Talk:Republican Governance Group

Membership list?

I'm looking for a source for a Tuesday Group member list (or any kind of official documentation of the group). Anyone? · rodii · 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

These groups are often secretive. Sources talking about the Freedom Caucus usually say "about 40" because they keep the official roster secret. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Membership list?

So I've been trying to update this page with any information I can find, and I cannot find anything. They are not listed in the list of all Congressional Member Organizations for the 116th Congress, as maintained by the House Admin. Committee. (Here - [in PDF form]) I did find a group called the Republican Governance Group which lists Reps Brooks, Katko, and Upton as its officers. These are the members currently listed as the officers of the Tuesday Group (TG). My question is, did the Tuesday Group dissolve itself and re-from as the Republican Governance Group (RGG)? The TG was referred to in an earlier thread as secretive so is it likely that they would not have announced their dissolution and re-incorporation as the RGG? JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Tuesday Group is a liberal organization. not "liberal conservative".

Only 'liberal' is in the source. Some politicians are relatively more liberal than the Blue Dogs. I honestly believe that TG should write "liberalism" not "conservative liberalism" on infobox. However, it is controversial, and since the '80s, the mainstream Republican Party has been conservative, so it has been partially written as 'conservative liberalism'. Is there any evidence that TG is 'liberal conservatism'? I don't know why they change the phrase "conservative liberalism" to "liberal conservatism."--Storm598 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit war

Now, since you can't edit war any more IR2017, are you willing to actually discuss this? Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No. You're blocked as well. Don't play the victim card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR2017 (talk • contribs)

So you aren't actually willing to discuss this, IR2017? Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother. This user has persistently deleted/reverted in the user's talk page all attempts to get the user compliant in bringing things to talk page discussions, as well as warnings, even when explicitly told in an edit reason not to remove warnings summarily with no reason when the matter is still ongoing and the user continues to act in edit war. (That is why the user was eventually blocked for a week). Just take it to ANI for WP:ICANTHEARYOU if this happens again. 2600:1012:A021:8AD:F913:3D61:193E:AC8E (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

STATUS QUO dispute

There is a dispute as to what the WP:STATUS QUO version of the article is, so I have reverted back to a version from 4 May, before the multiple edits by multiple editors which cam after. There can be no doubt that this represents a STATUS QUO version. Some of the edits made in the meantime may well have been productive, but it's best to err on the side of caution, and get a consensus on this talk page for all suggested changes. I have requested full protection of the article to encourage such discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that my attempt to restore back to a neutral version was revert by one of the edit warriors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to argue in favor of keeping a factually inaccurate statement (Steve Stivers is the member of congress for Ohio-15 and a member of the group), go right ahead. There is absolutely nothing controversial with not going back to May 4th, which you selected for some reason (god knows why). Toa Nidhiki05 19:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said on WP:RFPP, protecting the version from 25 May is fine with me. (And please fucking stop fucking cursing at me, goddamit.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Lord, what a dog's breakfast.

@Caelton: My dog would decline. When I tired to revert to May 25, it was the same as the last edit. Hopefully y'all can agree on a status quo ante. Eheu! --Deepfriedokra (talk)

"Conservative liberalism" and "moderate conservatism"

The three sources given to support "Conservative liberalism" in the "Ideology" parameter of the infobox do not, in fact, support that at all.

Our article Conservative liberalism, which is wikilinked in the entry, defines it as "a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or simply representing the right wing of the liberal movement." However the sources do not directly support that, as they are required to do. None of them mentions "conservative liberalism". What they do say is this:

• Citizen Newt - "Moderate to liberal Republicans"
• New Republic - "Moderate Republicans", "the party's more moderate members", "self-styled moderate Republicans", "moderating the GOP","'Moderates are the most misunderstood people in Congress'", "members 'may be stylistically more moderate' in terms of their language or presentation ... 'but their voting records say otherwise.'"
• The Hill - "Centrist Republicans", "Republican centrists", "centrist House Republicans", "Centrist Republicans", "a leading House GOP centrist", " lawmakers launched the PAC to help vulnerable centris

ts as well as liberal-leaning Republicans running for open congressional seats", "'With any of these moderates, that’s constantly an issue. You’re subject to attacks from the right and the left when you’re in the middle'", "GOP centrists"

(Incidentally, the citation from The Hill is from 2007, which in politics may as well be the Middle Ages.)

Clearly, despite the two passing references to liberals, these citations are not referring to "conservative liberalism". The ideological standpoint to be drawn from these citations is clearly "Moderate" or "Centrist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead should simply link to "Centrism" or "Liberal Republicans" in that section as none of the sources use "conservative liberalism" or "moderate conservatism". Toa Nidhiki05 21:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as you point out, the citations given do not support "moderate conservatism" any more than they do "conservative liberalism". Given the descriptions used in the cites, I would support "Moderate" or "Centrist" as ideological descriptors, but would not be in favor of "Rockefeller Republican" because the term has changed in meaning from its original usage. (I can explain that in more detail if anyone likes.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There are three ideologies identified by their sources: "Liberal", "Moderate", and "Centrist". No source calls RSS "moderate conservatism". The political position of the RSS is clearly beyond the framework of major American conservatism. RSS, of course, has a fiscal conservative nature, but there is a socially-liberal aspect that is spoken in other regions socially and culturally. Tuesday Group(RSS) is in a more moderate position than RMSP.--Storm598 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Liberal" is not well-supported at all. One source -- not about the group, but a passing mention in a bio of Gingrich -- calls them "moderate to liberal", another source doesn't mention "liberal" at all, and the third refers to the PAC, not the Tuesday Group itself, potentially being available for liberal-leaning Republicans. "Liberal" should play no part in a description of their ideology unless it is better sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But there are quite a few books that describe Tuesday's group as liberal. It's hard to compromise with each other in this area, so I think it's better to keep "Center to center-right" instead of writing ideology("Conservative liberal" and "Moderate conservatism") on infobox. RSS is not just a "Moderate conservative" organisation. It's just a "Moderate", Liberal" and "Centrist" organization.--Storm598 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine, please post citations from those books. And what do you mean "it's hard to compromise"? Two editors have just done exactly that.

BTW, you were the editor who added both "Conservative liberalism" and "Moderate conservatism" to the "Ideology" parameter, which those two editors have just agreed are not appropriate, so you're not exactly in a strong position here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me suggest another new source first. However, it is a source that is a little past time. In addition, page 22 of the American Government 2006: Continuity and Change mentions liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, making it difficult to identify ideological differences between the two groups. However, it is true that the Republican Governance Group is often described as simply "moderate" or "centrist" in recent years. it is unclear whether the "moderate" refers to "moderate conservatism". The Democratic Party's NDC is described as liberal, but RSS is rarely described as conservative. Because RSS' voting tendency is not much different from Blue Dog or NDC.--Storm598 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1996? No, it's a different world back then. Not applicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing for "liberal" or "conservative liberalism" is simply not there, and given the discussion above, it is clear that the consensus is against you on this Storm598. Your aggression in reverting does not make your relatively new version that has never gained consensus the status quo. RedHotPear (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears unlikely that this group will come to a full consensus. As a compromise, I suggest that the ideology and position parameters of the infobox be left blank; there are simply not many quality, recent sources on the specifics of the ideology or position of the RGG. Meanwhile, in the lead, it can be described as a "group of moderate Republicans in the United States House of Representatives"; this seems to be the only point on which there can be consensus and for which the sourcing is sound. RedHotPear (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose both of these hasty proposals, especially removing the well-cited "political position" section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that the "Political positions" entry is fine as is, so it's simply a matter of agreeing on wording for the "Ideology" entry. WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity, and there seems to be sufficient agreement above to indicate that a consensus can be found - the protection does not lapse until June 6th, so there's still time for discussion, and for additional editors to contribute. If necessary, we can ask for an uninvolved editor to evaluate the discussion and close it. I would also note that Storm598 has retired, and has indicated that he does not intend to return. [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the discussion above, I propose that once the full protection has been lifted from the article:

• (1) The "Political position" entry in the infobox be left as it is; and that
• (2) the "Ideology" entry be changed to either "Centrism" or "Political moderate", or both.

The problem concerning the RGG is that it's not really an ideology-based group at all. Both "Centrism" and "Political moderate" as defined in our article are ideologies based primarily on relative political position, and are not strong ideological beliefs. This makes them appropriate to describe this basically non-ideological group.

I'm hope that we can agree on this, or that further discussion will alter the proposal in a way that it can be agreed on, and that we don't need to hold an RfC, which would delay things for, potentially, another month. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable proposal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(1) seems good. I agree with Beyond My Ken that the ideologies are more based on relative position; therefore, for (2), I recommend "Moderate Republicanism" (capital R, note where it links). It is the ideology with the best sourcing and least redundancy with (1). Per the previous discussion, any mentions of liberalism should be removed from the infobox and the lead entirely. RedHotPear (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(1) I agree on leaving this how it is, no need to change. (2) I recommend changing it to Centrism and Moderate Republicanism as stated by the user above, both of these claims are sourced to say. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• The protection has lapsed, so I've made the changes which I believe have been agreed upon here. If I've misread the consensus on this page, my apologies. I've also removed the Citizen Newt ref, which was a passing mention in a book about another subject, and therefore not a strong reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)