Talk:Republican Party (United States)

political position 2

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [1]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.

We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the New York Times. There are also articles like this article [2], which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter [3]. Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

support

All other country parties do this

The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right

Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No democrats should be labeled as center-right. Maybe in economics, but I assure you not in social policies. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Democrats are not centre right and the common talking point about how they'd be conservatives in Europe or whatever is silly Goonsbee (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that is the part that trips up a lot of editors seeking to challenge the descriptor on the grounds that "In X country they would be considered this or that". It is an argument completely devoid of context. The article clearly specifies (United States). DN (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove political position. The political position should not be included here just as it is not included in the Democrat article. Americans in general don’t have a true grasp of the left/right spectrum and with only two major parties each contain views from the center to the extreme. To label the Republican Party as right-wing but the Democrat Party not left-wing rings of bias which should always be avoided on a Wikipedia page. The sources cited themselves have been heavily accused of being left leaning to lift-wing making them impartial. I’m certain with just very little research there would also be enough right leaning to right-wing sources to label the Democrat Party as left-wing as well. It’s all about how both sides choose to spin the data. At the most each party should be labeled as ether left or right or both not labeled at all. Straykat99 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Just because you do not believe that Americans have a grasp on the left-right political spectrum does not mean that it is not there in our two political parties. Also in response to the comment that Democrats are not a left-leaning party, that is not fully true. The Democrats support a capitalist-socialist system. They support capitalism in that they support the free market, but they support socialism in that they support regulations by the government on that market, as well as supporting many social systems set up. They also support the left in their social policies. 174.240.149.73 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Democrats are definitely not centre-left. More like centre to centre-right, with the republicans being right-wing to far-right. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Economically yes your correct but if you think that democrats are centre right socially then you need to get info about the u.s. that isn’t from a European TV station. socially democrats are centre to left. 107.115.41.124 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of centre-right parties are socially progressive (such as Macron’s Renaissance, the Save Romania Union, and Fine Gael). That doesn’t make them centre-left. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The Republican party is NOT centre-right, as they have ultraconservative social leanings and very right wing economic policy at the moment. This is like saying that the Republican party is the same as the Liberal Party of Australia economically and socially, which it isn't . 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While I think it makes sense to add "right-wing", there are numerous sources stating that the GOP has a far-right faction (as pretty much any American knows), while the given infobox sources for "center-right" all likewise state that the party has center-right factions, not that it is inherently center-right, nor that the party establishment is center-right. I think the most reasonable "political position" would be "right-wing", and below that "center-right to far-right" as "factions", like in these articles. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Infobox ideologies

Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Cortador and Darknipples from previous discussion.

Poll

• No - Neither is a substantial faction of the Republican Party on the same level as say conservatism, the Christian Right, Trumpism, or even centrism/moderates. Neoconservatism is mainly about foreign policy, and the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus is tiny at just 9 members (out of 435).
• No - While elements of either ideology overlap with the existing conservative faction, neither group has any real organizational prominence within the Republican Party. Existing sources clearly do not place them on the same level as conservatives or social conservatives, and the only explicitly libertarian faction in the House - the Liberty Caucus - has less than 10 members, almost all of whom overlap with other hardline conservative caucuses. Neoconservatism lacks any caucus in either house, or any organizational prominence in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree with this view of current trends, nonetheless the history of these factions within the Republican party and their impact still has weight and should remain in some form. DN (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• No American conservatism is defined as a mix of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with each person placing a greater or lesser emphasis on each of the three aspects. Also, neoconservatism is merely a term to refer to a group of people who began as liberal Democrats, became conservative Republicans and now appear to have moved back to the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. For the same reasons stated above - no evidence has been brought forwards as to their relevance.Carlp941 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) For such a long-established party, the 'core' defining ideologies should be what is in the infobox. No evidence is provided that these are 'core' beliefs now or in the past. As others say, this doesn't prohibit coverage of these aspects within the article. Also broadly agree with the other reasons offered above.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism. I'm not sure why the existing voters seem to ignore that there's still a lot of neocons in the GOP. John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Tom Cotton, and Nikki Haley all have neoconservative tendencies and/or supported by neoconservative organizations; even if they do not identify themselves as neoconservatives, given the political causticity of the term. Individuals who are described as neoconservatives absolutely still exist in substantial electoral and official presence in the GOP, regardless of whether or not they are the defining force of the Republican party. I will concede that the libertarian presence in the GOP is almost certainly minimal at this point, however. Not a label anyone of power or popularity uses for themself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• No, while I agree with DN that each party/faction carries WP:WEIGHT on the topic of the Republican Party, I disagree that their weight should carry to the infobox. That would give them undue weight. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• lien towards: Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism based on my knowledge of the party. However, we don't report what editors think, we need sources to establish (or not) either designation. I see the sources box below is empty. Please fill it and discuss whether those sources are or not reliable, and I will reconsider. I came here because of WP:FRS [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Seems a little odd to not mention the libertarian faction in the info box. (Maybe as a "historical" faction/influence?) The economic policies of the GOP in the modern era has largely been defined by influences like Milton Friedman. I know (as of late) there has been protectionism and so on....but I am thinking of the last 40-50 years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to libertarianism. Include neoconservative implicitly under conservative banner. Pretty remarkable that many of the editors here are suggesting removing libertarianism from the infobox. It has historically (and even presently) exerted a profound role on the right in the United States to an extent found almost nowhere else. Has no one here heard of Milton Friedman? Friedrich Hayek? Ronald Reagan saying that the heart of conservatism was libertarianism? It is indisputable that libertarianism is notable enough for a lead mention. Let's not let 5 year trends completely rewrite the infobox. This is a classic case of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose to including any ideology. Assigning any ideology to the infobox is problematic because it has significantly changed during the existence of the Party. It is very different right now from something it was even 20 years ago. Right now, this is pretty much just MAGA, Donald Trump's party, Alt-right, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes for neoconservatism, no for libertarianism. Libertarianism opposes police, fundamentally opposes borders, supports right to abortion, supports Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, and other Queer rights. This does not describe any faction of the Republican party. Whereas, the GOP does have a neoconservative faction, it was even the majority faction for a while. A Socialist Trans Girl 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No doubts, they are not libertarians. But neocons? Yes, but this is thing of the past. MAGA and alt-right are very different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both would apply during certain periods historically, but they have been less active relative to other groups recently. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointless RfC: There's consensus for the ideologies from the article in the infobox, and no evidence has been brought forward that this consensus has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

The consensus was about including an ideology section, not about which ideologies are to be included. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is about including those from the article body in the infobox. Changing the infobox is against that consensus. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided evidence that this consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

There's dozens of articles (including from 2023) within the past five years indicating that libertarians remain a substantial faction of the party. This is the definition of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Isolationism and non-interventionism

In the lead section, the article says the GOP "supports isolationism and promotes non-interventionism". That seems like a generalization, as there is a pretty substantial hawkish wing of the Republican Party, as the article itself discusses below. I think this should be changed? User136596 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s absolutely a generalization, and a poor one at that. It’s certainly not an even split, like the article currently implies. Toa Nidhiki05 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing that sentence, as the Republican Party is a big-tent and there is a divide among its members, particularly Congress--states can't conduct foreign policy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The GOP has shifted greatly towards isolationism and non-interventionism, as evidenced by the holdup of Ukraine aid and Trump and his allies frequent questioning of the NATO alliance. There are many sources as that document this shift. Mitch McConnell publicly called out isolationist Republicans in a NYT op-ed and said he would make fighting them one of his main goals of his remaining time as speaker. So there definitely is a split. BootsED (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It has shifted, but that also infers it was not always the case, which should probably be taken into consideration. I believe it would be more accurate to say something like "According to _____ the GOP began shifting/shifted to "support isolationism and promotion of non-interventionism" (at such an such time for such and such reasons)..." or something along those lines... Cheers. DN (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Need to update lead. It ignores the radical party changes.

The party isn't what it used to be. That's why I added to the lead, based on content in the body. No original research. It's all in the body. Trump isn't even mentioned in the lead, even though he controls everything and is eliminating anyone not loyal to him.

Here's what I added, and what was then deleted:

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement and Trumpism, the party is completely dominated by right-wing populism, neo-nationalism, national conservatism, and the far-right Freedom Caucus.

My edit summary:

"The lead currently focuses on the party's history, with little mention of the party now. It is now controlled by right-wing populists, with Trump as their leader. This is straight from the body.

@Toa Nidhiki05: reverted with this edit summary:

This is patently incorrect, and contradicted by the article and reliable sourcing. The Freedom Caucus is the smallest grouping of the House Republicans, not the largest.

So there is a disagreement about the Freedom Caucus. Its size was never mentioned, so size is a straw man argument. We can discuss it anyway.

Its article says this in the lead: "The caucus was formed in January 2015 by a group of conservatives and Tea Party movement members, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right." It succeeded bigly!

It happens to control who is the Speaker of the House. Their numbers belie their influence and power, and, as they are Trump loyalists, they will only get more power.

I just noticed another thing that could be altered: change "completely dominated" to "dominated". Let's discuss it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - No value to the article, looks like POV pushing, and I agree with Toa Nidhiki05's reasoning. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You do realize the irony of a personal attack and assumption of bad faith like "looks like POV pushing" coming from you, of all people? Deletionism and whitewashing are forms of POV pushing, so don't do it. Step back and reevaluate what's happening here. The need for an updating of the lead was expressed and I tried to do that. The lead totally ignores the modern GOP as it is now, so the article violates WP:LEAD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    You have an incorrect perspective on the situation. Hopefully this helps you see that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    I would love to. In what way has this article misinformed me? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - For the reasons above in other discussions. The depiction of factions and party control is utterly out of whack with what reliable sources and academic sources say. And it is true - the Freedom Caucus is the smallest caucus, not the largest, and outnumbered by two moderate caucuses. Simply put: it's not a good change. We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's not big deal if we leave out the Freedom Caucus. All of it is straight out of the body of the article where there are many sources. Look at the Right-wing populists section. It's all there, including Right-wing populism, Trumpism, Radical right (United States), National conservatism, and Freedom Caucus. You don't like that I based what I wrote on the existing content? That's odd. Your quibble isn't with me, but the creators of the article and RS. Take it up with them.

There is nothing in this that is my POV. It's all from the article. It's from RS. The lead does need to be brought up-to-date. Feel free to propose a different version. I'm totally open to other ways of doing this. It just needs to be done.

You mention "We've already adjusted the lead to mention shifts in the party." I don't see it. Trump, MAGA, and Trumpism aren't even named, and they ARE the GOP now. None of the moderate GOP dare oppose them or speak out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove The party division is exaggerated. The party has never been monolithic and nominations have usually been contested. Trump's Republican opponents mostly decided to back his presidency. The rest of it is unsourced and reads like nightly lectures from pro-Biden talk show hosts. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The rest of the refs are in the body. They can be included. As I wrote, it's all in the body. Feel free to write an alternate version that covers the topic of the party as it is now. That is largely ignored in the lead, which gives the old version of the party too much weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the party has changed and the lead could better reflect that, but I don't think your changes did that. There is no GOP split, just factional infighting typical of a large political party that is lurching to the right. Remove. Carlp941 (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Carlp941: Thanks for taking this seriously. A newer version is below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove Not the place for POV pushing, and patently incorrect anyways. Mitt Romney is still a senator and he's clearly not any of those things. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: Drop the assumptions of bad faith and personal attack. The content is from the body, so the POV pushing is from the article, not from me. You can discuss your objections with the creators of this article, as I copied what they wrote. Your objection is with them and the sources. A newer version is below. BTW, Romney no longer has any influence. Only MAGA get to control anything in the party. The GOP of my youth and my family is no more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point you've accused almost everyone here - none of which agree with your changes - of bad faith. It's time to stop that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards. You have assumed I was the one acting in bad faith. I never said any of you were acting in bad faith, so strike that. I said you were personally attacking me by saying I was POV pushing. Don't deny it.

You haven't examined what I wrote and compared it with the content in the body from which I quoted it. That's pretty poor behavior. You should take this seriously and examine before you reply. Now go to the new section and get serious. The quotes are even more exact. Your objections are with the article, not me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

When multiple people told you your edit feels like POV pushing, your response was to lash out at them angrily rather than consider why they think that. Speaks volumes to me, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you still on this thread? The new thread is much better and clearer.

I understand what you're saying, but there's another thing to factor in. We are not acting in a vacuum here. The accusation of "POV pushing" is not new. It came from a years-long history that they brought to this thread. Some of these people habitually attack me, no matter what or where. Then here, when they arrived out of the blue and immediately attacked me, and then showed clear evidence that they had not fully read what I had written, or actually fact-checked by comparing what I had written with what this article actually says (I was quoting it!), that shows they were just POV pushing against me. Their POV was revealed by the way they initially (and continually) responded. It just shows a shoddy and uncollaborative spirit. The POV was quoted and sourced from the body of the article, not from me.

When someone writes something, at least see if what they say is true, instead of labeling them a "POV pusher" with no evidence. That is a personal attack. Right? If I started my first response to a thread of yours by ignoring the details of what you wrote and called you a "POV pusher", you'd be pretty pissed off and drag me to ANI. Admit it.

I realize that your mind is made up, so there is no point in me repeating myself. You will likely not check the new thread to see that every part of it is exact quotes from the body of this article. You will continue to blame me, rather than this article. If you have any interest in maintaining your credibility, you will get specific, go to the next thread, and point out, with exact quotes, where I have gone wrong. What is wrong with what I wrote in the new thread? I challenge you to answer that. I doubt you'll do it, because you have likely not even read what I write there: "The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references." Everything there fulfills our guidelines for a lead. I literally quote from the body, and I reproduce that relevant part of the body, so it's easy to compare.

(I'll let you in on a secret. There is actually ONE other word (a synonym) that is mine. I challenge you to find it. Tell me in the next thread.)

Let's end this thread here. Reply there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

References

New version for lead, with the refs

Since the version above was rejected with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by editors who would not bother to check that what I had written was taken directly from the article, I have added the refs and rearranged it a bit so it flows better. There was also objection to the mention of the Freedom Caucus, so that has been left out.

The only words of mine are "the party is characterized by", which is faithful to the content and references:

• The election of Donald Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions. Under the influence of Trump's MAGA movement and right-wing populism, a dominant political faction of the GOP, the party is characterized by national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and Trumpism, which have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.

That is QUOTED from the following REPRODUCED content in the section Right-wing populists. That is what is new to the party and not mentioned in the lead. You can compare (which no one did before!) and see that I have quoted EXACTLY and used the EXACT same refs. The first sentence above is found after the rest, but it makes a much better introduction, so I have placed it first above:

Right-wing populism is a dominant political faction of the GOP. Sometimes referred to as the MAGA or "America First" movement, Republican populists have been described as consisting of a range of right-wing ideologies including but not limited to right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and Trumpism. They have been described as the American political variant of the far-right.

The election of Trump in 2016 split the party into pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions.

It would be nice to see someone take this seriously and not automatically, without checking, just start attacking and assuming bad faith again, without any evidence.

I have no objection to suggested improvements, so feel free to propose alternate versions. Just do something, because the existing lead could have been written in 2013. What has happened since then is not covered in the lead. If it's there, it is disguised, and that isn't honest writing. The body is honest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no need to make a new section for this. I still object to the changes. Directly previous discussions have yielded a consensus that neither academia nor reliable sources define a dominant faction. They have rejected defining as far-right as both undue and not supported by reliable academic sourcing. The discussion above, which you evidently abandoned for this one, also showed editors strongly reject your binary pro/anti-Trump definition. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you fail to examine what is written and see I have quoted exactly, with the refs, from the body. If you disagree, then revise the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So far you have received only opposition, dominating the discussion is unlikely to be productive here. Why the haste? Give editors time to think and respond, please. SmolBrane (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would love to see a reasoned response, instead of the attacking without examination. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what you have written is great and I would strongly support it being in the lead. It's objectively true that Trump is the party's central figure, and the lead should definitely state this. And it should obviously state that the party is "centre-right to far-right", because of the House Freedom Caucus, among so much else. It's exhausting having to prove something so obvious and merited by academia. Dhantegge (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.

Sources for far-right:

Adolph, R. B. (2021). American Extremism: The far right of the US Republican Party. Atlantisch Perspectief, 45(3), 25–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48638241

Far right kills republican support. (2023/11/14/, 2023 Nov 14). University Wire Gill, K., & editor, a. (2023/09/17/). Texas GOP acquits AG paxton after threats from far-right republicans. San Diego: Newstex. Keilar, B., Berman, J., Sciutto, J., Nick Paton Walsh, J. M., & Phillip, A. (2022/04/27/). Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501957309/BIC?u=vuw&sid=summon&xid=02ead6c4. Accessed 6 July 2024. Lee Drutman, ed. (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0190913854. These far-right Freedom Caucus members had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership, which they felt had forced members into compromising too much with Democrats.

Touchberry, Ramsey; Soellner, Mica (November 9, 2022). "Emboldened far-right Freedom Caucus presents hurdles to Kevin McCarthy's run for House speaker". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.

David Hosansky, ed. (2019). The American Congress. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1544350639. This set up a difficult battle for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to reach a consensus within his caucus between mainstream Republicans and the forty-member-strong Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right libertarian, isolationist, ...

Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen, eds. (2019). The American Congress. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 14. ISBN 978-1538125847. The parties are very polarized: the middle is empty, so that no Democrat is to the right of any Republican and no Republican is to the left of any Democrat. The Freedom Caucus members are located on the far right.

Battlefield expands as blasts heard inside russia near ukraine; russia shuts off gas supplies to poland, bulgaria in escalation; tapes say, rep. kevin McCarthy (R-CA) feared far-right republicans would incite violence. aired 7-7:30a ET. New York: CQ Roll Call.

"Charlottesville Violence Highlights Republican Party's History Of Far-Right Factions." All Things Considered, 14 Aug. 2017. Dhantegge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree its important to add the far-right factions. I do think its debatable if its even a center-right party anymore due to how big the far-right factions have become. They have a lot of similiaritys to hard right parties like BJP in India, Liberal Party in Brazil, Fidez in Hungary etc. The only thing is the GOP still contains a lot of moderates so I would say it should be Right-Wing to Far-Right with center-right factions. I think it saying it has the same position as the conservative party of UK or conservative party of Canada is silly. I honestly kind of think the article implying the Democratic Party is center-left while the Liberal Party of Canada is center to center-left to be silly. This implys the Democratic Party has the same position as the Labour Party of UK which is a social democratic party with socialist factions. The Democratic Party should be center to center-left with center-right to Left-Wing factions. TYMR (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the party is far left merely that it has a far right, but that seems to be relative to the party. That is, they are the far right of the Repubican Party, not necessarily far right in an absolute sense.

The reason for different descriptions for Canada and the U.S. is that Canada has a muliple party system with Liberals in the center, while the U.S. has a two party system with Democrats on the left. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained in multiple other discussions above, reliable academic sources do not agree with your claims. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Update the lead on the party's positions once the 2024 RNC Platform comes out.

See 2024_Republican_National_Convention#Platform, note that the platform was written by Trump's campaign. The platform has been described as "more nationalistic, more protectionist, and less socially conservative" by The New York Times.

Remarks on the first draft: The platform calls for tariffs on imports--I will update the trade section (I wrote it); it calls for deporting millions of illegal immigrants--update the immigration section; it drops opposition to same-sex marriage--update the LGBT issues section; it calls for states to enact abortion policy--update the abortion section; it calls for ending support for electric vehicles--environmentalism section; it calls for protecting Social Security and Medicare; etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s practically a far right party. Although center right factions exist. Although I would edit the Democratic Party to include factions that are center right Zman19964 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the unsourced above - I oppose major changes to anything based on party platforms. Unlike in Europe, American platforms are practically useless, non-binding, and generally not worth the paper they are written on. Toa Nidhiki05 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for major changes, but the platform provides updates and more information, particularly for the right-wing populism and Trumpist factions. I'm not changing the lead without consensus, but I do want to change the sections on political positions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"more nationalistic" Big surpise there. Trumpism is long thought to have incorporated the ideology of neo-nationalism, and its typical political positions (right-wing populism,anti-globalization, nativism, protectionism, opposition to immigration, Islamophobia and Euroscepticism). Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article, it says this on the platform: "The Party's 2024 platform was opposed to immigration, calling for mass deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States." Isn't immigration & illegal immigration two different things? That statement does not differentiate between the two.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We should not be making any updates based on the platform until it is adopted by delegates at the RNC. It is not adopted until that moment. Before then it is simply a draft and could (though unlikely) be amended at the convention by the delegates. LoneOmega (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where’s the mention of the GOP vs. Woodrow Wilson

This arrival mentions the 1912 split between Ted Roosevelt and Taft, but not that it resulted in the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or about how the GOP gave Wilson a run for his money in 1916, making WW the most narrowly re-elected incumbent in modern times until Bush #2 in 2004! 24.154.117.91 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that, given the context you said in the topic, that sounds like it’s good to add. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

*IMPORTANT* Presidential/Vice Presidential Nominees

I think we need to note how Donald Trump of Florida and J. D. Vance of Ohio are the presidential/vice presidential nominees of the Republican Party in the info box. It was just revealed on July 15 at the Republican National Convention the presidential and vice presidential nominees (Donald Trump and J.D. Vance). I think it is important to show that because if you look at a lot of American parties that are in the elections’ (e.g. Democratic Party, Libertarian Party) infoboxes, you will see their nominees. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We can add a sentence about them--i.e. Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024--and Vance is the new VP nominee in 2024. But we don't need to add them to infoboxes until the election has occurred. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right"

We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.

• The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
• Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.

@Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.

It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From the closer's comment: 'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)

The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.

A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.

Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK Richie1509 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism as a faction?

Would it make sense to add Trumpism to the factions section of the ideologies box? Trump is obviously the dominating figure of the Republican Party in current times and has created a distinct movement, supported by a large proportion of the party, the magnitude shown in the existence of an independent article about it which describes it. Mainstream media sources are increasingly referring to it, such as the Washington Post recently suggesting that "Trumpism has outgrown Trump" and that "even Donald Trump can’t shift the movement of Trumpism" as it becomes more of a significant ideology than simply the positions of Trump himself. Therefore, given the shift in the party towards the right with Trump's and ideas in the past few years and the fact that Trumpism isn's fully described by other terms (hence it's existence), wouldn't it make sense to include it, as it describes the trend in the party's majority currently, given he's the idolised presidential candidate? I do seem to recall that this was previously in the ideologies box so if there's already a consensus on why this isn't there then I'm really sorry, but it seems to me that it would make sense to add it. Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Yes. The faction that is currently labelled "right-wing populists" was originally called "far-right Republicans" and "Trumpists" at one point as well. If you check footnote C, you can also see that there are a lot of sources describing Trumpism not only as a faction of the GOP, but as the dominant faction of the GOP.

Considering that Trump has shaped the party for almost a decade now, that seems appropriate. Cortador (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I previously supported this position but settled on simply stating right-wing populism after a lot of debate on the matter. Trumpism is mentioned in the right-wing populism section itself. BootsED (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we have a plethora of sources specifically taking about Trumpism. If we try to supplant that with populism, we go against what sources call this part of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion before, and I'm fairly sure you participated in this. Right-wing populism is the broader, more accurate ideological system this falls into, and it's backed up by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Then someone should add those supposed sources because as of now, there's plenty of sources for Trumpism being that faction. Cortador (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

But Trumpism is much more defined than right-wing populism. I support that in the ideologies part of the infobox as well, but Trumpism, an established movement now, is more extreme and is characterised by various features which "right-wing populism" doesn’t describe, and therefore right-wing populism just seems so vague for no reason, especially when Trump has such a command over the party (and country to an extent) now with his definitive thought. Look at the Communist Party of Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh Thought is listed. This could simply be listed as Marxism-Leninism as it's a derivative of that, but it's being more specific for a prominent movement, and I think that Trumpism should be added as the same. Sizewell (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ho Chi MInh thought was adopted twenty years after Ho died and was officially declared the ideology of the Communist Party. Although I don't have a crystal ball, I know that in twenty five years time we will not see textbooks on the ideas of Donald Trump or anyone using them to develop policy positions.

Trumpism is more like caesarism, a movement built around an individual that dissipates when the leader leaves the scene. TFD (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not a directly comparable example but the point still stands. Trumpism is more like caesarism, but the leader is on the scene and is dominating Republican Party politics in this generation. Right-wing populism is unnecessarily vague. Sizewell (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really vague at all, and the term "populism" is far more used both by opponents and proponents than "Trumpism". There are no Trumpist caucuses or organizations, no Trumpist platform, and frankly nothing really there of substance at all outside of Trump. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, stick to right-wing populism, with Trumpism as a subset of it. The ideology is right-wing populism, which is the faction. Donald Trump is better for referring to the history of the party, specifically the "Trump Era" (2016-present). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Akagan23 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to edit the page to include the party's stance on Israel and Ukraine in the top section.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the Republican Party neoliberal economically? I have sources that it isn't anymore.

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.

---

Looking for a consensus in the lead for the claim that the Republican Party "has a neoliberal outlook." Neoliberalism supports immigration and free trade, which Trump (nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024) ardently opposes. This is not about my personal views, but the divergences between Reagan to Bush (Sr. and Jr.) to Trump with respect to neoliberalism.

From the article on neoliberalism: A central feature of neoliberalism is the support of free trade.

Neoliberalism overlaps, but is not the same as fiscal conservatism. Trump ended U.S. involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and TTIP proposed free trade agreements, started a trade war with China, and is promising a 10% tariff on all imports to the United States and 60% tariffs on China (along with removing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China).

Neoliberalism also supports immigration, which Trump clearly does not. The cover of the book begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (and the lifting of immigration restrictions between East & West Germany), contrasting with Trump staring at the Trump Wall.

Sources: JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about Trump, not the Republican Party. Do you have sources establishing that a majority of elected Republicans oppose free trade and immigration of any type? Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

2017 Pew Research poll.

Statistics: No free trade agreement (see table) was signed into law during Biden's presidency thus far. Three were signed during Obama's presidency and nine signed during Bush Jr.'s presidency. Just 1 was signed during Trump--USMCA renewing NAFTA. Obama was negotiating the TPP and TTIP, which Trump withdrew from. Both parties have turned against free trade after Trump was elected.

From the section on immigration. These are during Biden's presidency. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear that Trump and the Republican party are in no way mutually exclusive. DN (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you define neoliberalism and compare it with Trump's policies, that's OR. You would need sources to say that the Republicans have abandoned neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is not btw about free trade and immigration. Its "free trade" agreements determine what countries can trade and Trump did not cancel NAFTA, he just renegotiated it. And NAFTA never allowed free movement of people, merely free movement of capital.

The main fault lines in U.S. politics remain cultural issues that don't affect the neoliberal order such as abortion, Jan 6 and transgender issues. The immigration debate is about which side is tougher on illegal immigration, not about the numbers of immigrants the U.S. should accept. TFD (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the Rust Belt in 2016. I added the sources on immigration above.

There are many strong divides in American politics--urban-rural political divide; the diploma (college vs. non-college) divide; the racial divide; regional divides (Northeast vs. the South; Left Coast and Great Lakes region vs. Interior West and Great Plains, etc.); religious divides; etc. See link: https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/build-a-voter JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your source does not say that Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the rust best. Instead it said that people in the Rust Belt voted against the Democrats in order to punish them for the destruction of their part of the country. TFD (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (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.

Position

The position says Centre-right to right-wing. But only a faction of the party is centre-right and the main position is right-wing. So I think we should change the position and instead add factions where the centre-right belongs and we should also add the far-right faction. Who agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased language

This page repeatedly (word search counted 99 iterations) refers to its subject, purportedly the Republican Party as "GOP" instead of its actual name. If the acronym indeed stands for "grand old party", which we have no reason to doubt, the term "grand" is a value judgment. It's the same thing as if a page on Joe Biden referred to him as "Brandon" instead of his name. 192.34.130.226 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The article only uses the term GOP about 30 times. The other 70 times are from sources and further reading recommendations, showing that "GOP" is simply a term that sources use frequently to refer to the article subject. Cortador (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"GOP" is the party's most common nickname. It's not a value judgement, it's what the party is frequently called by media outlets and whatnot. I don't really see an issue with it being used interchangeably with "Republican" or "Republican Party", really. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Cooperman source for GOP centre-right position

@Toa Nidhiki05 The source you restored says nothing about centre-right Republicans except that they exist, and makes no statement about the position of the party. You claim that there is a consensus to include the source specifically; please point to it. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See the earlier discussions like #Political positions being reinstated once again. But more specifically - it's referring the gulf in both parties. Center-right and conservatives as the main factions on one side, and center-left and liberals on the other. It's clearly referring to the compositions and positions of both parties. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 I'm not going to go to all the discussion to make your point for you.Please point to where there is consensus to include this source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources were presented and agreed upon in prior discussions on this page, fairly recently. There's a consensus to include them. I can tag the others involved in said discussions if you'd like, but it's really not hard to find them here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 There was consensus that the inclusion - centre-right as a position - was sufficiently sourced. There was no consensus to include the Cooperman source specifically, or that the sourcing hinges on that source. If there was, please point to where there is consensus to include this source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 I'm asking you again: where's the consensus to include this source specifically? Cortador (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was reached as part of the discussion that led to our current consensus on positions and sources in the infobox. I don't know how many times I need to keep telling you this, so this will be the last time. Toa Nidhiki05 12:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include those source specifically. it has already been tagged - with a tag you restored. If you can't actually point to where there's a consensus to include this specific source, I'll remove it. Cortador (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted that since there was a clear consensus to include it, along with clear edit consensus. Wantonly removing reliable sources that you - and only you - object to is not appropriate. Also, you're now actively edit warring to remove it - I recommend you self-revert and actually discuss rather than attempting to force your way through a second revert in 24 hours. Actively edit warring to remove reliable sources you personally disagree with could lead you to being blocked from editing, especially on a page like this with a one-revert rule. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given you multiple opportunities to show that there is consensus to include this source specifically, which you have repeatedly failed to do. The source had already been tagged with a failed verification tag for a while, one that you yourself restored. Why should this source be included if it doesn't support the claim, nor has consesus for inclusion? Cortador (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your refusal to actually listen and engage on this is deeply unfortunate. The source supports the claim, you personally don't like it, and are now edit warring to remove it. You should seriously reconsider how you engage with other editors on this page, and in general. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you stay on topic instead of engaging in personal attacks on other editors. Cheers.

And feel free to point to the consensus to include that source specifically. Cortador (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not once personally attacked you, and I’ve already answered. Your refusal to listen is not within my control. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my question. All you have done is claim that consensus to include that political position somehow translates into consensus to include a specific source which even you yourself found not to vertify the claim it is supposed to verify. Cortador (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I oppose use of this source. Four sources is enough. If five are needed, it should be trivial to find another academic source that describes the party as centre-right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Centre-right and far-right faction

Since only a faction of the Republican Party is far-right and the main position of the party is just Right-wing, can we change the position. Also, can we add the far-right faction Richie1509 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wholly support adding "far-right" into the political position box, but despite the fact that the House Freedom Caucus is universally defined as far-right, nobody seems willing to add that in on this page. It's annoying. Dhantegge (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Freedom Caucus is defined as right wing in parts and far right in others. It’s also vastly outnumbered by two larger centrist factions defined as center and center-right. We’ve already had extensive discussion over ideology on this page as well, but if you want to argue the merits of “center to far-right”, go right ahead. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue with the idea of equating the amount of far right politicians in the GOP strictly on the basis of HFC members and concluding that therefore they are a "small" group, is that membership for HFC is not publicized. The House Freedom Caucus does not disclose the names of its members or it's allies. The only way we've managed to justify making this claim is from "estimates" by RS that it only has a few dozen members.

Even if the Freedom Caucus's members and their allies are outnumbered, they still seem to wield more of the power and clout within the party, which may or may not be due to overlap of growing far-right views within the party.

• "There isn’t even complete clarity on who’s in it. The group has no website, no official roster, and definitely no cameras in the room where it happens. Yet while Freedom Caucus members have more clout than ever, including key seats on committees and subcommittees, this latest standoff has also exposed cracks within the group itself." CSM 2023 - NYT 2017
• "Part of what makes the Freedom Caucus a unique intraparty faction is also its greatest strength. If 80 percent of its members agree to a position or action, everyone has to be on board. That’s different from other groups throughout American history, according to Matthew Green, a professor of politics at The Catholic University of America and the author of a book about the Freedom Caucus. It isn’t just a group of likeminded members; it’s also an effective, disruptive voting bloc that stands together." fivethirtyeight 2023

Another consideration is that factions do not necessarily determine the ideology of all of it's members. Since Trump's rise, the number of GOP senators and representatives parroting certain far right views has grown, despite not all of them being generally considered far right or "official" members of the HFC. For example, MTG is no longer a Freedom Caucus member, but she is still clearly considered far right. As political expert Daniel DiSalvo once wrote..."

• "Consider ideology. While it is common to hear that the parties are more ideologically divided than ever before, there are reasons for skepticism about such claims. Ideological distance between members of Congress as measured by political scientists is inferred from roll-call voting behavior. But the extent to which roll-call voting patterns capture members' substantive policy positions is debatable.

One problem is that it is very hard to distinguish ideology from partisan loyalty as the driver of voting behavior. To calculate ideological distance between members, one must assume that all votes are sincere — i.e., that before casting a vote, a member of Congress looks at each item and determines how far the measure is from his ideal policy point. If some members' votes represent efforts to enhance the party brand or burnish their own political images, or simply to support their own party as a default position, then measures of ideological distance lose their precision." National Affairs 2022

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The exact members aren't known, but we know how many there are - or close to it. Washington Post pegged it at 33 total (1 of those has since been expelled from the caucus) - that's far less than the Governance Group or Main Street Caucus, and marginally more than the Problem Solvers Caucus. Toa Nidhiki05 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to split hairs, but if they don't know who they are, then how do they know how many there are? The other point was that HFC faction numbers alone don't provide us with an accurate portrayal of prevalence of far-right ideology and views within the party. It seems an iteration of the great replacement far-right conspiracy theory that has been pushed not just by HFC members, but also may have been somewhat codified in the official platform of the GOP.

• "We must not allow Biden's Migrant Invasion to alter our Country."
• "Republicans will protect Medicare's finances from being financially crushed by the Democrat plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the rolls of Medicare."
• "We will not allow the Democrats to give Voting Rights to illegal Aliens."

"Trump and the Republican Party’s depiction of the border as seen in their advertising is part of a broader trend, according to Mittelstadt. “We’ve really seen, and not just in the U.S., but over the last decade, far-right, nationalist and populist parties have latched on to immigration as a very effective issue to motivate their base and turnout support. Some thinking that used to be reserved for the dark places of the internet — like the great replacement theory … now you see them on the airwaves across the United States,” she said."

"But the gathering also underscored how speakers with views once considered fringe have seeped into the conservative mainstream. Researchers who study far-right movements say their prominence reflects the scope of radicalism that courses through the party..."

"Rockefeller remained in pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, but due to the new winds blowing in the party, he spent the rest of his career trying to convince an increasingly doctrinaire and southern party that he would not commit the same error again. The failure of his effort in 1964 helped set the party on the path to becoming the GOP that arrives in Milwaukee: a far-right one in which the fight from San Francisco would be unimaginable because there are no dissenting voices left."

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources know roughly how many there are. The Hill estimates about three dozen, so 36. There's really no doubt on (roughly) the size of the caucus. A vote to remove a member was decided 16-13, so there's at least 29, but three members also were booted or resigned. And even if sources uniformly called them far-right - they don't - they are far outnumbered by two centrist groupings and only marginally larger than another. The far-right, objectively, has less impact on the party than centrists; it would be undue weight to insist otherwise. Toa Nidhiki05 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the HFC does not appear to be the penultimate indicator for the prevalence of far-right views within the party, and I do not see any RS here saying otherwise.

"The far-right, objectively, has less impact on the party than centrists" I don't claim these sources contradict that, only that the prevalence of far-right views has grown.

"it would be undue weight to insist otherwise." We can determine weight of the extent far right views and ideologies have grown by distinguishing centrist views vs far-right views. I think there is at least a strong possibility for consensus on that.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't use the info-box and instead explain everything in the body of the article, we can avoid these discussions which have taken up thousands of hours of editors' times. Right-wing, center-right, far-right, centrist etc. mean different things to different people and people can even use the terms with different meanings depending on context.

Let's just report the ideology and let readers decide for themselves where they place them along their model of the political spectrum instead of telling them where Wikipedia editors do. TFD (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with changing to solely right-wing with a note referring to "center-right and far-right factions", as one or two have already suggested in above discussions. "Center-right" having the same weight as "right-wing" is not reflective of the current party at all; insisting on a lean to CR while passing over a similar number of RS put forward on here describing an overall shift towards the far-right seems WP:UNDUE and likely violates WP:NPOV.

Sticking to just "right-wing" with a note has numerous benefits: it's purposely broader, a more ambigious label works well in this instance; it's better-supported by sources and less contested; and it distributes weight more evenly between sources.

Additionally, some of the currently given sources for CR aren't particularly strong. The second one for example is from 2015 – pre-Trump – and describes the American center-right as "incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party". Dated source, and specifically refers to the CR as 'factions', meaning this could be handled with a note. On the other hand, two of the sources for RW are more recent and explicitly describe a shift away from the centre-ground.

To state the obvious, Trumpism has had a chokehold on the Republican Party for not far off a decade, regardless of caucus size. The formerly fringe views of MAGAism – which are bordering on far-right – have been brought into the mainstream. CR to RW may have been accurate 10-15 years ago but not anymore.

Much of this has already been said in above discussions, just wanted to contribute to reaching a consensus. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have an extensively discussed consensus that rejected this idea. Reliable sources do not solely, or even mostly, describe the party as right-wing, as current sourcing and research establishes. And as established above, centrists make up a larger chunk of the party than the "far-right", which would lead to "center to far-right" - at which point you might as well just take The Four Deuces's idea and remove the column entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to caucus sizes or the party as a whole? As @Darknipples said: HFC faction numbers alone don't provide us with an accurate portrayal of prevalence of far-right ideology and views within the party. It seems an iteration of the great replacement far-right conspiracy theory that has been pushed not just by HFC members may have also been somewhat codified in the official platform of the GOP.

Can you repost these reliable sources and research that supports your claims? In terms of influence and overall policy of the party, centrists absolutely do not have more influence than the hard/far-right.

How much does caucus size matter really – enough to sway the position? The hardline anti-immigration sentiment in the GOP's current platform is very far from anything remotely centrist. Trump has been the nominee three times in a row, most recently without major contest even though he was no longer the incumbent.

Numerous reliable sources have been provided on here stating the blindingly obvious and challenging the CR label but they seem to have been largely dismissed. The weight of CR and FR sources is even enough to bring the overall position to a broad right-wing. A "with center-right and far-right factions" note is sufficent and is the most logical conclusion taking most recent RS into account.

Take a look at other "centre-right to right-wing" parties on Wikipedia: Canada and UK's Conservative parties and Australia's Liberal Party. No way is the GOP on the same wavelength as these. While I'm aware the US overton window is slightly to the right of most of the west, but even then, this is simply not accurate. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The numbers have already been litigated. It is undeniable the HFC is smaller than the centrist factions. And given the HFC isn’t uniformly regarded as far-right, you would absolutely be against what our sources say. Ultimately, we’ve already discussed this and found a consensus through viable, credible academic sources. The personal opinions of editors disputing caucus sizes or comparing other Wikipedia pages can’t override that. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel you may be misinterpreting some of my points.

I'm not disputing caucus sizes or denying that the HFC is smaller than the centre-right factions (I wouldn't call any GOP faction outright centrist but no point going down that rabbit hole now); I'm rather questioning if position should be based solely on caucus size. It's clear – regardless of caucus sizes – that Trumpism has a firm grip on the GOP and this is not hard to verify.

The positions of the broader MAGA grouping, including the HFC, are firmly right-wing to say the least. The far-right statuses (or close to) of both the Freedom Caucus and Trumpism are well sourced on their respective pages. Even neo-fascism is extensively sourced on the latter. This shouldn't really be up for debate.

You still haven't provided credible, recent academic sources in this discussion that describe the GOP as a whole as "center-right". I'm sure there are some but you've just repeatedly pointed towards the caucus numbers, including in previous conversations, without explaining why it should determine the position. There are plenty of sources provided here – including ones already on the page – explicitly claiming the GOP is no longer CR, but I haven't seen you address those.

To clarify, I'm not advocating for 'far-right' being added as a standalone position, or even RW to FR; my proposal is to remove center-right and by extension, add a note which says "With center-right and far-right factions". This is not just a personal opinion; this is – from the sources I've seen – the median point between various reliable sources which describe varying degrees of right. Including centre-right as a main position is giving undue weight to one side, especially in the face of rising Trumpism. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you refer to the party as a whole when it doesn't have a membership and is not even a legal entity? TFD (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, broadly speaking, which factions have the most influence? It's definitely not "centrist" ones when there's wording like "illegal aliens" in the official GOP platform, not to mention the policies themselves. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If using the phrase "illegal alien" is far-right, the party has been such since Reagan. But more specifically, the evidence is in the sources cited and pieces like the Washington Post one - one of the hallmarks of the Freedom Caucus's fringe is they are insurgents. In other words: they lack institutional power, and seek to get it. But they are outnumbered broadly by the rest of the caucus, and even specifically by the moderates. Toa Nidhiki05 20:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by others' comments on the Washington Post article (I can't read it due to paywall), it just states that more 'moderate' caucuses make up a bigger share of the house than the HFC. I ask again though: why should caucus size alone determine the position?

There are also high-quality sources already on this article directly challenging centre-right:

• McKay, David (2020), Crewe, Ivor; Sanders, David (eds.), "Facilitating Donald Trump: Populism, the Republican Party and Media Manipulation", Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–121, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17997-7_7, ISBN 978-3-030-17997-7, retrieved 2024-06-13, the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party that was hostile not only to liberal views but also to any perspective that clashed with the core views of an ideologically cohesive conservative cadre of party faithfuls
• Greenberg, David (2021-01-27). "An Intellectual History of Trumpism". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2024-06-13. The larger ideology that the president-elect represents is a post-Iraq War, post-crash, post-Barack Obama update of what used to be called paleoconservatism: On race and immigration, where the alt-right affinities are most pronounced, its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right.

You seem very determined to prove that further-right types are just a fringe group on the edge of the party. The extent of far-right ideology and views within the party is not reflected in the current position; there are numerous sources put forward on above conversations that prove there is as much FR influence in the party as CR. This evens things out to 'right-wing' as the sole position. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any Republicans that avoid the term illegal immigrant. Can you name any centrist Republicans that refer to undocumented workers? TFD (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an attempt to generalize the entire party, rather, to clarify the prevalence of far right views. The most obvious example is that centrist views do not include a conspiracy by democrats to put illegal immigrants on voter rolls etc...That is purely far-right. DN (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That sound good. This idea also had majority support during the last RfC on this. Cortador (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This was not, in fact, the case. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was. When that poll happened, the position had previously been right-wing with the two factions mentioned, and that was supported by a majority of editors. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that was not the case. Moreover, following the poll (which ignored sources and focused solely on editor personal opinions), it was agreed upon through a further examination of reliable sources that "center-right to right-wing" is the accurate descriptor presented by academic sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was just "right-wing", despite a majority agreeing with the previous version in the article. Cortador (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A majority, without sources, argued right-wing with sources to be found in the future would probably be right. Later discussion, which you evidently are unfamiliar with, found that (shockingly) making a consensus without sources was a bad idea, and that academic sources present the party as variously center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources were present based on a previous addition to the article.

Above you claimed that the poll was in favour of right-wing/centre-right, and now you say it was just right-wing. Which one is it now? Cortador (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

maybe we should get a third party involved here? if the disagreements about the previous consensus are so stark, maybe we should get a set of neutral eyes? Carlp941 (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has been established. Valid reasons need to be presented to remove it. They haven't been presented yet 5.35.115.76 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

i thought the current consensus was workable, and i am not swayed by your reasoning. i am going to read through the sources linked below, so give me a little time, but maybe they'll change my mind.

but to be blunt, i'm not sure rehashing this particular point is productive. we also seem to be saying the same things as last time, but adding on some disagreements on how consensus was reached. i dont think that's a productive direction, either. we reached consensus on a politically charged article. even if the process wasnt perfect, we reached a consensus that i thought was pretty good, and very well sourced. Carlp941 (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Right wing is sufficient. Leave the details to the article text where these things can be given context. This is especially true since Wikipedia's far-right article quickly associates "far-right" with neo-nazi's etc. As others have pointed out, where the center of the party actually is may not reflect the rhetoric coming from various sources. Even with scholarship we need to be careful since we should be reflecting the consensus of scholarship, not just recent papers that might be trying to argue something new etc. Springee (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing is not sufficient. We have a slew of contemporary reliable academic sources regarding the party as center-right. That's why we list both right now. Maybe that changes in the future, but it hasn't changed in the few months since the last discussion as far as I can tell. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. A good argument has been made for not using any of these labels as both major US parties are big tent groups and currently as well as over the years have had a number of different factions. I think listing nothing is better but if we agree that the major two US parties are represent the left and right of US politics then then this one is the right wing and the democrat party should be labeled left wing. Springee (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that a cool idea Richie1509 (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at the democratic candidate's political orientation I'm not sure. I tried to take a look at the 2024 DNC platform, but it's extremely over-detailed. DN (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

References

William Howard Taft has an RfC

William Howard Taft has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)