Talk:Democratic-Republican Party/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

When the party started to be referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks Rjensen for this edit. I reviewed the book you referenced and it verifies your statement. Might this aspect be covered in the article, as it doesn't appear to already? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

yes good idea. the basic problem is that historians use one term (D) & political scientists another (DR)-- Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I"m sure it's all complicated and in total, likely over my head, but even a basic coverage of when anyone notable started to call it the Democratic-Republican Party would suffice as far as I'm concerned. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: The term "Democratic-Republican Party" was coined by the Jacksonians for the 1832 election. That's after the Jeffersonian party was disbanded, at least as it is defined in this article. The Jeffersonian party was "Republican" in Virginia and "Democrat" in New York. When Rip Van Winkle woke up in 1819, they asked him if he was a Democrat or a Federal -- not if he was a Democratic Republican. The term "Democratic-Republican" caught on with later writers as a way of disambiguating the Jeffersonian party from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. But this was not an issue when the party was active.
I just noticed the posts above concerning earlier usage for the name D-R. The examples given almost always refer to a faction or a local branch rather a national party. In the 1790s, the party was supported by French-financed "Democratic-Republican societies." In the 1820s, the party had "Nationalist" and "Democratic" factions. So the term "Democratic Republican" could refer to a member of the Democratic faction of the Republican party. The party didn't follow modern branding principles, so a local branch might use a naming variant of its very own. Great scott (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

When the party was founded

There seems to be some back-and-forth editing on when the party was founded, and I cop to being confused at times about what it should be. In the final analysis (for me), it seems that the infobox should reflect the content, and that seems to be showing 1791 as the founding year (or when the faction formed). I'm not sure exactly how that got changed to a specific date in 1799, perhaps corresponding to a date on a letter from Thomas Jefferson. If the year should be something different, please anyone reply with your thoughts. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hyphen or Dash?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Resolved: The result of this discussion was hyphenate the name. –Sb2001 18:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the name be hyphenated or nDashed: Democratic-Republican or Democratic–Republican? In 2008 and 2009 it was discussed with a consensus for the hyphen, but it's worth reopening the discussion again. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes refers to compounded pairs as using a dash, not a hyphen. Or is "Democratic" just a modifier of "Republican" the way "Anti" is a modifier of "Jacksonian"?—GoldRingChip 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is what gets me on about going either way about it: Democratic-Republican itself can be viewed as a singular entity as per usage of the one-word single-party term, or as a compound in view of the two succession parties henceforth established in the wake of its demise resulting in the Democratic Party (Jacksonians) and the National Republican Party (Anti-Jacksonians), synonymous to a reversed merge or de-merge. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If it uses any punctuation and it's a compound, then I think it should have a dash, not a hyphen. Right?—GoldRingChip 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be a hyphen. There is no cross-party agreement involved, therefore we should not be treating it as if there is one. An en rule would only be used if it was talking about the Democratic group meeting with the Republican (note the caps). It is describing republicans who are democratic, hence there is a modification occurring; ignoring all other knowledge, 'Republican' could not be taken out of this and keep its meaning, as it is not describing a group of republicans. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point.—GoldRingChip 15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Think of this as a form of disambiguation. I'm not expert on the history of American political parties, as I learned some things just by skimming this article. At the time this party was active, it seems they mostly just called themselves the Republican Party (United States), which causes a problem for modern historians. Note the earlier discussion above about moving this to Jeffersonian Republicans. You could also move the other party to Lincolnian Republicans. Or using Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation, Republican Party (Jeffersonian) and Republican Party (Lincolnian). We don't use (Lincolnian) because the modern party is the WP:primary topic in the United States, albeit not the world. Historians had to invent a new name after the emergence of the new party just prior to the Civil War. It seems they settled on "Democratic-Republican" because this "Republican" party is actually an ancestor of modern Democrats.

Now imagine a "political revolution" in which Bernie Sanders runs as the candidate of a new "Democratic-Socialist Party" and wins the presidency in 2020 by a landslide, taking an unheard of 70 percent of the vote, with the Democratic Party taking 5 percent and the Republican Party taking 25 percent. Out of this electoral calamity for the former "mainstream" parties, they decide to merge and become the Democratic–Republican Party (modern) so as to have a more viable chance of unseating this new Democratic-Socialist juggernaut. In this scenario a dash could be appropriate. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I get what you're saying, that it's not a compound after all. —GoldRingChip 15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hyphen. This is a compound adjective (meaning "Republicans who are democratic"), not a relationship between two entities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved as Hyphen: Democratic-Republican.—GoldRingChip 18:04, 19 October 2017 (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.

Infobox edits on political position

@The Democratic Party, est. 1792:, with a name suggesting an WP:SPA, has made repeated efforts to add to the infobox WP:SYNTH from a primary source. One hopes that the editor will come to the Talk Page once their 24 hout block expires. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Republican Party

I don't know if I'm right, but I feel that the intro should at least mention that the party started off as the republican party only. This is cause the current textbook I'm learning it from only calls it the republican party (Brinkly, American History, A Survey, Twelfth Edition) and most (if not all) of the first few sources on this page call it the republican party (at least in the summary of the source) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not right. I would hope your teacher is in fact taking a more measured view; the current fad to call them Republicans is a recent and minority view, which distorts the contemporary evidence.

This is incorrect. First off, historian David McCullough and Joseph Ellis both refer to Jefferson's party as Republican in their Pulitzer Prize winning works. I also have a history book published in 1922 that refers to Jefferson's party as Republican and describes how Jackson formed the Democratic-Republican party. The opposite of what you claim is true. It was only recently that people have tried to attache the label "Democrat-Republican" to Jefferson's party. This effort appears to date back to the '90's and be a political attempt to whitewash the Democratic Party's true history and back-peddle from the fact that the party's early history included the Trail of Tears and a defense of slavery.

When the DR's were an informal group in Congress, Jefferson called them "republican federalists" (small r). This distinguished them from, on one side, the opponents of the existence of the Federal Government, like George Clinton and Patrick Henry (both of whom were to give up their insistance on this later), who were anti-federalists; on the other side, from those Jefferson called "monarchist federalists", who became the Federalist Party; they supported the Federal Government, and wished to make it stronger. (How unfair Jefferson was in calling them monarchists is disputed, then and now.)

They became a national party as an alliance between a Virginia group, centered around Jefferson, who often called themselves Republicans, and northern groups (chiefly in Pennsylvania and New York) who often called themselves Democrats. The Federalists called them all Democrats or Jacobins, as terms of abuse.

By Madison's second term, Democratic was becoming the normal term, North and South alike. In Monroe's presidency, the Federalist Party broke up, and had ceased to act in national politics; almost all of the national politicians belonged to Monroe's party. So divisions on policy and candidates became factions within the party, and they broke up into four divisions, each claiming the mantle of Jefferson: the National Republicans, the Democratic Republicans, and so on. Of these, the Democratic Republicans, who supported Jackson, were the largest, and eventually prevailed; they have a direct institutional affiliation with the present Democratic Party.

The DR's, properly so called, had virtually no national party institutions at all: only a Congressional caucus, frequently defied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "Democrat" was popularized by the French revolutionaries, especially "Citizen Genêt," French ambassador to the U.S. in 1793-94. To say that the D-R party was founded in 1792, as the article does, is an anachronism since no one called themselves a Democrat at that time.

The party existed, as a group within Congress, before 1792, and did not give themselves any proper noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that Jackson's supporters were Democratic Republicans? At least in this example, from the 1832 convention, they called themselves Republicans. Kauffner (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They called themselves many things, especially before Jackson's re-election; the Democratic Republican usage was particularly common before the breakup, while the four factions were competing ideologies struggling for Monroe's favor and the nomination to succeed him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite such variations, at the beginning 1824 the party was generally known as "Republican."<:ref>Gammon, 155-156. In example: "Anti-Caucus/Caucus". Washington Republican. February 6, 1824. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

This shortening has changed Gammon's meaning. What he means is that, at the beginning of 1824, there was one party: that often called Republican. (invariably is demonstrably false; the Caucus proclamation linked to in the footnote says Democratic Members of Congress.) At that time there were factions within the party, several of them with names. By the end of 1824, they were separate parties. Gammon is not discussing the name of the united party at this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the document in that footnote more carefully. It states that the "Democratic members of congress" are seceding from, and I quote, "The republican party." The party name was Republican. It is disconcerting that some keep pointing to that one document (that doesn't even show what they claim it shows) as a supposed counter-weight to an avalanche of examples that demonstrate the party name was republican.

This topic has come up several times. The term 'republican' or 'Republican' saw the most usage during the 1790 up into the 1800s. However, the term "Democratic-Republican" has been used by some historians to help disambiguate the name from the current Republican party, perhaps because most stances on issues could be interpreted as be quite divergent. The term "democrats" as referring to the party had infrequent usage by significant party members, at least up until Madison's second term, so let's not give that excessive weight. Skyemoor (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Historians prefer "Republican Party" and political scientists prefer "Democratic Republican Party." Jefferson and Madison always called it "republican". The political scientists started in late -- about the 1880s-- and ever since their textbooks typically list the various major parties. They avoid having "republican party" appear twice in the list--a guaranteed way to confuse students.. The modern GOP was indeed named after Jefferson's party in 1854. Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Webster said the party's name was "republican"

footnote #1--Noah Webster repeatedly emphasized that the name "republican" was a powerful weapon used by the Jeffersonian against the Federalists (Webster was a leading Federalist editor). ["anti-federal party assumed the more popular appellation of republican, which was soon after the arrival of the French minister in 1793, that epithet became a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party."] Webster never says the party was NAMED "Democratic" nor does any historian. Webster does sling around the term "democratic" which for Federalists like Webster was a term of abuse & ridicule in the 1790s. [Some proof of that: in Kentucky the "Democratic society" was attacked as "that horrible sink of treason, that hateful synagogue of anarchy, that odious conclave of tumult, that hellish school of rebellion...."Leland D. Baldwin (2010). Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising. U of Pittsburgh Press. p. 94. Thus Footnote #1 is a prime example of violating the Wikipedia rule about primary sources: they are easy to misinterpret. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:PSTS Rjensen (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Noah Webster is not a reliable secondary source

Webster is a primary source as a leading Federalist editor in 1790s who published hundreds of pages denouncing Jefferson's party as evil and democratic. The secondary sources do NOT call it the "Democratic Party" and Wiki depends on reliable secondary sources. 02:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party Reformation

Contributors,

We have begun to reestablish this party as a national, state and local political party and intend on running a national Presidential candidate, a slate of candidates for Congress, and a slate for State legislatures.

We are trademark registered with the USPTO and EIN registered with the IRS. We are in full communication with the Electoral Commission and I was stopped in my editing journey by the suggestion that a reformed party would need its own page. Given the historical nature of this party, that may be true.

I am not a wiki savvy editor/contributor yet and I welcome discussion, comment, criticism and contribution.

We had intended on tasking a wiki savvy editor in the next 30 days or less to the insertion into this page the rebirth of The Democratic-Republican Party. But that leads me to a concern that per Wiki ethics, it may not be for us to edit. Is that also true?

I look forward to hearing from the community.

-fiat lux!

FreshObs Freshobs (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreshObs: Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. I think that you're probably right that the party should not edit its own page (please check WP:COI for further information). As I said in the edit summary, the reformed party would certainly need its own page (if it merits one), since these two are clearly separate parties. However, I doubt that the party is currently notable enough to have its own article, since a (quick) Internet search does not turn up any results about the refounded party. Before adding information or creating a new article for this, please make sure everything follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If the party, considering the terms in their historical context and with documented citations, looks like a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, acts like a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, and calls itself a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, isn't it (again, in its context) a liberal, left-wing democratic party?

THOMAS JEFFERSON, FOUNDER AND LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY," ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY AS "LIBERALS," "COTE GAUCHE" [LEFT WING], "RADICALS," "JACOBINS," AND "DEMOCRATS."

Historians and political scientists who have studied the American two-party system have come to similar conclusion about this. The pages for the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party describes them as adhering to "classical liberalism" and "classical conservatism," respectively. These terms are deeply tied to the notion of left and right in the era in which these parties existed.

In the trans-Atlantic revolutionary world, "the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization," while the right "was formed as a reaction against the 'Left' and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism."

Federalists, as the conservative party, "strongly opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality and supported a new 'natural aristocracy' based on 'property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility," and were "critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution."

Jefferson and his partisans, on the other hand, as the liberal party, strongly supported the French Revolution, defended separation of church and state, and supported more democratic and egalitarian systems of government and economics that favored the rights of small farmers, the urban working class, and new immigrants, while highly critical of the conservative policies coming from Hamilton and Adams and their Federalist Party, especially when advocating policies deemed too aristocratic or similar to the British monarchy.

So if we're looking for consensus, look no further than in the site's own pages. They basically describe these parties as left and right, but for some reason it's anathema to make that clear to readers and providing them citations.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

well no that is not the consensus of historians--our job is to report on what historians agree on. see Jeffersonian democracy for the main Wikipedia article on this topic. The Jeffersonians STOPPED endorsing France by 1800--and Jefferson saw it an an enemy. They stopped attacks on the private banks. they allowed the 1st national bank to expire and realized their mistake quickly and set up a replacement. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Primary sources literally use those terms. No editorializing can dispute that. And the claim was that the Democrats supported the French Revolution and the ideals it birthed, not just France, particularly Bonapartist France.

And Jefferson railed against the economically and politically privileged classes to his death. In his last letter, regarding the then-upcoming fiftieth anniversary of Independence, he wrote:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others; for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

And Madison, who was always more moderate than Jefferson, renewed the Bank because of the wartime needs the nation faced during and after the War of 1812. So, did the party evolve? Yes, but remember that the Federalist Party has ceased to exist as a viable national institution leaving an effectively one-party regime in Washington that lasted until remaining Federalists joined with Anti-Masons, neo-Hamiltonian supporters of Adams and Clay, and anti-Jacksonians formed the circus tent that was the Whig Party. Democrats of the Jeffersonian tradition effectively rallied around Jackson and embraced the Democratic label fully either as a qualifier (Democratic Republican) or on its own (Democrats).

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The last part of your comment simply isn't true, and shows a strong POV. You claim that "remaining Federalists joined with Anti-Masons, neo-Hamiltonian supporters of Adams and Clay, and anti-Jacksonians formed the circus tent that was the Whig Party" -- suggesting that the Whigs were primarly heirs of the Federalists. But that's simply false. By the time of Madison and Monroe, the DRs had already been splitting into two factions, and during the JQAdams administration these two factions became even more separate. One faction became the "National Republicans", and later (after absorbing the Anti-Masons) become the Whigs. These folks were not the successors of John Adams -- rather, they were the successors of Madison and Monroe, who had moved away from the limited-government views of Jefferson. Indeed, when the new party system began, "The few remaining Federalists generally joined the Adams party in New England, the Jackson party in the South, and divided between them in the middle states." (Howe, 275-276) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I accept that. I definitely should've added the qualifier "most" there, so I definitely clarify that to be more accurate. That said, I don't accept the notion that the Whigs weren't the primary heirs of the Federalists since much of the Federalist base of support shifted into the Whig column (which itself eventually shifted into the GOP column). It's not as direct a "genealogy" as that of the Democratic Party, but the "succession" has been documented and analyzed, by political scientists such as Lipset. There are also history texts, such as American Pageant that explicitly (and, I'd agree, simplistically, but not inaccurately) trace political party lineage from the Federalists to the National Republicans to the Whigs to the GOP.

That said, I wouldn't exactly call the Whig Party heirs to Madison or Monroe, as they continued several aspects of the Jeffersonian program as did the party in general, albeit accommodating the political realities of the postwar "Era of Good Feelings", which meant coopting some aspects of the former Federalist program. The Whigs might not have been direct successors of John Adams, but they were definitely disciples of John Quincy Adams, and through Henry Clay, successors of Alexander Hamilton via his pro-business economic program. Unlike the Federalists, they were much more careful to appeal to the lower classes; however, that made them much less ideologically coherent— and ultimately unsuccessful when faced with the sectional divide over slavery.

Now, I will accept that Whigs inherited aspects of the Jeffersonian program, as the Whig Party article attests, but other dominating aspects, such as their economics, their religious constituency, their stance on immigration, and their bases of support (Whigs like Federalists, garnered support from pro-business capitalists in the North and from the many of the wealthier landowners in the South, and were generally deemed opposed to Jackson's economic egalitarianism, and Jefferson's before him.) Believe me, I agree that politics is messy, I've said as much at least a few times already, and I can't account to the ways Democrats influenced the GOP or Whigs influenced Democrats because they did. That said, If we consider the party leadership from Hamilton and Adams to Clay and Webster to Lincoln, etc., that history is inextricably, albeit indirectly, linked.

(On a side note, I've found it interesting to look into John Quincy Adams' place in the historiography of the Democratic Party, which I have often been dismissive about, as you have had to correct me about before, and it's exceptionally interesting to see him included in the pantheon of Democratic presidents—as well as John Tyler!—in the banners of the 1944 Democratic National Convention.)

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Person certainly says a lot of interesting things – saddles on the back quote for example which may apply to European aristocrats, or to American slave owners like they had in Virginia. But I think Jefferson was an isolated figure in the party after the crash of his foreign policy in 1808. By the 1820s, Jackson was the emerging top leader faction that became the Democratic Party, and he had very close relationships with local bankers-- those local bankers did not like the 2nd national bank, which Jackson worked hard to destroy. Historians call them "Jackson men with feet of Clay" (Charles Sellers American Historical Review 42 (April 1957). I also recommend The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln By Sean Wilentz. Rjensen (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Jefferson was an isolated figure after his presidency since he was a close advisor to Madison and Monroe, and his opinion of candidates in the 1824 and 1828 elections (pre- and post-death) were highly esteemed. Democrats would begin to celebrate Jefferson Day during Jackson's presidency (and have done so ever since). That aside, I'm not surprised opportunistic bankers would ally with Jackson for that reason. Good info and good recommendations. Wilentz is pretty interesting since he is a firm promoter of the Schlesingerian "Jefferson founded the Democratic Party" political-historiographical tradition.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that leftism back than had nothing to do with today's leftism, so I'd rather suggest changing the party's political position from Left-wing to Centre-Left. Alexispapp (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States

Surely this article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States? Could someone please do that? I'm not sure how to do so. Krakatoa (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Left–right political spectrum

​​​​​​​I removed the political position in this edit (and on the Federalist Party page in this edit) but was reverted by Thomediter. Following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think we should discuss this. My argument is that the left–right political spectrum is an anachronism, since it only arose after the French Revolution and was probably not as widespread back then as it is now. Thomediter makes a good point that even an anachronism can be helpful for understanding the positions for these parties. To respond, I'd argue that the description of left-wing (right-wing for the Federalist Party) is imperfect—while the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government. Additionally, I believe the ideologies listed in the infobox are sufficient for comparing the two parties.

Just as important to this discussion is the sourcing. The sources used are clearly reliable, but they do not support the claims of "left-wing" and "right-wing" well. The first source on the Federalist Party page seems to only describe it as "conservative", which would count as synthesis. However, I don't have access to this book, so there may be another part that describes the Federalists as "right-wing". Can someone check this? The first source on this page ([1]) is describing the ideas of federalists and anti-federalists (likely in the debate over the Constitution) as on the political right and left, respectively. Yes, these groups went on to form the two parties, but this isn't very good sourcing for describing the parties themselves. The second source on this page ([2]) is describing factions within the two parties ("the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans"), not the parties themselves, which also isn't good sourcing.

Thus, I am proposing that the political position be removed from the infoboxes of both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party.

P.S. Please ping any editors who may be interested in this discussion. I have already pinged some editors who have edited the political position or been involved in previous discussions, but involving more editors is probably better. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"...while the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government."

I think that political positions can be simplified to the point of inferring the opposite of what they mean, and that is the case here—along with a misreading of what constitutes left-wing. As to the latter, surely you wouldn't argue that anarcho-communists are not left-wing because they don't favor consolidation of centralized power in a national government. That fact alone would seem to nullify the jist of your argument, because support for centralization of power is not necessarily a defining feature of being left-wing. In fact, it is easier to argue the contrary point that in many regards left-wing policy prescriptions are generally founded on the principle of limiting hierarchy socially, politically, and economically—and that the role of an ideal government from the view of the political left-wing is to empower the greatest number of people to use democratic means to do so. Generally, the idea is that the more hierarchical a society is, the more likely it is to only provide optimal outcomes for those with the most power, and so you must oppose things like monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and so on by distributing power...with the goal being a political and/or economic system where such democratization of power ensures that problems and inefficiencies that may not harm or even may benefit a powerful few are more likely to be eliminated legally in favor of what benefits more people. The fact that you can use the legal powers of a national government to empower the already powerful even further or to disempower traditional elites while instead empowering the masses makes your gauge in this regard faulty. Left-wing schools of thought differ about how governmental powers should be used, or if such powers can ever be used responsibly without eventually becoming self-defeating as to the actual ends of its use.

With regards to the former, I've already partly explained my case above. The Democratic Republicans opposed using governmental power in ways that mostly benefited wealthy (usually Federalist) elites because they opposed creating or enhancing a new hierarchy of near-aristocrats that mimicked what they considered to be negative elements of British society / politics they had rebelled against. They believed Federalists like Hamilton were promoting economic policies that directly helped wealthy businessmen and bankers at the expense of the broad citizenry's tax dollars, and without broad public benefit. That point of view would still be correctly called left-wing today, and the left still makes that exact same argument about various modern policies if you just change the names to fit current events. Other Federalists like Adams they saw as promoting political policies that were xenophobic and violated civil liberties, such as with the Alien and Sedition Acts and anti-immigrant policies. Antagonism towards such policies would also be considered a left-wing position today, and today's headlines have the modern understanding of the two political wings representing the same sentiments in these debates as the Federalists and Democratic Republicans did. SecASB (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi :) I get the point, but I hope we can find a compromise, as I think the infobox talking about a party's position in general, is very important. I would find it sad if it would need to be left out completely. Adding a side note, talking about "Big Tent" could also be an idea. thomeditor (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

the terms came into use by 1791 and the American use resembled French use. Historians use the terms without controversy. Right = opposition to French Revolution = Federalist position & Left = support for it = Jeffersonian position. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Rjensen. It is true that modern readers might misinterpret it (because the meaning has expanded and evolved since then), but left and right are used extensively in sources discussing them, and given the timing of the French Revolution, the parties became defined by those positions shortly after they came into existence. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Aquillion and Rjensen. By the way, the size of the government is not a good indicator on the political spectrum and it comes from W. Cleon Skousen, who argued that the left-wing included anything from communism to fascism to liberalism to socialism (tyranny) and that the far-right was anarchy. What is important is why a smaller or bigger government is favoured. The Federalists favoured centralisation for right-wing ends. Davide King (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your points. Can we at least get better sources for the political position here? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)