This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom Caucus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The statement under ideology that this group is "anti-immigration" is insufficiently supported, in that the only footnote referenced is to a single Breitbart piece which notes the group acknowledged delaying the vote on an "immigration" bill. In my view, assuming this group is "anti-immigration" because they wish to delay a vote on one bill is completely unjustified without much more support. Given that this nation permits more legal immigration annually than the entire rest of the world combined, and given that, at least to my knowledge, no member of this group has introduced or co-sponsored any legislation to reduce the number of legal immigrants, such a suggestion is not justified at all. Furthermore, given that the administration refuses to enforce existing immigration law, passage of ANY bill regarding immigration would be an action which effectively cedes the power of the Congress to the administration, suggesting, as it does, that if the administration refuses to perform the duties of its branch it can force the Congress to pass such legislation as it wishes. Nowhere else in our country can anyone behave in such a manner and expect such a reaction from any branch of government. In point of fact, there is reason to believe that acceding to such a demand by the administration is tantamount to abandoning the Constitution and the structure of ordered liberty the founders established in this country in favor of a government not representative of the people at all. Indeed, why should anyone bother to vote if when their Congressmen arrive in Washington they are to be ordered what to do by the administration. Given that, the actions of this group seem to be the most conciliatory response possible, while still protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, at least nominally. In my view, the stance of this group can only be seen as minimal, given the level of unemployment of the existing citizenry, current wage rates for our citizenry, and the views of the public as expressed in election results where the issue has been discussed. 2001:5B0:29FF:2CF0:0:0:0:39 ( talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Under Ideology, the terms "Nativism" and "Anti-immigration" are misleading and unwarranted. There is no source to support these claims. I believe these two labels are being used as quasi slurs in this context to discredit the subject of the article, and thus are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.34.184 ( talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The freedom caucus is not anti immigration reform, they're for immigration enforcement. Billyjobob007 ( talk) 10:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Calling the politics of this caucus "far right" seems to be misleading at best and deliberately prejudiced at worst, especially since the first paragraph of the wiki on far right politics mentions the Nazis. This borders on reducto ad hitlerum. I propose it be removed or a more neural term chosen. Inspectorenjorlas ( talk) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Skip the political position in the infobox. This is done in the main article about the Republican party, and by the same logic that is used for that article, we should skip it here. Infoboxes and categories are for undisputed facts; not for muddy concepts and disputed labels. Iselilja ( talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
: You're making an assumption that's inconsistent with the reliable sources. "Far right" sometimes refers to fascist groups, sometimes it doesn't. As pointed out, multiple mainstream, reliable sources have come to the conclusion that the Freedom Caucus is "far right," regardless of whether it has any fascist associations. It's not for us to second-guess them. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans.
Which of those books do you think is not about fascism? And the books do mention the far right in the U.S., which is identified with the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazism and Christian Identity. While most of the books are primarily about Western Europe, two are primarily about the U.S. and The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right includes entries for the U.S. However, search for "far right" "united states" and the results are similar. There is no exceptional use of the term in the U.S. TFD ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Left/Right is an axis along an X-axis which lumps together measures of social and economic views. This group is certainly very far right along the axis as to their traditionally conservative social views but they are more libertarian-left on some economic outlooks, as in their view on crony capitalism, where they are against welfare for the largest corporations thus aligning them with Occupy Wall Streeters [3], who are very far left. See their fight against the export-import bank and it's preferences towards mega-corps while disadvantaging small businesses. If you average this leftist view into their overall outlook, I think they are not the furthest possible right group, nor are they economic fascists whose governments exerted greater than regulatory control over their economies. Fascist economies made profit private but socialized corporate losses. Extreme far-right groups would be those that support monopoly capitalism, exert control on corporations to work for state interests, increase military spending, isolate from free trade with other countries while maintaining socially conservative values. The Freedom Caucus has been trying to cap all spending, including the military budget, including the increase in this last deal, which is not a fascist economic attribute. The hawks that pushed for increased military spending are more fascist. The extreme-right label might very well be a polemic being pushed by lobbyists of these largest corporations into main stream media outlets.
External image | |
---|---|
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/10/FT_15.10.20_freedomCaucusDWNominate_640px.png |
Anyway, if you stick with the X-axis measure of conservative spectrum, Pew Research has identified their membership and plotted a chart that does place them on the far-right [4] 97.85.173.38 ( talk) 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts - Spending on a military does not make a person fascist. JFK ramped up military spending drastically, he was not a fascist. Fascism, is national socialism. Left and right on the modern political spectrum is based on economic ideology. They can be authoritarian or non authoritarian in outlook. Fascists are left wing economically, and authoritarian. As opposed to modern western socialists which share the same economic views of fascists, but are not authoritarians. The Freedom Caucus is not far right wing, far right wing would be true anarchists, (as opposed to anarcho syndicalists), libertarians and the like. Ron Paul is far to the right of the Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill with massive spending funding 1000s of government programs that will consume over 40% of the economy.~ John M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Should the article say that the Freedom Caucus is a "far-right" organization? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly thought my edit was
a 'real' motto; though I was close to thinking it was not. I knew it was a critic who was my source; and I knew it felt awkward-to-overly provocative to ... cite such a critic with his ... jokingly disrespectful may I call it? ... headline about 'crazies' .... But I really didn't think it was made up. I researched it. I found nothing direct. I found Dred Scott in 1859; and fights in the House over who would be Speaker that year; oh, no; ... maybe it was Dred Scott too ... but what I found for sure was John Brown (in 1859). The raid on the federal armory ... sounded just possible ... as a true 'freedom' rallying cry. (I also had to research and find that it had to be 'slogan' not 'motto' for the purposes of fitting into the
Template:Infobox political party fyi.) Anyway, the polite explanation for the reversion of my edit seemed, upon a moment's reflection just now, ... completely plausible and probably more plausible than all my previous thinking about it. It gave me, in the end, a good laugh. (These political matters can get SO serious ... these days.) Hope no umbrage here
User:Brianhe or others. Thanks.
Swliv (
talk) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Membership to the House Freedom Caucus is secret. Upon review, however, some members listed here are not necessarily confirmed as caucus members. I have removed Steve King of Iowa from the list after discovering multiple sources noting he was not a member. [1] [2]
On this same note, journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus. A link to a tweet from a journalist is barebones evidence for membership in this caucus. We should be much more careful in attributing membership, ideally relying on statements from members directly. With this being said, I think it would be wise of us to review whether or not Louie Gohmert (TX) should be listed as a member. He is often lumped in with the Freedom Caucus because he opposed Kevin McCarthy in the speakership race to replace Boehner, but it is not totally clear beyond the current citation whether he is a member or not. [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zm11 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The map needs to be updated for the 115th congress. Wyoming should now be shaded for a former rather than current member. 76.99.216.210 ( talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
New Jersey no longer has any members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.120.12 ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Virginia changes are needed, too. The 7th District should be excluded, Abigail Spanberger D is not in freedom caucus. Denver Riggelman in the 5th district is included. It looks like the outlines of Viringinia's congressional districts are outdated too, not sure if shading in 7th(?) district is actually for 1st district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evomellor ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction there is a sentence saying (sry, I'm no native speaker) :
'Is' it really ? Source '4' is over two years old.
Does a fellow wikipedian have younger / more detailled infos ? thanks in advance, -- Neun-x ( talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the opening description to say "libertarian and conservative," instead of just "conservative," because the RFC prominently includes Justin Amash, who is described by such widely varying Reliable Sources as Slate and the Wall Street Journal as a "libertarian congressman" (and Google finds many more examples). NCdave ( talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
16 Liberty Caucus member who are also Freedom Caucus members: Justin Amash of Michigan, Chair Dave Brat of Virginia Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma Ron DeSantis of Florida Jeff Duncan of South Carolina Louie Gohmert of Texas Paul Gosar of Arizona Morgan Griffith of Virginia Andrew P. Harris of Maryland Jim Jordan of Ohio Raul Labrador of Idaho Bill Posey of Florida Mark Meadows of North Carolina Mark Sanford of South Carolina David Schweikert of Arizona Ted Yoho of Florida Three Liberty Caucus members who are former Freedom Caucus members: Ted Poe of Texas Tom McClintock of California Reid Ribble of Wisconsin Nine Liberty Caucus members who have not been Freedom Caucus members: Michael C. Burgess of Texas Jason Chaffetz of Utah Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee Trey Gowdy of South Carolina Walter B. Jones, Jr. of North Carolina Thomas Massie of Kentucky Dana Rohrabacher of California Todd Rokita of Indiana Jason T. Smith of Missouri
I have no sources, but my TN representative (district 4) is clearly Alt-right. However, it seems also clear to me that the definitions of the term are maturing. Surprised to see the freedom caucus not already labeled as Alt-right. Not sure (in my mind) there is a greater core to the Alt-right movement than the freedom caucus, aside from media punditry. Certainly someone can find some facts/sources to cite that can make a direct correlation? Please, let's open up the conversation here... ev ( talk) 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's one. My representative Scott DesJarlais, has a pinned tweet that describes in <144 characters what the alt-right represents. Rep DesJarlais is also (not coincidentally) a member of the freedom caucus. Is this a case to make on this article? That members of the caucus are also members of the alt-right?? ev ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/desjarlaistn04/status/743491218814996481 ev ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You seem to intuitively agree, as would most rational readers, that this sect of the US House tends to be the Alt-right invasion of our government. I wonder, if citing sources that can validate the "leader" of the House Freedom Caucus allies with the "leader" of the Alt-right 'Movement' would in fact be sufficient to describe the organization itself. Neither group, Freedom Caucus or Alt-right Movement, have an outright leader, and assuming the people who are "front runners" for those positions (I won't name the because that would again validate them, but we know who they are). Seems key that drawing relationships between members of each that CLAIM to be heads can be easily traced to each other's ideological platforms, specifically that of xenophobia and Islamaphobia, nationalism, and an otherwise hateful-toned version of conservativism. I'd love your help, this is obviously something missing from the article, however I am a proven novice when it comes to authoring any edits to the article. I will search, as you said, but please assist. That goes for any other talkers here, either for or against the addition of Alt-right to the list of ideologies for the House Freedom Caucus. Perhaps some readers already have some sources? ev ( talk) 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/what-is-the-freedom-caucus/index.html
https://fee.org/articles/it-s-fake-news-to-call-the-freedom-caucus-the-rebellious-far-right/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/20/house-freedom-caucus-what-is-it-and-whos-in-it/
Just bookmarks ev ( talk) 22:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideology - Conservatism[1][2] - Libertarian conservatism[3][4] - Right-wing populism[5] - Social conservatism[6][7] - Libertarianism[2] - Alt-right ev ( talk) 02:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Conservatism
[2]
[3]
Libertarian conservatism
[4]
[5]
Right-wing populism
[6]
Social conservatism
[7]
[8]
Libertarianism
[3]
ev (
talk) 03:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Delays
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Defying
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Future
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Meets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Do we know where the group's funding comes from? It seems like all of these powerful Conservative groups have some wealthy shady backer. Ex: Fox News (Murdoch), Brietbart (Mercers), Project Veritas (Thiel), etc. -- Craigboy ( talk) 02:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The Freedom Caucus doesn't really seem to be populist. Many in the Freedom Caucus (such as Justin Amash) refused to endorse Donald Trump, the face of populism in the US. Moreover, the group has been extensively described as "libertarian" because many of the libertarian congressmen in the Liberty Caucus are also in the Freedom Caucus. Libertarianism tends to oppose many facets of populism, especially on the fronts of immigration, free trade, and welfare reform. The article doesn't really make a good case for describing the FC as populist when you look at the ideological makeup of its members. 174.86.4.210 ( talk) 01:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Dewythie, the sources use the term "far-right" to describe the caucus . If you take issue with that characterization, your objection is with the sources. Sources like the AP, for example, use this phrasing ( example AP story: "far-right House Freedom Caucus.") or similar phrasing ( Reuters: "an influential group of hard-right Republicans called the Freedom Caucus").
Contrary to your understanding, the term is not limited to the U.S. sources, either (not that this would be a proper argument for removal). See, e.g.: the Tornoto Star: "the far-right Freedom Caucus within the Republican party"; The Guardian: " "far-right conservatives"; "arch-conservatives"; The Guardian again: "Members of the far-right Freedom Caucus"). The same phrasing has been used by academic writers: Burdett A. Loomis & Wendy J. Schiller, The Contemporary Congress (7th ed. 2018), p. 218: "the far-right House Freedom Caucus"). Neutrality talk 21:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
While the old discussion from 2016 alone is not binding on what we do now, there seems to be a rough consensus for inclusion of far-right even in that discussion, where inclusion of the term is supported by strong policy-based arguments with sources by three editors, with one additional editor suggesting a similar wording with some qualification. Three editors write that they oppose it, but don't cite any sources or any policy-based arguments, but instead e.g. their own personal disagreement with sources. In this more recent discussion User:Neutrality also offers a strong policy-based argument for inclusion supported by sources. In sum, there is more support for inclusion of far-right than opposition to it, and when considering the weight of the arguments, there seems to be a rough consensus for it. In similar articles, where there are different views on whether a party is far-right, right-wing populist or conservative, we include all the widely used terms. For example, we describe Alternative for Germany (which is far more moderate than the Freedom Caucus and the Trumpists) as both "right-wing populist" and "often characterized as being on the far-right of the political spectrum." It has been demonstrated clearly here on the talk page that the Freedom Caucus is often characterized as far-right. The appropriate thing to do here is to mention that the Freedom Caucus views itself as conservative (in the US sense) and that they are often characterized as far-right. The article as it now stands, which portrays them as undisputedly conservative and nothing else in Wikipedia's voice, is basically propaganda. There is also no consensus of any sort for describing them as "conservative". -- Tataral ( talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Congressman Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus relies on a February 2018 story in Newsweek by Graham Lanktree.
In a piece published in The Hill more recently on September 5, 2018 (Conservatives blame McCarthy for Twitter getting before favorable committee), Melanie Zanona and Scott Wong state that "Gaetz, who is not a Freedom Caucus member, said that when he complained to McCarthy, the leader told him he should trust the members of the other panel." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/405228-conservatives-blame-mccarthy-for-twitter-getting-before-favorable-committee
These two sources contradict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Questions ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) 9Questions ( talk) 20:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Updates? Tinybirdie ( talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The map seems way out of date, with McClintock, Huelskamp and Lummis long gone, also, Brat, Blum, etc, and Amash more recently. Anyone up for fixing this? Iowa, California, Kansas, Wyoming, Michigan, etc., are currently Freedom Caucus-free. Activist ( talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
A new "Future members" section lists nine house members-elect who will supposedly join the caucus after they are sworn into office, citing https://www.housefreedomfund.com/ as a source. The source identifies these members as those whom the caucus has granted "endorsements", not those who will necessarily join the caucus. In fact, the source description for Barry Moore (Alabama politician), the first such 'future' member-elect listed here, includes " He is the only proven conservative candidate who will join the House Freedom Caucus next year." Is there agreement to trim the future list accordingly? — ADavidB 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: mention of the Freedom Caucus's position on regulations intended to minimize the spread of Covid-19 (such as stay-at-home orders or mask mandates). 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems that any attempt to list the political position of the caucus as "Right-wing to Far-right" is being reversed because of consensus, which i understand, due to the fact that on the page of the main national branch of the Republican party, the consensus is to not put a political position, due to the ambiguity and factions within the party. (I am also aware of a previous talk post on this page about this issue, but the most recent consensus there seems to be to include "Far-right" as a descriptor.) However, there are clearly Far-right members of the Freedom Caucus, on Marjorie Taylor Greene's (who is a member of the Freedom Caucus) page, she's described as a "Far-right conspiracy theorist", this is evidence alone that there is at least one Far-right member of the caucus. This is backed up further by multiple sources who describe it as a "Far-right caucus". For these reasons, i feel that the political position should be "Right-wing to Far-right". Galaxy1011 ( talk) 03:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I agree. We aren't giving the full information of the caucus. Zman19964 ( Zman19964 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. There is no consensus against mentioning far-right that I'm aware of. On the contrary the rough consensus is to mention far-right. The infobox is simply a summary of the article. The Freedom Caucus is not the Republican Party, and whether the entire Republican Party should be described as far-right or something else is a separate discussion. -- Tataral ( talk) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the caucus as a whole consists of the most "far" of the right-wing Republican party, which means "far-right", just as RS describe it. We have "It is generally considered to be the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference." if the "most conservative" isn't far-right, then words have lost their meaning. There is apparently some ancient consensus not to accurately describe the caucus, but consensus can change. Of course, we should follow RS. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It is generally considered to be the most conservative and furthest-right bloc within the House Republican Conference" – this was present for years, although the "furthest-right" part was recently removed. A new RfC will definitely have to take place. Vacant0 ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Toa Nidhiki05, so why won't you allow mention in the box? We should harmonize it with the RS and lead. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There are usually organized around a particular interest, such as the Democratic black and Hispanic caucuses, or around an ideological orientation, such as the Democratic Study Group, representing liberal causes, or the conservative Republican Tea Party Caucus later effectively replaced by the far right Freedom Caucus.
Simply by threatening to withhold votes for Ryan's hand-picked successor, the far right Freedom Caucus gained unprecedented leverage.
These far right Freedom Caucus member had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership...
Behind the scenes, Faso was "a moderate voice in the contentious effort (among Republicans) to bring the far-right Freedom Caucus on board with 'repeal and replace'".
Miller, who was elected to Congress in 2020, is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus...
Buck, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus...
The New York Times named names Wednesday night, calling out a half-dozen members of the far-right Freedom Caucus who worked closely with Trump in his attempt to reverse the election's results.
Ryan's American Health Care Act, however, did not go far enough for the far-right Freedom Caucus, and a majority of its members were unwilling to budge.
In the House, the far-right Freedom Caucus would vote only for an Obamacare repeal bill that their moderate colleagues refused to support.Vacant0 ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Adavidb, you need to join this conversation before making edits like this, and edit summaries like this: "furthest right among GOP blocs is not the same thing as far right politics in general." Members of the Freedom Caucus are further right than the general GOP right-wing public and other people right-wing in Congress, ergo they are "far-right", and that's evident from their practices, statements, and allies. RS tell us this. They are not merely or just "right-wing". No, they are beyond that/further to the right than that. What other option is there? Please self-revert. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The "far-right" label is inaccurately applied to numerous people, and I don't see Wikipedia labeling the Squad as "far-left" because they are clearly the "furthest left" of the Democrats' House Delegation. There should not be a blanket label applied to the freedom caucus of "far-right". All it does is diminish the actual far-right that exists in America. Bill Williams 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The Freedom Caucus has a PAC (the House Freedom Fund). Money from the PAC is used to support campaigns of current and prospective members of congress whom the Freedom Caucus endorses. Some editors are using sources that show PAC support as if they are equally sources that show caucus membership. The Freedom Caucus can certainly endorse a candidate for election (or reelection), including by providing funds from their PAC, without that candidate being or becoming a member of the caucus. An example case is Fred Keller (politician), who is identified as a "current member". The provided source only identifies him as receiving endorsement from the caucus/PAC – actually it only notes his election results. Support from the caucus does not mean one is/was or will be necessarily a member of it. I've yet to find a source that actually ID's Keller as a Freedom Caucus member. Are others in agreement that support does not equal membership? — ADavidB 02:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The red-area-indicator Freedom Caucus membership map for the 117th Congress appears to be incorrect per Scott Perry's "(PA-10)" District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.154.149 ( talk) 22:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Bob Good, a well known member on the Freedom Caucus, is listed as a member but does not have his district shaded accordingly. Please shade VA-05 red (Good’s district). Dashing24 ( talk) 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the Trumpism category should be added to this article. All members of Freedom Caucus are Trump supporters, and they are clear right-wing populists, so I don't see any reason to separate Trumpism and Freedom Caucus.
Although there are significant differences between the Tea Party and the Trumpists, I believe that categories related to the subject should also be flexible. Mureungdowon ( talk) 13:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Should not be mentioned in the infobox or in the lead, but I was reverted by someone acting against consensus. Previous discussions have shown there is no agreement to put the contentious label at the beginning of the article. Bill Williams 05:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
Source: Alexander Crane, Communications Director, Office of Congressman Gregory F. Murphy Alxcrn ( talk) 18:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe there needs to be a substantial rewrite of the section, but because it's widely reported that the U.S. government may shutdown, this could be considered a current event or at least in flux and I would wait for further developments, and not begin to seek consensus on a rewrite for now.
I think the level of detail could be reduced, because either the crisis will be resolved or it will be part of an article on a 2023 government shutdown should a shutdown occur. The Freedom Caucus will likely play a role in whether a shutdown occurs and how long it lasts, and such details could be added to this page similar to how the Freedom Caucus was involved in the 2023 debt ceiling crisis.
For context, Kevin McCarthy lost two votes on advancing military spending bills last week due to 5 Republicans, most of whom also voted against him for Speaker initially, refused to vote for authorizing rules to debate them. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ronny Jackson is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. He has never stated his membership. 2601:5CC:C701:3DB0:FDE6:3FB1:FB8C:F54F ( talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Rep. Ronny Jackson (TX-13) from the member list of house freedom caucus members. Rep. Ronny Jacksonis NOT a member of the house freedom caucus. He never has been. Please remove him from the list of current members.
Kate Lair Lairkate ( talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Gaetz is not in the Freedom Caucus. This page says Rep. Matt Gaetz is in the Freedom Caucus. He has said himself he is not in it. See here from Twitter, "I’m not a member of the freedom caucus. Never have been. Try again."
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1701266299240824867
Also here in May, " I’m not a member of the freedom caucus"
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1663598846662918144
Also January, "I’m not a member of the Freedom Caucus"
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1610672857721507842 Editingthispage122 ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Notably, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, though often associated with the caucus, is not a member, his office confirms.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is not a Freedom Caucus member but frequently works with them,(the source in the article)
and while he’s not in the House Freedom Caucus,
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) – who, despite being vocally pro-Trump, is also not a member of the Freedom Caucus
Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is interested in many of the rules changes it is promoting.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, an unabashed McCarthy critic who is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is closely aligned with the group,
[...] Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who is not in the Freedom Caucus.
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. He is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
[..] an erroneous reference to Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus. Gaetz is not a member of the group.
This article has been corrected to clarify that Rep. Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Congressman Greg Murphy of North Carolina is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. 2600:1003:A011:6C3F:2573:25BB:A397:F23 ( talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Why is Matt Gaetz still listed as a member? There was a big discussion recently (see above discussion on this talk page), and he was removed from the article as of October 2023. The only reference cited is from 2018, and it doesn't even claim he's a bona fide member, it says he's "close" to the Freedom Caucus: "There's Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a freshman who is close to the Freedom Caucus." Please fix. Warren Platts ( talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft, Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks! Esolo5002 ( talk) 19:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom Caucus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The statement under ideology that this group is "anti-immigration" is insufficiently supported, in that the only footnote referenced is to a single Breitbart piece which notes the group acknowledged delaying the vote on an "immigration" bill. In my view, assuming this group is "anti-immigration" because they wish to delay a vote on one bill is completely unjustified without much more support. Given that this nation permits more legal immigration annually than the entire rest of the world combined, and given that, at least to my knowledge, no member of this group has introduced or co-sponsored any legislation to reduce the number of legal immigrants, such a suggestion is not justified at all. Furthermore, given that the administration refuses to enforce existing immigration law, passage of ANY bill regarding immigration would be an action which effectively cedes the power of the Congress to the administration, suggesting, as it does, that if the administration refuses to perform the duties of its branch it can force the Congress to pass such legislation as it wishes. Nowhere else in our country can anyone behave in such a manner and expect such a reaction from any branch of government. In point of fact, there is reason to believe that acceding to such a demand by the administration is tantamount to abandoning the Constitution and the structure of ordered liberty the founders established in this country in favor of a government not representative of the people at all. Indeed, why should anyone bother to vote if when their Congressmen arrive in Washington they are to be ordered what to do by the administration. Given that, the actions of this group seem to be the most conciliatory response possible, while still protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, at least nominally. In my view, the stance of this group can only be seen as minimal, given the level of unemployment of the existing citizenry, current wage rates for our citizenry, and the views of the public as expressed in election results where the issue has been discussed. 2001:5B0:29FF:2CF0:0:0:0:39 ( talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Under Ideology, the terms "Nativism" and "Anti-immigration" are misleading and unwarranted. There is no source to support these claims. I believe these two labels are being used as quasi slurs in this context to discredit the subject of the article, and thus are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.34.184 ( talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The freedom caucus is not anti immigration reform, they're for immigration enforcement. Billyjobob007 ( talk) 10:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Calling the politics of this caucus "far right" seems to be misleading at best and deliberately prejudiced at worst, especially since the first paragraph of the wiki on far right politics mentions the Nazis. This borders on reducto ad hitlerum. I propose it be removed or a more neural term chosen. Inspectorenjorlas ( talk) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Skip the political position in the infobox. This is done in the main article about the Republican party, and by the same logic that is used for that article, we should skip it here. Infoboxes and categories are for undisputed facts; not for muddy concepts and disputed labels. Iselilja ( talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
: You're making an assumption that's inconsistent with the reliable sources. "Far right" sometimes refers to fascist groups, sometimes it doesn't. As pointed out, multiple mainstream, reliable sources have come to the conclusion that the Freedom Caucus is "far right," regardless of whether it has any fascist associations. It's not for us to second-guess them. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans.
Which of those books do you think is not about fascism? And the books do mention the far right in the U.S., which is identified with the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazism and Christian Identity. While most of the books are primarily about Western Europe, two are primarily about the U.S. and The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right includes entries for the U.S. However, search for "far right" "united states" and the results are similar. There is no exceptional use of the term in the U.S. TFD ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Left/Right is an axis along an X-axis which lumps together measures of social and economic views. This group is certainly very far right along the axis as to their traditionally conservative social views but they are more libertarian-left on some economic outlooks, as in their view on crony capitalism, where they are against welfare for the largest corporations thus aligning them with Occupy Wall Streeters [3], who are very far left. See their fight against the export-import bank and it's preferences towards mega-corps while disadvantaging small businesses. If you average this leftist view into their overall outlook, I think they are not the furthest possible right group, nor are they economic fascists whose governments exerted greater than regulatory control over their economies. Fascist economies made profit private but socialized corporate losses. Extreme far-right groups would be those that support monopoly capitalism, exert control on corporations to work for state interests, increase military spending, isolate from free trade with other countries while maintaining socially conservative values. The Freedom Caucus has been trying to cap all spending, including the military budget, including the increase in this last deal, which is not a fascist economic attribute. The hawks that pushed for increased military spending are more fascist. The extreme-right label might very well be a polemic being pushed by lobbyists of these largest corporations into main stream media outlets.
External image | |
---|---|
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/10/FT_15.10.20_freedomCaucusDWNominate_640px.png |
Anyway, if you stick with the X-axis measure of conservative spectrum, Pew Research has identified their membership and plotted a chart that does place them on the far-right [4] 97.85.173.38 ( talk) 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts - Spending on a military does not make a person fascist. JFK ramped up military spending drastically, he was not a fascist. Fascism, is national socialism. Left and right on the modern political spectrum is based on economic ideology. They can be authoritarian or non authoritarian in outlook. Fascists are left wing economically, and authoritarian. As opposed to modern western socialists which share the same economic views of fascists, but are not authoritarians. The Freedom Caucus is not far right wing, far right wing would be true anarchists, (as opposed to anarcho syndicalists), libertarians and the like. Ron Paul is far to the right of the Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill with massive spending funding 1000s of government programs that will consume over 40% of the economy.~ John M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Should the article say that the Freedom Caucus is a "far-right" organization? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly thought my edit was
a 'real' motto; though I was close to thinking it was not. I knew it was a critic who was my source; and I knew it felt awkward-to-overly provocative to ... cite such a critic with his ... jokingly disrespectful may I call it? ... headline about 'crazies' .... But I really didn't think it was made up. I researched it. I found nothing direct. I found Dred Scott in 1859; and fights in the House over who would be Speaker that year; oh, no; ... maybe it was Dred Scott too ... but what I found for sure was John Brown (in 1859). The raid on the federal armory ... sounded just possible ... as a true 'freedom' rallying cry. (I also had to research and find that it had to be 'slogan' not 'motto' for the purposes of fitting into the
Template:Infobox political party fyi.) Anyway, the polite explanation for the reversion of my edit seemed, upon a moment's reflection just now, ... completely plausible and probably more plausible than all my previous thinking about it. It gave me, in the end, a good laugh. (These political matters can get SO serious ... these days.) Hope no umbrage here
User:Brianhe or others. Thanks.
Swliv (
talk) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Membership to the House Freedom Caucus is secret. Upon review, however, some members listed here are not necessarily confirmed as caucus members. I have removed Steve King of Iowa from the list after discovering multiple sources noting he was not a member. [1] [2]
On this same note, journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus. A link to a tweet from a journalist is barebones evidence for membership in this caucus. We should be much more careful in attributing membership, ideally relying on statements from members directly. With this being said, I think it would be wise of us to review whether or not Louie Gohmert (TX) should be listed as a member. He is often lumped in with the Freedom Caucus because he opposed Kevin McCarthy in the speakership race to replace Boehner, but it is not totally clear beyond the current citation whether he is a member or not. [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zm11 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The map needs to be updated for the 115th congress. Wyoming should now be shaded for a former rather than current member. 76.99.216.210 ( talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
New Jersey no longer has any members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.120.12 ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Virginia changes are needed, too. The 7th District should be excluded, Abigail Spanberger D is not in freedom caucus. Denver Riggelman in the 5th district is included. It looks like the outlines of Viringinia's congressional districts are outdated too, not sure if shading in 7th(?) district is actually for 1st district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evomellor ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In the introduction there is a sentence saying (sry, I'm no native speaker) :
'Is' it really ? Source '4' is over two years old.
Does a fellow wikipedian have younger / more detailled infos ? thanks in advance, -- Neun-x ( talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the opening description to say "libertarian and conservative," instead of just "conservative," because the RFC prominently includes Justin Amash, who is described by such widely varying Reliable Sources as Slate and the Wall Street Journal as a "libertarian congressman" (and Google finds many more examples). NCdave ( talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
16 Liberty Caucus member who are also Freedom Caucus members: Justin Amash of Michigan, Chair Dave Brat of Virginia Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma Ron DeSantis of Florida Jeff Duncan of South Carolina Louie Gohmert of Texas Paul Gosar of Arizona Morgan Griffith of Virginia Andrew P. Harris of Maryland Jim Jordan of Ohio Raul Labrador of Idaho Bill Posey of Florida Mark Meadows of North Carolina Mark Sanford of South Carolina David Schweikert of Arizona Ted Yoho of Florida Three Liberty Caucus members who are former Freedom Caucus members: Ted Poe of Texas Tom McClintock of California Reid Ribble of Wisconsin Nine Liberty Caucus members who have not been Freedom Caucus members: Michael C. Burgess of Texas Jason Chaffetz of Utah Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee Trey Gowdy of South Carolina Walter B. Jones, Jr. of North Carolina Thomas Massie of Kentucky Dana Rohrabacher of California Todd Rokita of Indiana Jason T. Smith of Missouri
I have no sources, but my TN representative (district 4) is clearly Alt-right. However, it seems also clear to me that the definitions of the term are maturing. Surprised to see the freedom caucus not already labeled as Alt-right. Not sure (in my mind) there is a greater core to the Alt-right movement than the freedom caucus, aside from media punditry. Certainly someone can find some facts/sources to cite that can make a direct correlation? Please, let's open up the conversation here... ev ( talk) 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's one. My representative Scott DesJarlais, has a pinned tweet that describes in <144 characters what the alt-right represents. Rep DesJarlais is also (not coincidentally) a member of the freedom caucus. Is this a case to make on this article? That members of the caucus are also members of the alt-right?? ev ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/desjarlaistn04/status/743491218814996481 ev ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You seem to intuitively agree, as would most rational readers, that this sect of the US House tends to be the Alt-right invasion of our government. I wonder, if citing sources that can validate the "leader" of the House Freedom Caucus allies with the "leader" of the Alt-right 'Movement' would in fact be sufficient to describe the organization itself. Neither group, Freedom Caucus or Alt-right Movement, have an outright leader, and assuming the people who are "front runners" for those positions (I won't name the because that would again validate them, but we know who they are). Seems key that drawing relationships between members of each that CLAIM to be heads can be easily traced to each other's ideological platforms, specifically that of xenophobia and Islamaphobia, nationalism, and an otherwise hateful-toned version of conservativism. I'd love your help, this is obviously something missing from the article, however I am a proven novice when it comes to authoring any edits to the article. I will search, as you said, but please assist. That goes for any other talkers here, either for or against the addition of Alt-right to the list of ideologies for the House Freedom Caucus. Perhaps some readers already have some sources? ev ( talk) 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/what-is-the-freedom-caucus/index.html
https://fee.org/articles/it-s-fake-news-to-call-the-freedom-caucus-the-rebellious-far-right/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/20/house-freedom-caucus-what-is-it-and-whos-in-it/
Just bookmarks ev ( talk) 22:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Ideology - Conservatism[1][2] - Libertarian conservatism[3][4] - Right-wing populism[5] - Social conservatism[6][7] - Libertarianism[2] - Alt-right ev ( talk) 02:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Conservatism
[2]
[3]
Libertarian conservatism
[4]
[5]
Right-wing populism
[6]
Social conservatism
[7]
[8]
Libertarianism
[3]
ev (
talk) 03:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Delays
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Defying
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Future
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Meets
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Do we know where the group's funding comes from? It seems like all of these powerful Conservative groups have some wealthy shady backer. Ex: Fox News (Murdoch), Brietbart (Mercers), Project Veritas (Thiel), etc. -- Craigboy ( talk) 02:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The Freedom Caucus doesn't really seem to be populist. Many in the Freedom Caucus (such as Justin Amash) refused to endorse Donald Trump, the face of populism in the US. Moreover, the group has been extensively described as "libertarian" because many of the libertarian congressmen in the Liberty Caucus are also in the Freedom Caucus. Libertarianism tends to oppose many facets of populism, especially on the fronts of immigration, free trade, and welfare reform. The article doesn't really make a good case for describing the FC as populist when you look at the ideological makeup of its members. 174.86.4.210 ( talk) 01:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Dewythie, the sources use the term "far-right" to describe the caucus . If you take issue with that characterization, your objection is with the sources. Sources like the AP, for example, use this phrasing ( example AP story: "far-right House Freedom Caucus.") or similar phrasing ( Reuters: "an influential group of hard-right Republicans called the Freedom Caucus").
Contrary to your understanding, the term is not limited to the U.S. sources, either (not that this would be a proper argument for removal). See, e.g.: the Tornoto Star: "the far-right Freedom Caucus within the Republican party"; The Guardian: " "far-right conservatives"; "arch-conservatives"; The Guardian again: "Members of the far-right Freedom Caucus"). The same phrasing has been used by academic writers: Burdett A. Loomis & Wendy J. Schiller, The Contemporary Congress (7th ed. 2018), p. 218: "the far-right House Freedom Caucus"). Neutrality talk 21:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
While the old discussion from 2016 alone is not binding on what we do now, there seems to be a rough consensus for inclusion of far-right even in that discussion, where inclusion of the term is supported by strong policy-based arguments with sources by three editors, with one additional editor suggesting a similar wording with some qualification. Three editors write that they oppose it, but don't cite any sources or any policy-based arguments, but instead e.g. their own personal disagreement with sources. In this more recent discussion User:Neutrality also offers a strong policy-based argument for inclusion supported by sources. In sum, there is more support for inclusion of far-right than opposition to it, and when considering the weight of the arguments, there seems to be a rough consensus for it. In similar articles, where there are different views on whether a party is far-right, right-wing populist or conservative, we include all the widely used terms. For example, we describe Alternative for Germany (which is far more moderate than the Freedom Caucus and the Trumpists) as both "right-wing populist" and "often characterized as being on the far-right of the political spectrum." It has been demonstrated clearly here on the talk page that the Freedom Caucus is often characterized as far-right. The appropriate thing to do here is to mention that the Freedom Caucus views itself as conservative (in the US sense) and that they are often characterized as far-right. The article as it now stands, which portrays them as undisputedly conservative and nothing else in Wikipedia's voice, is basically propaganda. There is also no consensus of any sort for describing them as "conservative". -- Tataral ( talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Congressman Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus relies on a February 2018 story in Newsweek by Graham Lanktree.
In a piece published in The Hill more recently on September 5, 2018 (Conservatives blame McCarthy for Twitter getting before favorable committee), Melanie Zanona and Scott Wong state that "Gaetz, who is not a Freedom Caucus member, said that when he complained to McCarthy, the leader told him he should trust the members of the other panel." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/405228-conservatives-blame-mccarthy-for-twitter-getting-before-favorable-committee
These two sources contradict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Questions ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) 9Questions ( talk) 20:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Updates? Tinybirdie ( talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The map seems way out of date, with McClintock, Huelskamp and Lummis long gone, also, Brat, Blum, etc, and Amash more recently. Anyone up for fixing this? Iowa, California, Kansas, Wyoming, Michigan, etc., are currently Freedom Caucus-free. Activist ( talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
A new "Future members" section lists nine house members-elect who will supposedly join the caucus after they are sworn into office, citing https://www.housefreedomfund.com/ as a source. The source identifies these members as those whom the caucus has granted "endorsements", not those who will necessarily join the caucus. In fact, the source description for Barry Moore (Alabama politician), the first such 'future' member-elect listed here, includes " He is the only proven conservative candidate who will join the House Freedom Caucus next year." Is there agreement to trim the future list accordingly? — ADavidB 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: mention of the Freedom Caucus's position on regulations intended to minimize the spread of Covid-19 (such as stay-at-home orders or mask mandates). 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems that any attempt to list the political position of the caucus as "Right-wing to Far-right" is being reversed because of consensus, which i understand, due to the fact that on the page of the main national branch of the Republican party, the consensus is to not put a political position, due to the ambiguity and factions within the party. (I am also aware of a previous talk post on this page about this issue, but the most recent consensus there seems to be to include "Far-right" as a descriptor.) However, there are clearly Far-right members of the Freedom Caucus, on Marjorie Taylor Greene's (who is a member of the Freedom Caucus) page, she's described as a "Far-right conspiracy theorist", this is evidence alone that there is at least one Far-right member of the caucus. This is backed up further by multiple sources who describe it as a "Far-right caucus". For these reasons, i feel that the political position should be "Right-wing to Far-right". Galaxy1011 ( talk) 03:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I agree. We aren't giving the full information of the caucus. Zman19964 ( Zman19964 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. There is no consensus against mentioning far-right that I'm aware of. On the contrary the rough consensus is to mention far-right. The infobox is simply a summary of the article. The Freedom Caucus is not the Republican Party, and whether the entire Republican Party should be described as far-right or something else is a separate discussion. -- Tataral ( talk) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the caucus as a whole consists of the most "far" of the right-wing Republican party, which means "far-right", just as RS describe it. We have "It is generally considered to be the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference." if the "most conservative" isn't far-right, then words have lost their meaning. There is apparently some ancient consensus not to accurately describe the caucus, but consensus can change. Of course, we should follow RS. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It is generally considered to be the most conservative and furthest-right bloc within the House Republican Conference" – this was present for years, although the "furthest-right" part was recently removed. A new RfC will definitely have to take place. Vacant0 ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Toa Nidhiki05, so why won't you allow mention in the box? We should harmonize it with the RS and lead. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There are usually organized around a particular interest, such as the Democratic black and Hispanic caucuses, or around an ideological orientation, such as the Democratic Study Group, representing liberal causes, or the conservative Republican Tea Party Caucus later effectively replaced by the far right Freedom Caucus.
Simply by threatening to withhold votes for Ryan's hand-picked successor, the far right Freedom Caucus gained unprecedented leverage.
These far right Freedom Caucus member had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership...
Behind the scenes, Faso was "a moderate voice in the contentious effort (among Republicans) to bring the far-right Freedom Caucus on board with 'repeal and replace'".
Miller, who was elected to Congress in 2020, is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus...
Buck, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus...
The New York Times named names Wednesday night, calling out a half-dozen members of the far-right Freedom Caucus who worked closely with Trump in his attempt to reverse the election's results.
Ryan's American Health Care Act, however, did not go far enough for the far-right Freedom Caucus, and a majority of its members were unwilling to budge.
In the House, the far-right Freedom Caucus would vote only for an Obamacare repeal bill that their moderate colleagues refused to support.Vacant0 ( talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Adavidb, you need to join this conversation before making edits like this, and edit summaries like this: "furthest right among GOP blocs is not the same thing as far right politics in general." Members of the Freedom Caucus are further right than the general GOP right-wing public and other people right-wing in Congress, ergo they are "far-right", and that's evident from their practices, statements, and allies. RS tell us this. They are not merely or just "right-wing". No, they are beyond that/further to the right than that. What other option is there? Please self-revert. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The "far-right" label is inaccurately applied to numerous people, and I don't see Wikipedia labeling the Squad as "far-left" because they are clearly the "furthest left" of the Democrats' House Delegation. There should not be a blanket label applied to the freedom caucus of "far-right". All it does is diminish the actual far-right that exists in America. Bill Williams 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The Freedom Caucus has a PAC (the House Freedom Fund). Money from the PAC is used to support campaigns of current and prospective members of congress whom the Freedom Caucus endorses. Some editors are using sources that show PAC support as if they are equally sources that show caucus membership. The Freedom Caucus can certainly endorse a candidate for election (or reelection), including by providing funds from their PAC, without that candidate being or becoming a member of the caucus. An example case is Fred Keller (politician), who is identified as a "current member". The provided source only identifies him as receiving endorsement from the caucus/PAC – actually it only notes his election results. Support from the caucus does not mean one is/was or will be necessarily a member of it. I've yet to find a source that actually ID's Keller as a Freedom Caucus member. Are others in agreement that support does not equal membership? — ADavidB 02:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The red-area-indicator Freedom Caucus membership map for the 117th Congress appears to be incorrect per Scott Perry's "(PA-10)" District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.154.149 ( talk) 22:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Bob Good, a well known member on the Freedom Caucus, is listed as a member but does not have his district shaded accordingly. Please shade VA-05 red (Good’s district). Dashing24 ( talk) 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the Trumpism category should be added to this article. All members of Freedom Caucus are Trump supporters, and they are clear right-wing populists, so I don't see any reason to separate Trumpism and Freedom Caucus.
Although there are significant differences between the Tea Party and the Trumpists, I believe that categories related to the subject should also be flexible. Mureungdowon ( talk) 13:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Should not be mentioned in the infobox or in the lead, but I was reverted by someone acting against consensus. Previous discussions have shown there is no agreement to put the contentious label at the beginning of the article. Bill Williams 05:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
Source: Alexander Crane, Communications Director, Office of Congressman Gregory F. Murphy Alxcrn ( talk) 18:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe there needs to be a substantial rewrite of the section, but because it's widely reported that the U.S. government may shutdown, this could be considered a current event or at least in flux and I would wait for further developments, and not begin to seek consensus on a rewrite for now.
I think the level of detail could be reduced, because either the crisis will be resolved or it will be part of an article on a 2023 government shutdown should a shutdown occur. The Freedom Caucus will likely play a role in whether a shutdown occurs and how long it lasts, and such details could be added to this page similar to how the Freedom Caucus was involved in the 2023 debt ceiling crisis.
For context, Kevin McCarthy lost two votes on advancing military spending bills last week due to 5 Republicans, most of whom also voted against him for Speaker initially, refused to vote for authorizing rules to debate them. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ronny Jackson is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. He has never stated his membership. 2601:5CC:C701:3DB0:FDE6:3FB1:FB8C:F54F ( talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Rep. Ronny Jackson (TX-13) from the member list of house freedom caucus members. Rep. Ronny Jacksonis NOT a member of the house freedom caucus. He never has been. Please remove him from the list of current members.
Kate Lair Lairkate ( talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Gaetz is not in the Freedom Caucus. This page says Rep. Matt Gaetz is in the Freedom Caucus. He has said himself he is not in it. See here from Twitter, "I’m not a member of the freedom caucus. Never have been. Try again."
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1701266299240824867
Also here in May, " I’m not a member of the freedom caucus"
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1663598846662918144
Also January, "I’m not a member of the Freedom Caucus"
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1610672857721507842 Editingthispage122 ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Notably, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, though often associated with the caucus, is not a member, his office confirms.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is not a Freedom Caucus member but frequently works with them,(the source in the article)
and while he’s not in the House Freedom Caucus,
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) – who, despite being vocally pro-Trump, is also not a member of the Freedom Caucus
Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is interested in many of the rules changes it is promoting.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, an unabashed McCarthy critic who is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is closely aligned with the group,
[...] Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who is not in the Freedom Caucus.
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. He is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
[..] an erroneous reference to Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus. Gaetz is not a member of the group.
This article has been corrected to clarify that Rep. Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Congressman Greg Murphy of North Carolina is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. 2600:1003:A011:6C3F:2573:25BB:A397:F23 ( talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Why is Matt Gaetz still listed as a member? There was a big discussion recently (see above discussion on this talk page), and he was removed from the article as of October 2023. The only reference cited is from 2018, and it doesn't even claim he's a bona fide member, it says he's "close" to the Freedom Caucus: "There's Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a freshman who is close to the Freedom Caucus." Please fix. Warren Platts ( talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft, Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks! Esolo5002 ( talk) 19:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)