Jump to content

Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add 'Trumpism' as a faction

[edit]

^ 49.184.140.57 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpism is more than just "supporting the party nominee". — Red XIV (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral symbol or logo??

[edit]

Why this elephant symbol is shown as logo?? I edited this as electoral symbol previously but got reverted everytime. Donkey isn't shown as Democrats' symbol in their article. We have separate banner logo for the Republicans. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad @Completely Random Guy No, it wasn't removed for copyright reasons. There's a group of users replacing the logo with the electoral symbol without explaining their choice. Pantarch (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats not good, how can we go about returning it to its official logo in place of electoral symbol without causing an edit war? Completely Random Guy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, consensus needs to be reached here, then a source should be found (we have one: https://fabrikbrands.com/branding-matters/logofile/republican-logo-history-republican-elephant-logo-and-symbol/), and finally, an invisible comment should be added near the logo explaining the choice. Pantarch (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we do a poll? Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sort of Pantarch (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down, just dont know how to create a poll Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the files being discussed are these: File:GOP logo.svg (logo) File:Republican Disc.svg (electoral symbol)--Pantarch (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan phrasing

[edit]

"opposing transgender rights" seems like partisan phrasing to me. Maybe there's a better way to put this? CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is. Do you have any suggestions? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naming specific issues, such as sexual education and sports. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty inarguable the party opposes transgender rights, defined by the common meanings of the term. Can't tell you how many "Trump is for us, not they/them" ads I saw. But it is possible there are better ways to describe it. Maybe the specific policy issues (access to bathrooms, sports, surgeries, documents, etc.)? At that point it's just getting too broad. Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05 Honestly culture war issues aren't worth delving into beyond their due weight. That advertisement is one thing, but voters' top priorities during the election were mainly: the economy (#1), democracy, abortion, and immigration.
  • I don't think having discussions about transgender issues on the talk page, which are bound to result in flame wars and conflicts, is a good idea.
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The party? Log Cabin Republicans… Not to mention Classical liberalism Mistletoe-alert (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing to Far right

[edit]

Someone else mentioned this too. Why it isn't labelled as right wing to far right? Trump has clearly criticized former Republican governance and has abandoned neoliberalism and globalism as party policy. Also Trump and Republican Party have associated themselves with parties and people which are labelled as right wing to far right such as UKIP and Farage, Fidesz and Orban. Republican Party position of political spectrum really needs to be changed to right wing to far right so people know exactly what Republican Party actually believes or is situated on political spectrum and not this erroneous identification. 86.124.126.108 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for this? Regardless of our personal political views--I voted for Harris and agree with the Democratic Party on most issues--the fact Trump won the popular vote in 2024 means that roughly half the country supported his agenda. See WP:SOAPBOX, and there have been plenty of discussions on this. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a candidate who wins an election cannot possibly be far-right is just silly. Extremist candidates do sometimes win the popular vote. — Red XIV (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of editors have argued that although the Democratic Party is not center-left by international standards, it should be called center-left because it is by U.S. standards. Accordingly, if 50% voted for Donald Trump, they must be center-right.
I notice too that Meloni's party is described as center-right. Considering that she the Fascist youth leader and her party is a successor to Mussolini's Fascist Party, the definition of center-right is pretty elastic. My solution would be to remove these labels as there is no correct answer and the fields provide no meaningful information. TFD (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not how it works at all. Winning 50% of the vote (which Trump actually fell just short of, but I suppose 49.9% is close enough) does not mean they "must be center-right". The notion that only the center-left or center-right can ever win an election is absurd. It's entirely possible for a party that's either far-right or far-left by its own nation's standards to win an election.
Also, since when is Meloni's party labeled as center-right? Its infobox lists it as "right-wing to far-right". You seem to be mistaking the "centre-right coalition" (an alliance of Italian parties ranging from center-right to far-right), of which Brothers of Italy is a member, with Brothers of Italy's own political position. — Red XIV (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I don't think we should determine position on the political spectrum differently in each country. TFD (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for all that is holy and just - back this claim up with sources. Take five minutes to browse the talk page. This is a discussion we have had a million times. Carlp941 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Republican populism against "elites" a backlash against educated "elites," rather than the rich?

[edit]

This is a draft space, but it appears that right-wing populism's core base in non-college voters could be explained directly by resentment against the well-educated.

One thing that strikes me is that while Elon Musk and Donald Trump are both billionaires, both only have a Bachelor's degree. JD Vance literally has a J.D. (Juris Doctor).

  • Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have law degrees (J.D.), and Tim Walz has a Master's degree.

I have my source on "Polarized by Degrees," but given Republican support among Whites without college degrees, and increasingly among non-Whites without college degrees. It seems that the populism against "elites" is that of well-educated "elites", rather than the rich. Specifically, this populism originates based on specific issues where a cleavage by education can inspire populism (i.e. immigration, globalization, and environmentalism). It appears Republican voters love the wealthy but resent the well-educated, which don't perfectly correlate.

Link: https://substack.com/@theliberalpatriot/p-152601288

  • Quote: "To put it bluntly, voters, particularly [non-college] voters, harbor deep resentment toward elites who they feel are telling them how to live their lives, even what to think and say, and incidentally are living a great deal more comfortably than they are. This is not the rich as conventionally defined by economic populism but rather the professional-dominated educated upper middle class who occupy positions of administrative and cultural power. By and large, these are Democrats in Democratic-dominated institutions. Looked at in this context, truly populist Democrats might want to say, with Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” This is a bitter pill for most Democrats to swallow. In today’s America, they are the Establishment even if in their imaginations they are sticking it to the Man and fighting nobly for social justice. The failure to understand that they themselves are central targets of populist anger leads Democratic elites and activists to overestimate the efficacy of economic populism and interpret populism on the right as driven solely by racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. That’s more comfortable than realizing millions of populist voters hate you. But they do."

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In today’s America, they are the Establishment" I thought that was obvious. Democrats and their leadership are stereotyped as being classic examples of limousine liberals: "...hypocritical wealthy dogooders insulated from the negative fallout of their bad ideas. This theme has remained a staple of conservative attacks ever since." Anyway, you may need to check the article on anti-intellectualism:
  • Support adding new content on anti-intellectualism in the Republican Party. I'll figure out how to get the wording to comply with NPOV. This new version of American conservatism, that is right-wing populism, does significantly differ with conservatism almost everywhere worldwide in its anti-intellectualism and negative correlation with increasing education among voters.
    The Republican Party is still pro-business, which does require practical expertise even if not intellectual. Whatever your views on Elon Musk, his companies Tesla and SpaceX require tremendous expertise in engineering for example. Almost all members of Congress have Bachelor's degrees, including Republicans.
    I've put a lot of work into the Social class in the United States article, and it still surprises me that the Republican Party's base is essentially the top 1% and voters without college degrees, while the Democratic Party's base is essentially voters with college degrees and African Americans. This has turned class politics in the United States nearly upside down, except for the top 1% and African Americans. Harris' voters were on average richer than Trump's voters in 2024.
    Thanks for the sources. I'll add content on how anti-intellectualism and resentment against the Democratic Party on issues perceived to be only for "educated elites" is part of the Republican Party's core appeal, particularly in the Trump era. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is original research on your part and cannot be added to the article. Social scientists have studied reasons why people adopt ideologies and vote for parties since the end of WWII and only their conclusions can be added to the article. TFD (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal, as a statistician and Wikipedia editor, is to understand right-wing populism and Trumpism. I'm not doing original research, but trying to understand what exactly the "elites" Trump is railing against are. The conclusion here is that the well-educated are the elites, not the rich. This is backed up by Trump's support statistically increasing as educational attainment decreases and sources on anti-intellectualism in Trumpism. I have a Gallup poll on Republican support for higher education in decline. The sources by Nate Silver that "Education, not Income Predicted Who Would Vote for Trump" and Harry Enten's "Even Among The Wealthy, Education Predicts Trump Support" . Finally, the book Polarized by Degrees by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins has that excellent quote.
    "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ~ John Steinbeck. In a nutshell, it appears that the Republican party's base loves the rich but hates the well-educated. The Democratic Party's base hates the rich but loves the well-educated. This has caused White voters with college degrees to leave the Republicans and become Democrats, and voters without college degrees to leave the Democrats and become Republicans.
    Links: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ ; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-among-the-wealthy-education-predicts-trump-support/ ; https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "America hits peak anti-intellectualism: Majority of Republicans now think college is bad". Salon. 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2019-09-18.

Consensus clearly exhibits inherent bias

[edit]

Consensus should equally weigh all views instead of letting certain groups present more information than others. Most Wiki editors fall into the educated bucket, and studies show that educated people lean left. Why should we not counter balance this by valuing non-consensus views more? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"equally weigh all views" Is this your first day on Wikipedia? The policy in Wikipedia:BALANCE specifically prevents us from doing this: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." We have to determine the prominence of the various views before describing them in the text. Not all views are equal. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one reliable mass media source supports republican ideals. How could you think that weighing the rest of mass media less would not equally weigh all views? Please see my profile for when I joined. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Democratic Union

[edit]

Any evidence this is still active? The website and members list seem defunct. If there isn't any, maybe the affiliation should be removed from Infobox. Jay942942 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

Why mention “Republican administrations have, since the late 1960s, sustained or increased previous levels of government spending by supporting underfunded sectors like national defense, veterans affairs, and infrastructure,” in the spending section when it states vague trivialities that directly contradict the rest of the section? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology: missing Far-Right and Anti-Intellectualism

[edit]

I think it's pretty indisputable that there's a far right faction within the conservatives, particularly with the Freedom Caucus and that's quite easy to demonstrate in sources (ABC, NYTimes, Politico).

Same with anti-intellectualism as a major ideological element. Wapo, Academic, Christian Science Monitor.

We have little issue calling out these variables in other global right wing parties, we shouldn't shy away from what the RS descriptions are here, without needing to go into an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of thing that needs clear consensus among sources. There are many sources that talk about this topic (ie the GOP). Picking just a few isn't a strong basis for such a claim. This is especially true in cases like the WashPo and NYT where the bias of the authors may be a concern. Even in academic papers we need to ask if this represents a consensus among academics or just a new paper. This is the sort of thing we really should take a very long term wait and see vs reacting to some recent sources. Springee (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. We have no problem calling the Freedom caucus far right and that's very clearly a faction. WP:RS is met, if a contingent of editors don't like the classification WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't enough. We do need some consensus to change it, but I'm deeply reluctant to just make a claim that we need an overwhelming, uniform, and explicit consensus for something that's quite easy to meet on WP:RS grounds. We shouldn't put it in the lede, but it absolutely belongs in the ideology section of the sidebar. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-intellectualism is not an ideology, and far-right has been rejected in numerous discussions. Neither of them will be going in the sidebar. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing to see how "far right" doesn't belong as a faction (not in the lede). Anti-intellectualism is most certainly an ideology. If you have specific objections to the WP:RS suggestions above, I'm open to hearing them, but just declaring Neither of them will be going in the sidebar isn't an appropriate response here. I'm perfectly willing to discuss consensus with editors but have no time to spend on declaration by fiat against a perfectly sourced claim.
The Freedom Caucus is a signifficant republican faction and is undeniably far right. Anti-intellectualism is a noted and increasingly explicit ideological thrust. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "far-right" isn't a faction. It's a sliver of right-wing populist members of the Freedom Caucus, which is more broadly identified as right-wing, and the Freedom Caucus itself is the smallest GOP grouping (it has 33 members, while the center-right Republican Study Committee has 173, the centrist Main Street Caucus has 67, and the centrist Republican Governance Group, which has 42). The far-right could broadly be defined as the dozen or so members who voted with all Democrats to remove McCarthy; like the similarly-tiny Blue Dogs on the Democratic Party, we don't have a dedicated section for them.
The current page is the result of broad and difficult consensus. Your suggestions, while made in good faith, will not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above never arrived at a consensus. 33 members is significant and I’d encourage you to rethink your WP:OWN attitude here. We have an abundant amount of RS passing sources that refer to them as far right and a meaningfully large faction, I don’t see any argument against its inclusion that isn’t a vibe check at present. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and edit in far-right as an ideology, following mutliple WP:RS meeting standards. Before I do that, since there's a 1RR rule active in this place, do you have a substantive and specifc objection that relates to the fact that this claim is easy to pass with RS and I'm not advocating for overweighting the statement in the lede? If there's specific concerns, then sure. There was no consensus above that it doesn't belong unless I'm missing a discussion and twice you've said something like Neither of them will be going in the sidebar. and Your suggestions, while made in good faith, will not be added.. This is not your unilateral decision and you need to not communicate with other editors this way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors are telling you not to do this. If you add it, I will revert it - this has been discussed numerous (untold numerous) times before here and rejected each time. Nothing you added changes that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are one editor. I haven't seen a reason not to add it considering it passes WP:RS. I am open to hearing your reasons, but you haven't explained once other than to point to a non-existent consensus. You do not own this article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springee above also rejected it. And again - your sources here aren't good. Op-ed pieces are not sufficient for this.
You may think you're presenting a new case or argument here. But trust me: you aren't. This has been debated countless times here. You can look back on the talk history. We spent literally months coming up with the current consensus. I appreciate you want to contribute, but your addition will not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springee and you both objected on "possible bias in authors given the source", which isn't the same as a substantive argument that it doesn't belong in the article given a plethora of WP:RS and the fact that the sourcing standards have been met, directly, in the Freedom Caucus article. I, again, would like to ask you to a: provide me with a substantive argument against inclusion given that it passes wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Not something "might" be wrong, but a specific reason and b: knock off your addition will not be added. This is beginning to look a bit like POV editing in the absence of substantive responses. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created an RfC because it's clear that a good faith discussion is struggling with this one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been ongoing for three hours, and you have two people who disagree with you and none who agree. With all due respect - maybe take a look at the mirror here before implying bad faith. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I think I was unclear. I meant that a discussion in good faith was going nowhere, not that it wasn’t staying good faith. I’ll reiterate, though, that I think you need to watch WP:OWN. You are not in a position to say that edits “won’t be done” on an article, especially if you’re unwilling to articulate why clearly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on inclusion of "Far-right" as faction ideology in sidebar

[edit]

Wikipedia and multiple reliable sources explicitly refer to the Freedom Caucus as far-right. As the Freedom Caucus represents a not insignificant member of elected officials, and given that the Freedom Caucus is already explicitly in the Caucuses section of the infobar, should "far-right" be included as a faction ideology in the sidebar? It seems to easily meet WP:RS grounds for inclusion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Procedural close as malformed and pointless; the opening statement is also not neutral. This has been previously discussed on the talk page, and no new information has been provided. Opening an RfC less than a few hours after a discussion - in which two editors disagreed with you immediately - is baffling, honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the opening statement is also not neutral.
    I think "This is already considered far right elsewhere on Wikipedia per WP:RS is sufficiently neutral. If there's a specific issue with my phrasing you have let me know and I can try to adjust it to be more neutral.
The above user is right in that it's been discussed, but not with apparent consensus. Given that this article appears to have local WP:OWN concerns, an RfC is appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close (Summoned by bot) per WP:BADRFC Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short.[1] Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". The RFC question presupposes what WP:RS would lead us to conclude and is therefore not neutral. Ping me if/when a new question is put which meets the instructions. TarnishedPathtalk 00:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually struggling to grok how this is WP:BADRFC; there's no presupposition in "this is already the standard used in other articles, should it be applied here" except for a mere factual statement about the phrasing in question already unambiguously passing WP:RS even on controversial topic articles.
    This is sincere, I want to improve this as best I can, but two editors are trying to tell me that the bare minimum of neutrally-worded context is not passing a neutrality smell test, which is interesting because it seems a bit like presupposing that "far right" is inherently not neutral even in cases where it's a mere uncontested description, as it is in the case of the Freedom Caucus. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is Should "far-right" be included as a faction ideology in the sidebar? The rest of your RFC statement is your argument for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, that's a fair read. I think I'm butting up against WP:BLUESKY here, personally. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is far right supposed to be neutral or non-neutral, many parties on Wikipedia have far right description as per the sources. Theofunny (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Johnson's recent re-election

[edit]

"In October 2023, a member of the Christian right faction, Louisiana representative Mike Johnson, was elected the 56th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives"

Can we add a small change after his recent re-election? That would improve it a bit. Jjbomb (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current Freedom Caucus leader is far-right

[edit]

Ideology is missing a Far-Right faction. The far right faction is strong in the Freedom Caucus.

Freedom Caucus leader endorses radical proposal for North Carolina to hand its electoral votes to Trump - POLITICO

Far-right congressman suggests N.C. Legislature should consider handing electors to Trump on Election Day

11 key lawmakers to watch in the new Congress

Andy Harris steers hard-line Freedom Caucus into the Trump era

Maryland Rep. Harris elected chair of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus

Theofunny (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RfC and discussion on this topic above. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)&oldid=1268408720"