public), we see clear indications of right-wing leanings. The non-partisan organization OnTheIssues has compiled a list of the Republican Party's platform, as well as those of other political parties; this goes so far as to place the RP on a position on the Nolan Chart (Republican Party On The Issues). We also cite the Republican Party's platform on its actual website (GOP: Current Issues), which contains paranoid phrases such as "(International organizations) must never substitute for principled American leadership" and "We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry". The RP seems to villify its enemies (namely the Democrats) by making them appear socialist, statist and unAmerican. Various academic and respected texts have identified the obstructionism and purity "cleansing" that has become part of the modern day RP ("The Christian Right in the Republican Party: The Case of Pat Robertson's Supporters")("Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States")("Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort")--Drdak (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Any 'right-wing' influences are still drowned by the centrists and libertarians, though, and still falls under 'center-right'. For one matter, half you're comments seem to be Original research. You are taking comments rejecting socialism and internationalism (common traits of center-right parties) and using them to somehow prove they are right-wing? It makes no sense. How is not wanting internationalism or socialism 'paranoid'?

For the second matter (vilification), that is something that is common on both sides, not just the GOP - you see Democrats call Tea Partiers or Republicans anything from 'fascists' to 'hard-righters' to 'terrorists'. Name-calling is not political - it is just politics. With all that fancy text, you're argument is still more bark than bite. Toa Nidhiki05 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to find sources that confirm that centrists and libertarians (which should not be confused with moderates by any stretch of the imagination due to their economic stances) outnumber conservatives. The evidence I cited earlier from Gallup shows that 73% of the RP is comprised of self-identified conservatives while 38% of the DP is comprised of self-identified liberals. Self-described moderates are less frequent in the RP. The burden of proof lies with you to confirm it being centre-right. Your argument about "centrists" outnumbering those on the Right is undoubtedly false.

A paranoid mode of thinking exists because the RP believes it is fighting a "government takeover" which is not what any major party has ever proposed. If anything, the Democrats mirror third way and modern American liberalism in their orientation, not socialism. So it is paranoid to label everyone opposed to one's own political POV as a statist or desiring a one world government. This isn't so much what our argument is based on so much as a side note.--Drdak (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you are changing your argument; do you think Republican constituency is right or do you think it's actual representatives and platform are? Overall constituency of a party does not affect it's affiliation at all - platform, representatives, and voting do. It's routine calculation to determine that, combined, the Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Liberty Caucus outnumber the Tea Party Caucus in overall Congressional representation, and that the Tea Party is not represented in party leadership. Simply put. libertarians and centrists outnumber the Tea Party, and so the center outweighs the so-called 'right'. In addition, while libertarians may have pretty conservative economic views, their social views are just as liberal - if you are trying to say libertarians are 'right' as well, you are sorely mistaken.

And since when has rhetoric been 'paranoid'? Democrats have been making claims that the Tea Party are 'terrorists' and are out to destroy America. Is that not 'paranoid'? You are taking political rhetoric as usual and twisting it to support what you think the political ideology of a party is, and that is incorrect, not to mention original research. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You must prove that centrists outnumber the right. I don't know how many times I must restate this. Libertarianism really is irrelevant when talking about the left-right spectrum of politics; it's an ideology. Libertarians can classify themselves on both the right and left. The kind of libertarianism I believe you are referring to is on the right (right libertarianism).--Drdak (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party Caucus has 60 members. The RMSP has 50. The RLC has 12. 50+12=62. If you count Senators as well, these caucuses each have 4 members each. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're still counting the libertarian wing as if they're allies of the centrists and in opposition to the Tea Party Caucus. Neither claim is remotely accurate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that there are "comments rejecting socialism and internationalism", it's that the Republican Party makes the obviously false assertion that the Democratic Party is a socialist, internationalist party, when it's barely even center-left. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

...And the Democrats make the false claim the the GOP is 'hard right' or 'fascist', on occasion. Those are examples of politics as usual from both parties, not a legitimate stance. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's false equivalence. Calling the GOP "hard right" is only a slight exaggeration at this point. Calling the Democratic Party "socialist" is flat-out absurd, given that even designating it as liberal is a bit of a stretch these days. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right - The above ideologies besides 'center-right' are unjustified and change the ideology section to something that is factually wrong. If the GOP is not viewed as 'right-wing' or 'far-right' (truly absurd labels when one actually looks at what those labels mean when you put politics as usual from both sides of the aisle aside) by a Democrat-leaning organization and an international coalition of centrist and center-right parties (which would certainly expel the GOP if they were so-called 'right-wing' and certainly if they were 'far right'). Keeping in mind the GOP also has sizable centrist and libertarian caucuses (which actually outweigh the Tea Party in membership when combined), center-right, which in actuality means organizations 'views stretch from the centre to the right on the left-right spectrum, excluding far right stances', center-right is the only accurate describer of the party as a whole. By any means, if 'right' is inaccurate, far right is absurd - GOP policy is nowhere near that of the British National Party or the Nazis. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - You need to cite sources, Toa. Political internationals of 'centre-right' parties can vary tremendously in their composition, especially considering that the definitions of 'right' and 'left' differ from country to country.--Drdak (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If an international source labels the Republican Party as center-right, and I think we would agree that the U.S. is to the right on the international political spectrum, doesn't it give it more validity? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it means it is inaccurate.Rppeabody (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just reject a source you don't like, Rppeabody. Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Hey, be nice. When we say that the party is far-right, we do not mean that it adheres to the same racist fringe views that the Nazis follow. These views hold no place in right-wing ideology, no matter how conservative you are. Racism also takes place in far-left groups and even in groups that are in the political center. It is in no way an indicator of how conservative you are. And when you remove issues of racism and genocide, the Republican party of 2011, while less socially conservative, is significantly more fiscally conservative than the BNP or the Nazis, both of whom favor significant government intervention in the economy. Let me stress that I am not accusing the Republicans of the racism, genocide, and general moral repugnance of the Nazis because those views have nothing to do with conservatism.Rppeabody (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - You clearly need to look up what the far right actually is. The Nazis were far right (as are fascists and Third Positionists), and when you actually look at the political scale, right-wing or far-right parties acutally support more government regulation, be it through trade protectionism or ownership of industries (look up Right-wing socialism). By saying they are 'far right', you are grouping them with the Nazis. Just to be fair, I'll quote the entire WP page on the 'far right'

Far right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. The terms are often used to imply that someone is an extremist. The terms have been used by different scholars in somewhat conflicting ways.
Far right politics commonly involve supremacism — a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm.
Far right politics often support segregation; the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior.
Far right politics also commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.
The ideologies usually associated with the far right include fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies
The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms, but which aim to break with prevailing institutions and practices.

Now, I want you to think really hard about whether the GOP fits in with that. :) Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is deeply offensive to the far right. Racism is not a prerequisite for being very conservative. Interestingly, aside from the racism and fascism aspects, the Republican party actually does fit that definition pretty well. The party has adamantly opposed any attempts to lower income inequality, and numerous Republican politicans openly espouse the views of Ayn Rand, the ultimate supremacist. George Bush was routinely criticized for being authoritarian (Patriot Act, calling himself "the decider," etc.), and nativism has become a big deal lately for the party (i.e. [1], [2], etc.).Rppeabody (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rppeabody, read the article and the sources - they clearly say it is. Being a conservative party, I doubt they would support left ideas like income equality, and I'd love for you to show me a source linking Ayn Rand to the far right - because what Objectivism actually links up with is Libertarianism. It is quite easy to find a liberal source criticizing Bush, as I could for Rove criticizing Obama; does that make it a legit source?

Also, on the so-called 'nativism' front, since when is enforcing laws 'nativist'? Since when is opposing Jus soli citizenship 'nativist', when every other continent but the Americas doesn't have even a small minority supporting it? Neither of those show an opposition to legal immigration, only illegal. Slimming requirements to match what the rest of the world uses isn't nativist, I don't think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, opposition to jus soli citizenship is nativist, within the context of the United States. — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-Right; the party itself is center right made up of centrists, center-right, and right politically leaning individuals, with greater concentrations of each in different regions of the country. The party is overall center-right. Right wing parties would be like the Constitution, American Independence, or Conservative Party. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Center-right: As I mentioned below, the Republican Party must be fairly centrist in the national political spectrum or else it would not have so many elected officials (more or less parity with the Democratic Party). There are lots of new stories about it shifting right but only because the U.S. public is shifting right. The only source for "right" I have seen is the On The Issues page that Drdak provided. However, that is mostly based on the Republican Party platform, which tends to be more conservative than its members (the latter being what we should reflect, I think). I recall hearing for some time that the official party platform called for eliminating the Department of Education, for example. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Yes but there is a large right-wing inside of America that elects them consistently. For example, you'd think that the Tea Party would lack influence because of its Right-wing stances on issues, but they are quite strong and have politicians elected all of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdak (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, Drdak, then the American political spectrum is farther to the right, not the GOP. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Far-right - Back under Nixon, the party was probably best described as center-right. (I hope we can all agree on this.) But it is undeniable that the party made a major shift to the right under Reagan. And the party moved even further to the right during the Republican Revolution. It would be very hard to lump the tax-slashing, anti-government party of the 1990s in with the big-government president who founded the Fed and the EPA. At this point, I think, "right-wing" would have been appropriate. To say that George Bush brought the party further to the right would be an understatement. Once he was through, the ‘’Economist’’ was ready to endorse a Democrat. But today he looks positively moderate against a party that opposes economic stimulus, flirts with default, and proposes a constitutional amendment to eliminate the government's ability to borrow money. It is hard to find a major group in American politics further to the right than the Tea Party, which currently dominates the party's agenda. And while the party has moved so much further to the right, the country has, if anything, probably moved left. Most Americans now support abortion and higher taxes! Despite having significantly fewer members than the Democrats, the party currently has control of one branch of Congress. And the party has been able to dictate the agenda. They trounced the Democrats not because of popular support but because of passion, a beautiful fund-raising machine, brilliant strategy, and most importantly, faith. Tea party members freely admit they are not in office to get elected, not there to follow the will of the people but there to follow the will of God.Rppeabody (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - That entire post contains no sources, meaning it is pure original research. Also, are you honestly going to support grouping the GOP with the British National Party and the Nazis? I suggest you actually look up what the far right is (extreme authoritarian social policy paired with Third Position economics and usually led by a charismatic leader) before claiming it is on par with the BNP or Nazis, and actually more right that actual right-wing US parties such as the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party. I'd also be hard-pressed to find a party that is controlled by a minority caucus with no positions in leadership, which is basically what the Tea Party is. And, just so you know, most Americans now oppose abortion (after decades in favor). Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please not throw around impolite and untrue accusations? I listed my sources for "far-right" below a post requesting sources, as TN05 is well aware, since he/she commented on that post. Also, not to nitpick, but OR accusations are a bit rich when they're in a post that contains no sources but lots of questionable assertions. Furthermore, I note that TN05 did not actually question my central thesis, which is that the GOP has moved far to the right of where it was under Nixon. Could it be that this is so blatantly and obviously true that even the most ardent supporter of the "center-right" position will not challenge it? I suppose I'm probably being too optimistic.Rppeabody (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cited sources (both on the page and on the center-right article), which are removed in obsessive-compulsive fashion by other editors - you're 'central thesis' cites nothing but your opinion. If you understood American political history, you'd realize both parties prior to at least the Reagan Revolution had a centrist, liberal, and conservative faction - traditionally until the Goldwater nomination, the moderates controlled the GOP presidential nomination. This gradually adjusted into our current setting - a liberal and conservative party, with the conservative Democrats mostly leaving the Dems between the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution in 1994. So if you want to say strictly, yes, the GOP has moved farther to the right - from the center to the center-right, as the Dems have moved from the center to the center-left. This is a result of party realignment, not anything else.

On another note, did you actually look up the Constitution Party and read for yourself? You seem to ignore that your desire to change the ideology section to 'far right' would entirely eclipse the legitimately right-wing Constitution Party. My suggestion is at least read up on what the far right actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am getting quite weary of Toa's aggressive tactics. He does not respect anyone else's opinion.--Drdak (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect opinion - I refute incorrect opinion. For that matter, Wikipedia isn't about opinion, it's about fact, so 'opinion' really doesn't matter here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about neither opinion nor fact (e.g. "The Truth"). It is about Verifiability.--Drdak (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right - Without delving to deep into this (and I'm certainly willing to change my mind if someone wants to debate), it occurs to me that the Republican party encompasses a range of views most of which would likely fall under the categories "center-right", "right" or "far right". It seems to me that the most honest thing to do would simply be to "average" those views and say the party represents the political right. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Please elaborate on these so-called 'far-right' influences in the party, because I don't see a Nazi coalition in the party. The party is firmly center-right in the American political system, as has influences from the center to the right, per the definition of 'center-right'. 'Right' would only make sense if the vast majority of the party was ideologically right-wing, which it isn't - there are more libertarians and centrists in Congress from the GOP than the so-called right-wing Tea Party. As the GOP has no 'far-right' influence (you don't see Third Positionists and Nazis scrambling to join the GOP, rather, you see them bombing), 'center-right' is the only way to define the GOP.

If you want an example of what would be reasonably defined as a right-wing US party, I suggest you read up on the Constitution Party, which adequately fits that mold - a protectionist, mercantilist, non-interventionalist, party that disputes the validity of the income tax amendment, thinks states have the right to secede, opposes all immigration, and opposes abortion under any circumstance. While you may claim this is 'far-right', it really is not close to real far-right parties such as the British National Party or the Nazi Party, which adds right-wing socialism, supremacism, and authoritarianism, as well as even more stringent social policy (such as extermination of gays or people of color, for example). :) Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 - The term "far right" is obviously going to contain a certain amount of subjective interpretation to it. I think being in favor of greatly relaxing/removing separation of church-and-state, being against abortion in all cases, being for the forcible deportation of 12 million illegal Aliens in the US, or calling for homosexuals to be healed of their "sexual identity disorder" through the power of pray, all represent what could be considered "far-right" ideologies on the American political spectrum. You can find in the republican party prominent members who support all these positions. In addition, there are also far-right fiscal views (i.e. anarcho-capatilists/laissez fairest, gold standard supporters, trickle-downers etc etc). Again, all these views can be found within the Republican party.

I don't think it's fair to say, that just because you don't have any Republican congressman standing up and doing the Nazi salute or overtly supporting the "white-is-right" mantra, the Republican party doesn't incorporate far-right views. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, the GOP platform never says anything about deporting every alien, being against abortion in all cases, or 'curing' gays - what it does support is enforcing and strengthening illegal immigration laws, opposing abortion in general (through a sanctity of life amendment), and opposing gay marriage (never does it mention anything about the actual act of homosexuality, only the idea of marriage). So all those are incorrect.

Second, please show me these 'anarcho-capitalists', and link me to where lassiez-faire (I'm assuming you are referring to the libertarians) and trickle-down are 'far-right' policies, given actual far right policies are protectionism and right-wing socialism, not free markets or neoliberalism, which is actually even being accepted in portions of left-leaning parties such as the UK Labour Party.

Once again, show me proof - you have given rhetoric, but no proof.Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the GOP platform, I'm talking about the platforms of those who make up the GOP. You want a reference? What more do you need than to know that Laissez-faire is in Category:Right-wing politics? NickCT (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How many Republicans actually adhere to laissez-faire? Other than Ron and Rand Paul it is mainly lip service. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Republicans themselves would tend to consider "center-right" to be an insult these days. They consider themselves the right, not the center-right, end of story. I don't understand how anybody who's paid attention to the last 2 years (or for that matter, the last decade) of Republican politics can fail to notice the massive rightward shift of the party. And as for the farcical claim that "Any 'right-wing' influences are still drowned by the centrists and libertarians"...at what point did libertarians and centrists get conflated? — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Redxiv, even if your claim is true, it does not matter what people consider themselves - I can call myself a flying pink monkey, but does that make it true? I am not a flying pink monkey, no matter what I say... Period. Unless I become a flying pink monkey, I am not one. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Republican Party has become a right-wing party. Have you even been paying attention to them over the last several years? The rightward shift has been very pronounced. 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention to the country over the last several years? You'd need to argue that the shift in the Republican Party has been more significantly more than that of the American public as a whole. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not remotely difficult to argue. That the Republican Party has veered hard to the right, while the country has not, is hard to factually argue against. Both major political parties in America tend to be to the right of actual voters. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How has the country not moved to the right? Look at the polls; more Americans consider themselves 'conservatives' than ever before. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Center-Right We are talking on the national scale. Center-right means one thing in the US, and an entirely different thing in Sweden. That the Republicans would be further to the right than, say, the Conservatives in the UK doesn't tell us anything about where they are on the US's political spectrum. I also would find it hard to believe that any party that wins elections on a regular basis could be considered "far right". If they can draw support from a majority in a given election, that speaks volumes as to where they are relative to the views of the voters. Mpgviolist (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - Before this thread gets to be a 600k long back and forth. Perhaps someone can suggest what would be considered an objective measure of this, and then perhaps give some evidence which is based on that measure. Otherwise this is just too broad and subjective to ever be resolved. Remember that the idea is to build consensus, not to argue about politics. I for one would like to see non-US sources and international orgs. from right-wing we get "Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism." The Republican party clearly fits that definition, but of course, that's just one definition. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: Can we first determine if we are talking about the Republican Party in U.S. or international political terms? That is quite an important distinction to me. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

All classifications of parties are supposed to be done on a national scale. Although this is not the case with the Communist Party of China (which we, as Westerners, have labeled "far left" due to our subjective assessment of it). Anyway, long story short: national political spectrum.--Drdak (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That being the case—and forgive the original research—in a two-party system isn't it pretty much guaranteed that one party will be center-right and the other center-left? Since the parties are pretty much equal in terms of elected officials, they must both be in the mainstream of the national political spectrum. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, CWenger - the GOP is mainstream center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If there is a large right/left-wing within a country and a politically disengaged public, it's quite possible for a right/left-wing party to gain large support. WP:V requires Toa to find sources that conclude in a pluralistic, single-winner system always produces a centre-right party and a centre-left party. As of right now, no credible source guarantees this. In fact, South Africa was a model of a Far-Right party dominating a similar system for a while.--Drdak (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion. (I saw the RfC notice.) Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish, per sources of course, how the classification has changed over time. I would imagine that there are many sources that would say the classification today is quite different than it was in Eisenhower's day, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt, or Lincoln. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Great point. Back in 1848, "far-left" probably would have been the most appropriate!Rppeabody (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Back in 1848, "pre-natal" would have been the most appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 1854.Rppeabody (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: I think this should be resolved using sources. Here is a reliable secondary source which says: "Republicans have split into a number of different wings of the party - anti-government populists, pro-business internationalists, isolationists, supply side economy supporters and moralists". "Centre-right" sounds like a useful catchphrase to describe these factions on a more general level and I think sourcing it shouldn't be too difficult. The somewhat splintered state of the GOP is an important aspect that should definitely be conveyed by the article, including the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This source is more than a decade out of date. The Republican party has moved much further to the right since 2000. Back in 2000, "center-right," while still a poor choice, would have been MUCH more appropriate. Anyway, it is not clear that this source supports the "center-right" position. While it recognizes the existence of moderates in the party, it notes that they are only one faction, and it does describe a solid swing to the right in the Republican Revolution of 1994.Rppeabody (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: I also think that "right" would be a more appropriate label but with something that complicated and an apparent rough consensus against a change, the burden of proof would appear to be on those who want to overturn the status quo. After all, wikipedia isn't about my opinion, its about verifiability and some other stuff. Could someone please make a real case for "right" as opposed to "center-right" with some sources to back it up. I wasn't able to find anything solid except that definition I quoted above, but then I don't work on these US politics articles so I'm probably not as familiar with the research. Without some objective evidence it doesn't do any good to say you think they're "right-wing" or you think they're more "center-right". Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find a definitive source stating where the party falls in the political spectrum because it's an opinion, not a fact. All you can find are opinions. But there are a lot of those. Here are a bunch of sources supporting the far-right position: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And, to be fair, there are also some sources supporting the "right-wing" position. But sources for the "center-right" position are very hard to find unless you turn to really weird places like the IDU. Try googling Republican and "center-right." You'll find some articles on how the party once was "center-right," but precious little saying that it is right now. I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the internet, there is a source supporting "center-right," but I haven't been able to find one.Rppeabody (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are all opinions (from which it is hard to discern rhetoric from fact due to the person talking from a biased position), with the first two writers not even being notable enough for an article here. The third writer (E.J. Dionne) does have a page here, but it notes he writes from a liberal standpoint. The fourth is some website I've never heard of (and apparently one without a page here), while the fifth and sixth are from members of the opposition party (hardly an unbiased source). The only source in the Politico article for 'far-right' was a Democrat pollster, while the New Republic one was also opinion. The final one is also opinion, but uses Gallup polls to actually confirm the idea that America is moving back to the center-right as opposed to the center, as some people stated above.

So, basically, none of those sources work - I can find plenty of sources with Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, or some other conservative blogger calling the Democrats 'far-left' or 'socialist', but does that make it fact? No. We build articles on fact, not opinion, and that has to be represented on pages. Toa Nidhiki05 17:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is true that all these sources are opinions. That is because this is, quite simply, a matter of opinion. But you missed my point. The issue is that it's incredibly easy to find sources supporting the far-right or even right-wing positions (it took me all of maybe a minute or two to compile that list), but pretty hard to find sources supporting the center-right position. This is evidenced by the fact that the only sources so far brought up for the "center-right" position refer only to the IDU, not the GOP.Rppeabody (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stop the edit warring before somebody gets blocked. As a compromise, can we just leave Toa Nidhiki05's source but also leave the {{citation needed}} tag so potential editors know we are looking for something more definitive? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why should these sources remain in the article if they are clearly inadequate? Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least the one that isn't the IDU one should stay - it is a perfectly valid source from a non-partisan (although loosely Democrat allied) organization. But yes, I would accept CWenger's compromise - I have no issue with somebody finding something more definitive. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say they are inadequate. Just less than ideal. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They are both from the IDU and neither discusses the specific orientation of the US GOP. It is ridiculous that we should even be discussing using either link as a definitive source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not - one is from the IDU, the other is from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, an unrelated and non-partisan group that maintains minor ties with several liberal, centrist, and social democrat organizations. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation is for a page of an NDI document which discusses the IDU, and not the Republican party. Either way, in both citations, we're making a conclusion about the US GOP based on vague generalizations about all the member parties of the IDU. I don't think it's such a bizarre thing to demand a source which specifically discusses the US GOP, and I'm baffled that you'd edit war over such a routine matter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not warring - I'm re-adding a source that has been removed because the people removing it don't like it. And it isn't a vague generalization - it refers to the IDU as a 'coalition of center or center-right parties'. It is not a stretch by any means to say 'the GOP is a member, and this source says members are either center or center-right. The GOP, as a conservative party (one of the many groups present in the IDU), would fall under center-right'. Is it ideal? Probably not. But it works and is valid. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By readding it against all protests, you are in fact edit warring. The source isn't valid just because you assert that it is. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

...and it isn't invalid because you dislike it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't "dislike" it, whatever that means. It is vague and does not specifically discuss the subject of the article, thus it is inadequate for use as a source. Your suppositions about the generalizations of this source are not sufficient for citing a claim in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, it does discuss the subject as center-right - whether or not it referred to it by name is irrelevant. I highly doubt the people that created the article would under any circumstance list each party by name. And it may be a generalization - but giving a party with thousands of elected officials an overall ideological affiliation is, in fact, a generalization in any circumstance or by any measure. No one can accurately account for the ideology of each individual member, which is why we have broad ideological affiliations, such as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Something being a 'generalization' is not a valid reason to want to remove a source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant, because you don't know how the broad generalization applies specifically to each group. Under this logic, the US GOP could be called "centrist" with your source. This is clearly an inadequate source and that is a perfectly valid reason to insist on an source that actually says what we claim in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Toa Nidhili05, couldn't you just find a better source, one that describes the GOP itself as "center-right"? If you are right about the GOP being "center-right," it should be easy for you.Rppeabody (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The Nazi Party was considered "centre-right" in its national political climate at the time and was elected with an overwhelming plurality on numerous occasions. If we are to take every party within its own national context, we must relabel the "Nazi Party" as centre-right since it was far from far-right back when it existed. If the Republican Party is to be evaluated on its own scale then why not do this for other parties (to include the CPC)?--Drdak (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the Nazi Party was far-right within its political climate. Can you point out the parties that were further to the right of them? The notion that far-right and far-left parties can't win, and that dominant parties have to be center-right and center-left, is baseless. Hard as it may be to believe, it's possible to get a great many people who don't actually agree with a party's goals to vote for them. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential Compromises

I've created this section to list and discuss potential compromises. If you don't like any of the compromises proposed here, could you please propose your own?Rppeabody (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my compromise: While the Republican party has been traditionally regarded as center-right in the American political spectrum, many observers have argued that the party has moved significantly to the right in recent decades and should now be regarded as right-wing or far-right.[12][13][14][15]Rppeabody (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt liberal commentators and the Democratic Party are adequate descriptors of the GOP's political status, just as conservative commentators and the GOP aren't adequate describers of the Democratic Party's status.Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How about if we say, "many observers on the left"? Would that be acceptable? (I hope it's okay that I signed your comment for you, Toa Nidhiki05; I didn't want to confuse people by making them think I said that.)Rppeabody (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mind signing comments - I think that is common courtesy, so thanks. :)

And to answer the suggestion, I'd have to say no, just because of the complications of it - would we give conservative or right-wing commentators the same treatment on the Democrat page (that is, accusations of 'Marxism' and 'socialism'), and what about fringe views or parties, would they get this same treatment in both regards as well? If this were an individual politician or person I would agree (as commentary is not entirely invalid in some contexts), but I don't think applying political columns or commentary is a legitimate means to discern the nature of a political party. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion? Eliminate 'center-right' and 'center-left' entirely in this article. RIght now there is no consensus to change, but this fight will continue for months, maybe years if nothing changes, given my past experience in political disputes.

Eliminate the 'political position' tab on the GOP infobox. Change all uses of 'center-right' to 'conservative' and 'center-left' to 'liberal'. This should be adequate enough for both those opposing 'right' and supporting it, as it lets the reader go to the page, study for themselves, and make their own opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The GOP isn't just right-wing these days, it's proudly right-wing. Not just in an international context, but within the American political spectrum. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A so-called 'right-wing' party would not be able to gain wide representation in Congress if it is so far out of the mainstream. The GOP is mainstream center-right in the US. But let's get back to discussing compromises in this section. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the July 1932 German federal election, the Nazis ended up with 38% of the seats in the Reichstag, the most of any single party. In the March 1933 election, they ended up with 48% of the seats. Does this mean they weren't a far-right party, and instead were a mainstream center-right? If even a party as extreme as the Nazis could get that level of representation in democratic elections, it's no surprise that merely right-wing party like the GOP can do so. Especially when they massively lie during their campaigns about how they'll govern, which is exactly what the Republicans did to make their electoral gains last year: they campaigned on creating jobs, and once elected they've instead focused on banning abortion, busting unions, and cutting spending. — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess we know your POV... –CWenger (^ • @) 02:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We know Toa Nidhiki's too. But everything I posted is objective fact. Since the 2010 election, the Republicans haven't introduced a single jobs bill, either in Congress or in any of the 50 state legislatures. This is despite their de facto campaign slogan having been "where are the jobs?" Instead, they've pushed new abortion restrictions, new collective bargaining restrictions, and budget cuts. You can form your own opinion about whether those are good policy priorities, but you can't form your own facts about what the Republican Party has done in office this year. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And I at least post mine, Redvix - yes, I am libertarian/conservative. By most regards, my economic stance is very libertarian/conservative, and my social stance is conservative with libertarian influence. However, unlike you, I'm actually presenting sources and facts to support the side I am on, while you are only posting rhetoric.

The fact is, the GOP has significant elements of centrist and center-right politics (and has even accepted some center-left guys such as Michael Bloomburg, Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee), which outweigh what you would consider the 'right-wing' elements. The GOP is a center-right party in the American political system.

And regarding the Nazi example - it is completely irrelevant, as the German system was multi-party, no two-party, but I'll humor you anyway. The Nazis were elected under the circumstances dictatorships arise - terrible economy, very high unemployment, hyperinflation, and the utter humiliation Germany experienced in World War 1. The Nazis were never mainstream, and many voted for them as a protest vote but were elected due to many, many unique circumstances.Toa Nidhiki05

To add on to that, I find the notion that in a two party system, one party is closer to the center between the two parties than the other quite intriguing. We consider the Nazis far right because they were more off to the right than other conservative parties, such as the centre party. For us to not consider the Republicans center-right, we would need a third major party that is conservative, but to the left of the Republicans. Mpgviolist (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is very silly logic. In China in the 1940s, there were two political parties. The Kuomintang was center-right. But you'd struggle to call the Communists anything but far-left.Rppeabody (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point is noted, but unless I'm mistaken (which is not terribly unlikely) by the 1940's when the Communists had gained momentum, the Kuomintang had moved to the far right, killing anyone whose views remotely resembled communism, using a secret police force, and striving for a one party state themselves.Mpgviolist (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the Kuomintang were on a war footing, and they were somewhat authoritarian. But their politics were still solidly center-right. They certainly did not "kill anyone whose views remotely resembled Communism." And they were still quite populist. To say they were "far-right" would be a gross mischaracterization. After the war was over, you'll note they instituted some land reform and started a democracy. Remember that this was the era when the Democrats were locking up all the Japanese.Rppeabody (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg and Chafee aren't Republicans at all, Toa. They're former Republicans. They left the party because it lurched to the right and they refused to move with it. Nor are they center-left. They're centrists. And Leach is certainly not center-left. He's genuinely center-right, unlike the bulk of the modern Republican Party. I'll concede that the majority of Republican Party voters might well be center-right, but the majority of Republican elected officials are right-wing. As for an actual compromise (and it's a sad day when the facts have to be compromised), how about "Center-right to right"? That's how the Conservative Party of Canada is designated in its infobox, and it's surely less deserving of the right-wing label than the US Republican Party. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Centre-right to Right is a very accurate description. We can put it up there and retain the citation needed tag so as to understand the label is under debate. It acknowledges the Tea Party, right libertarians, and Christian Right without denoting the Party itself as entirely right-wing.--Drdak (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I strongly prefer my compromise, this is certainly better than what we have now.Rppeabody (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That idea makes absolutely no sense, given 'right' is already covered in 'center-right' - look up what it actually means, which is 'from the center to the right', which is absolutely what the GOP spans. Furthermore, comparing the US political spectrum to the Canadian one, which is certainly more left, is bizarre - the Conservative Party in Canada is farther to the right in Canada's spectrum.

If you want to do something like that, how about 'center to right', given the center and libertarians outweigh the so-called 'right-wing' elements in the party? You're so-called compromise entirely rejects the centrist wing of the party. Toa Nidhiki05 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I reject the "centrist wing of the party" because it doesn't exist. There's a center-right wing and a right-wing, and there's libertarians who don't quite fit with either group. None of those groups are "centrists". And you continue to falsely conflate the moderate and libertarian elements of GOP, even though the libertarian wing is closer to the right-wing Tea Party elements than it is to the center-right moderates. And no, right-wing is not part of the center-right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is - it is part of center-right parties because the center-right spans from the center to the right. The center-right is not a fixed position - it is hardly likely a person could identify as 'center-right' unless their views range from the center to the right.

And yes, the centrist wing does exist - the Republican Main Street Partnership, which currently has over 50 members and has led to moderate Republicans getting elected in states like California, New York, Hawaii, where center-right candidates are unelectable. The moderates/centrists are a vital part of the GOP, particularly in northeastern states such as Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and New Hampshire, as well as the 'left coast' states and Hawaii. Arguing it does not exist is laughable. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The RMSP is is the center-right portion of the Republican Party. The rest of the party is right-wing. What's laughable is arguing that places like Maine, New Hampshire, and upstate New York (which all have a strong libertarian tradition) would never elect a center-right candidate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to close RfC

Given there has been no real activity on this in a couple of days and most involved editors seem to have stopped posting and no new editors are getting involved, I suggest we close this RfC. I don't think any real consensus has amounted from this (the total is 5-3 in favor of the current status, although that is still pretty slim) aside from the very nature of what is debated - the political position of the GOP on the US political spectrum, so I suggest cloture with a result of no consensus, leaving open the possibility of future RfCs on the subject if consensus has not been reached. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just made an actual proposal for compromise that I'd like you to look at first. If it can't get consensus support, then end it because we'll just go around in circles otherwise. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The logo

What happened to the new logo? The red one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.211.79 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support using the elephant logo, as it's much better known than the red logo. --hydrox (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, elephant logo is better. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, and I've been trying to change the logo back to the official elephant logo of the party. The red GOP logo that continues to be placed on the page is only a web header, and not the official logo. The well-known elephant logo appears on all party merchandise, and is a component of other party logos, like the RNC logo. The red web header is not part of any merchandise, and does not represent the party. It is important to people looking up our party that they see an accurate representation of it, which includes having the correct logo on the page. Trailblazer2011 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Elephant logo is not the official one to my knowledge; the Red one, however, is. We use official logos here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it a policy/guideline of Wikipedia to use official logos? If not I think we would be better off using the most recognizable logo, which is the elephant one. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not official, it is pretty much consensus - because determining the 'most recognizable' is impossible to figure out. We use official logos here, as it is the most encyclopedic. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I argue we should use the logo used most often in reliable sources. Can you point to a policy or guideline supporting your position? –CWenger (^ • @) 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The page for the guideline focuses on the copyright aspect; however, how is it encyclopedic to use an outdated logo? The point of this article is not to appeal to the masses. Can you find policy supporting your position? Toa Nidhiki05 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The elephant logo seems to be used to on the RNC site as a symbol of the Republican Party. The red logo seems to refer to the gop.com website. Eg. standard GOP T-Shirt, "GOP.com" T-Shirt. But this is only my reading. I have searched for and failed to find the Republican Party official visual guideline anywhere on the Internet, which I find very strange, because in my jurisdiction most parties these days have a visual stylebook (colors, symbols, fonts) that they have acquired from a professional advertising agency. I think there must exist such stylebook for the Republican Party, but I haven't been able to find it. This guide would answer exactly questions like this, that which insignia, colors eg. the party uses in its visual communication to the public. --hydrox (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The policies WP:COMMONNAME versus WP:OFFICIALNAME are in the same spirit, although obviously they are talking about article titles instead of logos. I have no problem with using the official logo as long as it is routinely used and easily recognizable, which I'm not sure the red one is. I would argue the logo at Democratic Party (United States) is borderline useless, as I'm a political junkie and have never seen it before. Anyway, since there is no formal guidance on this I guess we should just go with consensus. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue there IS a guidance on logo usage (albeit not codified)! The traditional elephant logo is a component of ALL state parties and GOP-affiliated organizations (even the RNC). It also appears on all party merchandise. This is the best indication of that this logo should be used as the "official" one, as it is used just as any other official logo would be used. All GOP-related orgs view the well-known elephant as the current official party logo.

Since when does a website banner count as the logo of an organization? Take GM, for example. The banner used on its website is different from the company's logo, and yet we have not edited GM's article replacing its logo with the website banner, have we? Also, how is this logo "outdated"? Do you think the RNC, all 50 state organizations, and 99.99% of everything done by the party are "outdated"? Let me contrast this with the DNC's new logo: the new Democratic Party logo is in fact the official logo of that party. It's also the logo of the DNC, and appears on new party merchandise. The red GOP.com banner, however, does not share the traits of the new Democratic Party logo. The traditional elephant, however, does, as it appears on all official logos and merchandise.Trailblazer2011 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is part of a logo does not mean it needs to be used; do we just use a Wii, GameBoy, DS, or NES (Nintendo's most recognizable consoles) to represent Nintendo as opposed to their actual logo? Of course not.

And the red one is official based on ALL the sources I have read. This is about the NATIONAL Republican Party, not the states, DC, or merchandise. I have no doubt this logo belongs on this page somewhere (perhaps the 'name and symbols' section), but it does not belong in the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 21:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC makes sense here. I can see both sides. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What sources did you use to reach that conclusion? Just wondering if you could tell us what sources you found. Trailblazer2011 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No new comments in a week. No one has presented any verifiable sources for the use of the red logo? --hydrox (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got a question regarding the stars used in the Republican logo. Before G W Bush came on the scene they were upright (one point at the top). How come these are now inverted. Symbolically, the upright star is used for many things, but mostly good. But the inverted pentagram is historically a very nagative thing. I guess my question is, if it's not really that important, why change it? If it is symbolically important, why choose such a nagative symbol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.67.55 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unsourced assertion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The "red logo" that is currently featured in the infobox appears to be just a GOP website item and not a change of the party's actual logo. If the logo really had been changed to the red one, isn't it conceivable that there would have been some news coverage about the new party symbol? The NHL rebranded its logo in 2005 and that was covered. Simply, no source exists that the Republican Party's official symbol is anything other than the elephant design that has been synonymous with the GOP for ages. I support using the elephant in the infobox -- the real "official logo." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will side with Toa on this one. We do use official logos on Wikipedia. Although one might be referring to the entire Republican Party, this article is about the national party. The Democratic Party article uses that organization's official logo and not the donkey (even though state parties have their own logo).--Drdak (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison

This article is not comparable to the Democratic Party section. Having an entire section devoted to national defense and military spending over the last century calls the neutrality of this article into question. For neutrality sake, I would like to see an overhaul that makes the article comparable to the Democratic Party article.

RfC: Which logo should be used in the infobox at Republican Party (United States)?

Should the traditional elephant logo (File:Republicanlogo.svg) or the new GOP.com logo (File:GOP Logo1.svg) be used in the infobox? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support traditional elephant logo because virtually all reliable sources use it. In the interest of recognizability, we should use the most common logo in prominent locations such as the infobox (just like we use WP:COMMONNAMEs for article titles, even though we could use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs and handle everything with redirects). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the GOP.com logo is even the official party logo, as I can't find any news stories about it, and it doesn't appear to be used outside of GOP.com. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support traditional elephant logo. First of all, to be nitpicky, the Republican National Committee is only one part of the Republican Party; they don't have dominion over the state and local parties. Secondly, do we know it's even the official logo of the party/national committee and not just a logo for the website? The party isn't even officially called GOP, I don't think. hare j 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Meh, leaning traditional (Here via FRS, so I'm coming to this discussion without benefit of any previous discussions on the point.) I don't have a particularly strong opinion here, but I do think there's a stronger argument to be made for the traditional logo, largely based on recognizability. To the extent that the subject of the article is the GOP, not just the recent GOP, if the traditional symbol has been used (as I believe it has) for a good deal longer, it's simply more relevant to the article.

I'd also suggest that the same argument I've just made could be made for the article on the Democratic Party, which appears to pick the a circle-D logo I'd never actually seen before rather than a donkey -- a symbol that I personally expect would be more uniformly recognizable. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there is substantially more evidence that the circle-D logo is the official Democratic Party logo, so I wouldn't presume for the results of this RfC to apply there. That should probably be a separate discussion. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough reasoning, I agree. --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• GOP Logo - We don't use 'common' logos, we use official ones. The so-called 'elephant logo' is not official and is not used on GOP-run websites - the red one is. No sources have been presented to prove either is official, so we need to assume the newer one is the best choice. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support traditional - as Toa points out, no sources have been presented to prove either is official, so I believe that we should go with the one that is most recognized by outsiders until reliable sources indicate that the red GOP logo is indeed the new logo of the party. Spalds (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support traditional elephant logo: I'm pleased to see an RfC started about this issue. My reasoning for supporting the "elephant" logo is what I had said two days ago in the discussion four sections up: "The 'red logo' that is currently featured in the infobox appears to be just a GOP website item and not a change of the party's actual logo. If the logo really had been changed to the red one, isn't it conceivable that there would have been some news coverage about the new party symbol? The NHL rebranded its logo in 2005 and that was covered. Simply, no source exists that the Republican Party's official symbol is anything other than the elephant design that has been synonymous with the GOP for ages. I support using the elephant in the infobox -- the real 'official logo.'" I'd like to also add that in October I added a {{Citation needed}} tag to the image caption claim that the elephant logo was the party's "previous" logo, with the tag being removed days later without discussion. I hadn't been involved in the debate over which logo to use again until I posted my opinion two days ago, though I've still long felt that something was amiss about using the "red logo." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support traditional logo: the red logo appears to just be a stylized version of their logo used on the header of their website. The elephant logo is still used everywhere else. Check out that same website's [merch section]. Everything they sell still has the traditional logo. I'd like to see evidence that other sources use the red logo. Websites are made by website designers and sometimes a website uses a logo that is not the official logo of that organization for the website, such an innovation shouldn't be given undue weight. We often use whatever is most common on wikipedia, like when deciding on a title, but with organization logos I think accuracy is more important. If we have some evidence that this is the official logo for the GOP now then we should use the new one, until then, the old one will do fine. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am closing this RfC as consensus has been reached. Most of the comments reflect the lack of evidence for the red GOP logo being official rather than it being less commonly used, so I won't attempt a similar change at Democratic Party (United States). –CWenger (^ • @) 02:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Sources for Name "Republican Party"

The article asserts without qualification in the "History" section that the party took it's name from the Springfield, Mass. newspaper The Republican. This contradicts the more convincing -- and equally unequivocal -- attribution in the "Name and Symbols" section to publisher/activist Horace Greeley. Reconciliation needed. Dwarren01 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Conflicting sources for guidance. Rostz (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Derivation of Name "GOP" and "Grand Old Party"

No historical information is provided on this subject. Reliable contributions would be welcome.Dwarren01 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long wondered about that, given that the Republican Party is actually the younger of the two major parties in the US. I was even more mystified when I read in this article that the first record of the "Grand Old Party" name being used was in 1876, a mere 22 years after the party's founding. Unfortunately, I don't have any information on how the name came about. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Registered Democrats and Republicans

The article says the Democrats had 72 million registered voters and the Republicans had 55 million Republicans and cites a column by Al Neuharth, which was not even a news article. He might have been correct, but he didn't cite a source. In contrast, a 2008 AP story says "Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press." See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/politics/main4422449.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4422449 Is there a more definitive source for the number of registered Democrats and Republicans than the Al Neuharth column? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When the article gets unlocked, I plan to make the same changes I made to the Democratic Party article: remove the poorly-sourced and out-of-date Neuharth citation chart as well as the 2004 lede statstics, and replace with 2010 Gallup polling.[16] (See also the Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Number_of_Registered_Democrats discussion.) Rostz (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the "Family status" section

I think the following piece of information is worth adding to the Family status section in Republican Party (United States)#Voter base:
GSS surveys of more than 11,000 Republicans and Democrats conducted between 1996 and 2006 came to the result that the differences in fertility rates are not statistically significant between these parties, with the average Republican having 1.91 children and the average Democrat having 1.94 children. However, there is a significant difference in fertility rates between the two related groups conservatives and liberals, with conservatives reproducing at much higher rate than liberals.

I can't add it myself, however, because of the current edit protection. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox should use the labels "State Lower House Seats" and "State Upper House Seats", rather than "State Lower Houses" and "State Upper Houses". There are only 99 houses, not thousands. Designate (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - an admin should come and add this right now. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)