Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

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)

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 [1] --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)