![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This is completely unsubstantiated, and misinforms readers as to where the Republican Party stands on drugs. Also, the article does not need to specifically mention the few Republicans who hold pro-legalization viewpoints. This should be reverted ASAP. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
it's an example of where social attitudes of the Republican Party at large have been evolving in recent years, so we can't include anything that even implies it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This section is starting to concern me with issues of WEIGHT and CRYSTAL. For a party that has been (for decades) rabidly opposed to drugs, we now spend the vast majority of the drug section talking about a small group that wants legalization. That's out of whack IMHO. The compromise version we had (by Snoog) a few days ago seems to be the best [2]. Originally I was gratified that another editor elaborated on which Republicans want legalization.....but I think the version above is a good resolution. If this does turn into a RFC, there may be a problem in that there could be 3 different versions to vote on. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Two editors have forced content into this Wikipedia page on an "analysis" provided by Matt Gaetz, a fringe conspiracy theorist who is known for peddling falsehoods and nonsense, about the GOP's position on drugs. Gaetz is not an expert on the topic. In fact, he is decidedly unreliable on the topic given his propensity for lying, as well as motives to make his fringe position seem more popular in the party (e.g. the notion that his position will eventually win out). The content is question is mindless speculation. It is on the kind of content which historians and political scientists are equipped to answer and substantiate: a policy shift over time, as well as the demographics for a policy position. It is absurd to include Gaetz's drivel on the topic. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Earlier today, the House voted to pass a marijuana legalization bill. All but five Republicans opposed it. [3] This gets to the crux of why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are forbidden. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD TO Democracy section of the pag:
Seventeen states attorney generals and 106 (over half their members) Republican House members, including the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy supported the case brought forth by the state of Texas to nullify the certified results of other states, and therefore deny Joe Biden the required electoral votes to secure the election, despite having won the election legally and transparently according to all state electoral authorities.
ALSO ADD:
Many political scientists around the world consider the GOP a far-right party, or at least illiberal. American conservative thinkers and writers have even noticed this sharp departure in the GOP from normal democratic norms. SojournerUSA ( talk) 23:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
With the rise of Trumpism within the Republican Party, it seems that the party has become overwhelmingly a right-wing populist party, rather than a conservative party. I propose moving 'right-wing populism' from the 'factions' category into the 'majority' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
, per no synthesis, we cannot make a determination on our own. I would say however that your source says that political parties use populist rhetoric opportunistically. Please compare Trump with Viktor Orbán, PM of Hungary. He re-wrote the constitution, cancelled elections, built a real wall, outlawed "fake news" and forced minorities to flee. Trump OTOH is just talk. TFD ( talk) 03:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Please add the following to the lead:
"Although nominally still a pro-democratic party, after losing the 2020 election the majority of Republican Congressmen supported ending the United States' 300-year tradition of democratic elections, overturning the election which Trump lost by nearly 10 million votes, and installing Trump as a de-facto dictator for life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose the Republican Party being put as "Right-wing" for its political position. This is where the Republican Study Committee, which is 147 of 198 House Republicans, is put. It also is where the Freedom Caucus (37 members) and the Liberty Caucus (8 members) are put as well. JoeSmoe2828 ( talk) 08:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the label right-wing authoritarianism would be appropriate to describe their ideology - short of National Socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D473:1700:98B5:514B:80B3:8668 ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Are they short of national socialist though?? We’ve seen they supported Trump building concentration camps where immigrants were tortured on American soil (yes, separating young children from their parents is tortute by any reasonable definition) and now seek to keep their fuhrer in power by ending America’s 300-year tradition of democratic elections and declaring martial law and simply magically “finding” votes for Trump that don’t exist. I could continue if you’d like. I do not think there’s a political party anywhere in the world right now that’s ideologically closer to that of the German National Socialist Party of 1933 than the 2021 Republican Party. Certainly close to none of these people are conservatives or classical liberals anymore. 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change all instances of the word ¨blacks¨ to the phrase ¨black people¨ in reference to humans and groups of humans. Dwtnt ( talk) 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
RudolfRed (
talk)
17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)The following line needs to be updated to include women, blacks, hispanics, and orientals. The existing description may have fit the 20th-century base, but not the current one.
"The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, the Silent Generation, and white evangelical Christians.[21][22][23][24]" Billinjax ( talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "far-right" should appear in the party's description, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html? appears to be a reliable source positioning the republicans to the right of parties like the Freedom Party of Austria or the Finns party, which are both described as "right-wing to far-right" on their pages so I think it would be appropriate to add this as a descriptor to the Republican Party Netx444 ( talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
To bolster Netx444's argument above: this is an article appearing the New York Times, one of the most respected publications in the world. It is an opinion piece, which I foresee people latching on to, but I would have two preemptive rebuttals: (1) where else do we describe the stance of parties? There is no objective definition of right- or left-wing, it is purely a matter of opinion; (2) respected political scientist Will Lowe (of the Woodrow Wilson School in the Department of Politics at Princeton) contributed to the analysis, which was based on data from the Manifesto Project, a project funded by the German government. It's not like this is some random yahoo saying something on Facebook: this is about as a "reliable source" as you can get for something that is inherently subjective. LordDimwit ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I think given the events of Jan 6, 2021, including not just attempts by the majority of the Republican Congressional membership to overturn election results by procedural means but also by the party leader inciting his followers to march on the Capitol and the party leader's intentional non-response to the dangerous security situation that caused, combined with the fact that the 2020 Republican Party platform was more-or-less "whatever Trump wants", there's no longer any reason to not describe the party as "far right." LordDimwit ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a heavily biased article that goes out of its way to make it seem as if the party is mostly made up of "centrists", "libertarians" and "neoconservatives", and in effect to whitewash the party and to make an openly far-right, openly racist, openly fundamentalist and openly anti-democratic party currently engaged in a coup attempt to overturn an election result [4] seem like a normal, mainstream, centrist, democratic party. This is not how the party has been perceived for many years, and there is an abundance of sources that describe the party's current dominating ideology as Trumpism (with little room for centrism and hardly any noticeable centrist dissent against Trump and Stephen Miller) and the party as far right. The description of the party as far right even predates the rise of its current far-right leader; for example MSNBC has described the party as a "far-right party" with reference to its actions in 2010. [5]
We need something in the section on ideology on how the party has developed with the rise of the Tea Party and later Trumpism. Other parties are clearly identified as far-right, even if they are far more politically moderate than the Republican Party. For instance, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) article discusses how the party is regarded as far-right, but AfD's political positions are not nearly as far right, fundamentalist, racist or anti-democratic as the Republican Party, e.g. in their rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, racism, climate change, respect for the democratic process/elections and election results/democratic institutions, and a whole range of other issues on which the Republican Party holds ten times more extreme views. We also describe numerous other far-right parties from other countries as far-right, so there is no reason to make an exception for the far-right party in the U.S. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?
Most of this article describes the Republican Party of 1994-2008, not the right-wing populist party that exists today
2603:8080:7D05:7200:5142:3E33:171B:89C6 (
talk)
The Republican party is not far-right, and the the New York Times is no longer a "reliable source". Billinjax ( talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
"Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?"
Ridiculous.
The only ones "supporting sedition and overturning democracy" are arguably those that were AGAINST pausing the certification of electors to follow proper, constitutional procedures to address concerns with irregularities in voting and the various ways in which established election law was subverted. Asking Representatives to follow the Constitution is in no way seditious, and wanting fair elections is not overturning democracy.
Billinjax ( talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearly this article gets a lot of attention by a lot of editors who are trying to improve it. Yet it doesn't have and as far as I can tell has never had a section on the *structure* of the GOP, its actual functioning. It seems to me like that developing such a section would be more important than any other existing part of this article. 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 ( talk)
Unlike Wikipedia articles on the Democratic party or the British Conservative Party, this article on the Republican party has very little to say on the current structure, composition or organization.I will add content but this requires input from better informed editors on the topic as well. Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
what's the deal with the GOP being considered far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.145.25 ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Include Trumpism as a faction. Prins van Oranje ( talk) 07:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Should Trumpism be added as a faction of the Republican Party? I am suggesting this given the fact that a large cohort of Republicans still support Trump’s agenda and the fact that the Republican Party most recent platform last year was literally just a one page endorsement of Trump. I suppose a case could be made that this covered by right-wing populism, but Trumpism seems more relevant in the American context. Psherman122 ( talk) 05:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Replying to Toa Nidhiki05, I think a strong case could be made that Republicans such as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Madison Cawthorn were elected to their respective seats on “Trumpist” platforms. Heads of various state level Republican branches could also be considered “Trumpist,” such as Kelli Ward in Arizona or Allen West in Texas. Psherman122 ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I Slightly agree. Trumpism isn't an ideology but even if people don't call them self trumpists,it is definitely a large group of republicans who split off from the rest of there pack of neo-conservatives. We could rebrand Trumpism as Nationalism, Right wing Populism, or Right wing nationalism overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Lapeyrouse ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, your stated rationale for reverting this
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=1010548507&oldid=1010541686
is factually incorrect. Please restore it. soibangla ( talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS - evidence is required and should be handled at the appropriate venue |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
6 editors for and multiple reliable sources isn’t a clear consensus? As someone said upthread, what is? There is an egregious amount of advocacy and uncharitable discussion here against the disputed content here. FiduciaryAkita ( talk) 01:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the accusation that the GOP is of late more authoritarian is DUE but it should not be presented as fact and should be presented with examples and if sources dispute the claims that also should be presented. IMPARTIAL must be kept in mind. Also, because this is contentious material it really would be best to propose the text on the talk page before adding. Rusf10 was correct, at this time there isn't a consensus so the material shouldn't have been restored. Springee ( talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There are enough sources (such as here and here and many more) to justify it including an international study. So it should be included in the infobox. - Elishop ( talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nice Stories and Soibangla:, per the discussion above is there consensus for this material[ [9]]? I think Toa Nidhiki05 is consistent with the NOCON discussion I'm seeing above. Why was this restored without returning to this discussion first? Springee ( talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The other party doesn't fare much betteris incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
you are quoting an interview in a popular magazine and the summary of the interviewerI am citing a secondary RSP reliable source. soibangla ( talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Norris' article doesn't say very much about the Republican PartyActually, her article focuses exclusively on her findings about the GOP, as does the provided reliable source, though her study addresses numerous parties globally, such that comparisons can be made.
She doesn't say that Republican policies have changed, but the V-Dem study does, and so does this ["The General Social Survey, for example, shows self-identified Republicans moving far more toward the “extremely conservative” end of its scale (as opposed to “extremely liberal”) over the past several decades".]
the past few decades when they (and mainstream Democrats) covertly expressed racist and xenophobic feelingsThis article isn't about the Democratic party. The paragraph shows that two independent studies, using two different methodologies with data and the scientific method, reached strikingly similar conclusions, making it noteworthy. soibangla ( talk) 01:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Two independent studies about a major political party isn't notable. All the books I have found about party politics classify the GOP as a liberal party (i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.) Ian Adams for example wrote, "ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market." [13] (Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press, 2001.) If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category. The Swiss People's Party and the Brazilian Social Liberal Party for example have moved from conservative and liberal respectively to extreme right. But that is reflected in the textbooks.
I remember Keith Olbermann saying that the election of Trump would be the last election in U.S. history. People on both sides overreact. Dems called Trump a fascist and his supporters called the Dems socialists. That goes back a long time and it's as stupid now as it was then. If you have time, read about Hitler's first 100 days in office and compare it to Trump's.
TFD ( talk) 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category.And yes the Republicans tend toward the more extreme version of classical liberalism, but that still leaves them within the liberal tradition
(i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.)If I want to know the consensus in expert opinion, I don't search through Vox articles or isolated papers and I certainly don't google search "Republican Party"+"authoritarianism", which is likely to return a skewed result. So please provide me with a standard textbook (less than 20 years old) that lists the Republicans in the same group with Golden Dawn et al.
The paragraph is not in the lead, it's not in the infofox, it's not being represented as a definitive and irrefutable description of the party, it is being presented as a significant finding by two studies that a reader can consider among other content in the article, which you/others are free to add. soibangla ( talk) 20:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters. They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come. Altemeyer and Dean define authoritarianism as what happens “when followers submit too much to the authorities in their lives.” They measure it using a tool Altemeyer developed in the early 1980s, called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale..Altemeyer’s scale measures respondents’ agreement or disagreement with 20 statements, such as: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us”...They found a striking linear relationship between support for Trump and an authoritarian mind-set: The stronger a person supported Trump, the higher he or she scored on the RWA scale. People saying they strongly disapproved of Trump, for instance, had an average RWA score of 54. Those indicating complete support of the president, on the other hand, had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents. [15]
So, here's how the full paragraph can and should read, now including a third recent corroborating scientific study. Three! Science!
A 2019 global survey of nearly 2,000 experts on political parties conducted by Harvard comparative political scientist Pippa Norris found that the Republican party ranked very low among the parties of OECD democracies, and compared to the Democratic party, in terms of commitment to basic democratic principles and protecting rights for ethnic minorities. An October 2020 study by the V-Dem Institute found that the Republican party had become increasingly illiberal in recent decades, appearing to follow a similar trajectory to authoritarian parties such as Fidesz of Hungary, the AKP of Turkey and the BJP of India. The study found “data shows that the Republican party in 2018 was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies.” National survey data based on a "right-wing authoritarian" scale developed in the 1980s by Bob Altemeyer found that by 2020 Republican voters had a strikingly strong desire for authoritarian leadership, particularly among those Republicans who strongly supported then-president Trump. [16]
soibangla ( talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Reason posted an article critical of the V-Dem article and the WP's coverage of it. [ [17]] Springee ( talk) 13:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Growing partisan polarization and democratic “backsliding” in various parts of the world have raised concerns about the attachment of ordinary Americans to democratic institutions and procedures. I find that substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force in pursuit of political ends. The strongest predictor by far of these antidemocratic attitudes is ethnic antagonism—especially concerns about the political power and claims on government resources of immigrants, African-Americans, and Latinos. [18]
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This is completely unsubstantiated, and misinforms readers as to where the Republican Party stands on drugs. Also, the article does not need to specifically mention the few Republicans who hold pro-legalization viewpoints. This should be reverted ASAP. [1] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
it's an example of where social attitudes of the Republican Party at large have been evolving in recent years, so we can't include anything that even implies it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This section is starting to concern me with issues of WEIGHT and CRYSTAL. For a party that has been (for decades) rabidly opposed to drugs, we now spend the vast majority of the drug section talking about a small group that wants legalization. That's out of whack IMHO. The compromise version we had (by Snoog) a few days ago seems to be the best [2]. Originally I was gratified that another editor elaborated on which Republicans want legalization.....but I think the version above is a good resolution. If this does turn into a RFC, there may be a problem in that there could be 3 different versions to vote on. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Two editors have forced content into this Wikipedia page on an "analysis" provided by Matt Gaetz, a fringe conspiracy theorist who is known for peddling falsehoods and nonsense, about the GOP's position on drugs. Gaetz is not an expert on the topic. In fact, he is decidedly unreliable on the topic given his propensity for lying, as well as motives to make his fringe position seem more popular in the party (e.g. the notion that his position will eventually win out). The content is question is mindless speculation. It is on the kind of content which historians and political scientists are equipped to answer and substantiate: a policy shift over time, as well as the demographics for a policy position. It is absurd to include Gaetz's drivel on the topic. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Earlier today, the House voted to pass a marijuana legalization bill. All but five Republicans opposed it. [3] This gets to the crux of why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are forbidden. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD TO Democracy section of the pag:
Seventeen states attorney generals and 106 (over half their members) Republican House members, including the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy supported the case brought forth by the state of Texas to nullify the certified results of other states, and therefore deny Joe Biden the required electoral votes to secure the election, despite having won the election legally and transparently according to all state electoral authorities.
ALSO ADD:
Many political scientists around the world consider the GOP a far-right party, or at least illiberal. American conservative thinkers and writers have even noticed this sharp departure in the GOP from normal democratic norms. SojournerUSA ( talk) 23:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
With the rise of Trumpism within the Republican Party, it seems that the party has become overwhelmingly a right-wing populist party, rather than a conservative party. I propose moving 'right-wing populism' from the 'factions' category into the 'majority' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
, per no synthesis, we cannot make a determination on our own. I would say however that your source says that political parties use populist rhetoric opportunistically. Please compare Trump with Viktor Orbán, PM of Hungary. He re-wrote the constitution, cancelled elections, built a real wall, outlawed "fake news" and forced minorities to flee. Trump OTOH is just talk. TFD ( talk) 03:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Please add the following to the lead:
"Although nominally still a pro-democratic party, after losing the 2020 election the majority of Republican Congressmen supported ending the United States' 300-year tradition of democratic elections, overturning the election which Trump lost by nearly 10 million votes, and installing Trump as a de-facto dictator for life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I propose the Republican Party being put as "Right-wing" for its political position. This is where the Republican Study Committee, which is 147 of 198 House Republicans, is put. It also is where the Freedom Caucus (37 members) and the Liberty Caucus (8 members) are put as well. JoeSmoe2828 ( talk) 08:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the label right-wing authoritarianism would be appropriate to describe their ideology - short of National Socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D473:1700:98B5:514B:80B3:8668 ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Are they short of national socialist though?? We’ve seen they supported Trump building concentration camps where immigrants were tortured on American soil (yes, separating young children from their parents is tortute by any reasonable definition) and now seek to keep their fuhrer in power by ending America’s 300-year tradition of democratic elections and declaring martial law and simply magically “finding” votes for Trump that don’t exist. I could continue if you’d like. I do not think there’s a political party anywhere in the world right now that’s ideologically closer to that of the German National Socialist Party of 1933 than the 2021 Republican Party. Certainly close to none of these people are conservatives or classical liberals anymore. 108.30.187.155 ( talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change all instances of the word ¨blacks¨ to the phrase ¨black people¨ in reference to humans and groups of humans. Dwtnt ( talk) 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
RudolfRed (
talk)
17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)The following line needs to be updated to include women, blacks, hispanics, and orientals. The existing description may have fit the 20th-century base, but not the current one.
"The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, the Silent Generation, and white evangelical Christians.[21][22][23][24]" Billinjax ( talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "far-right" should appear in the party's description, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html? appears to be a reliable source positioning the republicans to the right of parties like the Freedom Party of Austria or the Finns party, which are both described as "right-wing to far-right" on their pages so I think it would be appropriate to add this as a descriptor to the Republican Party Netx444 ( talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
To bolster Netx444's argument above: this is an article appearing the New York Times, one of the most respected publications in the world. It is an opinion piece, which I foresee people latching on to, but I would have two preemptive rebuttals: (1) where else do we describe the stance of parties? There is no objective definition of right- or left-wing, it is purely a matter of opinion; (2) respected political scientist Will Lowe (of the Woodrow Wilson School in the Department of Politics at Princeton) contributed to the analysis, which was based on data from the Manifesto Project, a project funded by the German government. It's not like this is some random yahoo saying something on Facebook: this is about as a "reliable source" as you can get for something that is inherently subjective. LordDimwit ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I think given the events of Jan 6, 2021, including not just attempts by the majority of the Republican Congressional membership to overturn election results by procedural means but also by the party leader inciting his followers to march on the Capitol and the party leader's intentional non-response to the dangerous security situation that caused, combined with the fact that the 2020 Republican Party platform was more-or-less "whatever Trump wants", there's no longer any reason to not describe the party as "far right." LordDimwit ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a heavily biased article that goes out of its way to make it seem as if the party is mostly made up of "centrists", "libertarians" and "neoconservatives", and in effect to whitewash the party and to make an openly far-right, openly racist, openly fundamentalist and openly anti-democratic party currently engaged in a coup attempt to overturn an election result [4] seem like a normal, mainstream, centrist, democratic party. This is not how the party has been perceived for many years, and there is an abundance of sources that describe the party's current dominating ideology as Trumpism (with little room for centrism and hardly any noticeable centrist dissent against Trump and Stephen Miller) and the party as far right. The description of the party as far right even predates the rise of its current far-right leader; for example MSNBC has described the party as a "far-right party" with reference to its actions in 2010. [5]
We need something in the section on ideology on how the party has developed with the rise of the Tea Party and later Trumpism. Other parties are clearly identified as far-right, even if they are far more politically moderate than the Republican Party. For instance, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) article discusses how the party is regarded as far-right, but AfD's political positions are not nearly as far right, fundamentalist, racist or anti-democratic as the Republican Party, e.g. in their rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, racism, climate change, respect for the democratic process/elections and election results/democratic institutions, and a whole range of other issues on which the Republican Party holds ten times more extreme views. We also describe numerous other far-right parties from other countries as far-right, so there is no reason to make an exception for the far-right party in the U.S. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?
Most of this article describes the Republican Party of 1994-2008, not the right-wing populist party that exists today
2603:8080:7D05:7200:5142:3E33:171B:89C6 (
talk)
The Republican party is not far-right, and the the New York Times is no longer a "reliable source". Billinjax ( talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
"Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?"
Ridiculous.
The only ones "supporting sedition and overturning democracy" are arguably those that were AGAINST pausing the certification of electors to follow proper, constitutional procedures to address concerns with irregularities in voting and the various ways in which established election law was subverted. Asking Representatives to follow the Constitution is in no way seditious, and wanting fair elections is not overturning democracy.
Billinjax ( talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearly this article gets a lot of attention by a lot of editors who are trying to improve it. Yet it doesn't have and as far as I can tell has never had a section on the *structure* of the GOP, its actual functioning. It seems to me like that developing such a section would be more important than any other existing part of this article. 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 ( talk)
Unlike Wikipedia articles on the Democratic party or the British Conservative Party, this article on the Republican party has very little to say on the current structure, composition or organization.I will add content but this requires input from better informed editors on the topic as well. Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
what's the deal with the GOP being considered far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.145.25 ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Include Trumpism as a faction. Prins van Oranje ( talk) 07:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Should Trumpism be added as a faction of the Republican Party? I am suggesting this given the fact that a large cohort of Republicans still support Trump’s agenda and the fact that the Republican Party most recent platform last year was literally just a one page endorsement of Trump. I suppose a case could be made that this covered by right-wing populism, but Trumpism seems more relevant in the American context. Psherman122 ( talk) 05:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Replying to Toa Nidhiki05, I think a strong case could be made that Republicans such as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Madison Cawthorn were elected to their respective seats on “Trumpist” platforms. Heads of various state level Republican branches could also be considered “Trumpist,” such as Kelli Ward in Arizona or Allen West in Texas. Psherman122 ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I Slightly agree. Trumpism isn't an ideology but even if people don't call them self trumpists,it is definitely a large group of republicans who split off from the rest of there pack of neo-conservatives. We could rebrand Trumpism as Nationalism, Right wing Populism, or Right wing nationalism overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Lapeyrouse ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, your stated rationale for reverting this
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=1010548507&oldid=1010541686
is factually incorrect. Please restore it. soibangla ( talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS - evidence is required and should be handled at the appropriate venue |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
6 editors for and multiple reliable sources isn’t a clear consensus? As someone said upthread, what is? There is an egregious amount of advocacy and uncharitable discussion here against the disputed content here. FiduciaryAkita ( talk) 01:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the accusation that the GOP is of late more authoritarian is DUE but it should not be presented as fact and should be presented with examples and if sources dispute the claims that also should be presented. IMPARTIAL must be kept in mind. Also, because this is contentious material it really would be best to propose the text on the talk page before adding. Rusf10 was correct, at this time there isn't a consensus so the material shouldn't have been restored. Springee ( talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There are enough sources (such as here and here and many more) to justify it including an international study. So it should be included in the infobox. - Elishop ( talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Nice Stories and Soibangla:, per the discussion above is there consensus for this material[ [9]]? I think Toa Nidhiki05 is consistent with the NOCON discussion I'm seeing above. Why was this restored without returning to this discussion first? Springee ( talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The other party doesn't fare much betteris incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
you are quoting an interview in a popular magazine and the summary of the interviewerI am citing a secondary RSP reliable source. soibangla ( talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Norris' article doesn't say very much about the Republican PartyActually, her article focuses exclusively on her findings about the GOP, as does the provided reliable source, though her study addresses numerous parties globally, such that comparisons can be made.
She doesn't say that Republican policies have changed, but the V-Dem study does, and so does this ["The General Social Survey, for example, shows self-identified Republicans moving far more toward the “extremely conservative” end of its scale (as opposed to “extremely liberal”) over the past several decades".]
the past few decades when they (and mainstream Democrats) covertly expressed racist and xenophobic feelingsThis article isn't about the Democratic party. The paragraph shows that two independent studies, using two different methodologies with data and the scientific method, reached strikingly similar conclusions, making it noteworthy. soibangla ( talk) 01:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Two independent studies about a major political party isn't notable. All the books I have found about party politics classify the GOP as a liberal party (i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.) Ian Adams for example wrote, "ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market." [13] (Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press, 2001.) If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category. The Swiss People's Party and the Brazilian Social Liberal Party for example have moved from conservative and liberal respectively to extreme right. But that is reflected in the textbooks.
I remember Keith Olbermann saying that the election of Trump would be the last election in U.S. history. People on both sides overreact. Dems called Trump a fascist and his supporters called the Dems socialists. That goes back a long time and it's as stupid now as it was then. If you have time, read about Hitler's first 100 days in office and compare it to Trump's.
TFD ( talk) 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category.And yes the Republicans tend toward the more extreme version of classical liberalism, but that still leaves them within the liberal tradition
(i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.)If I want to know the consensus in expert opinion, I don't search through Vox articles or isolated papers and I certainly don't google search "Republican Party"+"authoritarianism", which is likely to return a skewed result. So please provide me with a standard textbook (less than 20 years old) that lists the Republicans in the same group with Golden Dawn et al.
The paragraph is not in the lead, it's not in the infofox, it's not being represented as a definitive and irrefutable description of the party, it is being presented as a significant finding by two studies that a reader can consider among other content in the article, which you/others are free to add. soibangla ( talk) 20:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters. They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come. Altemeyer and Dean define authoritarianism as what happens “when followers submit too much to the authorities in their lives.” They measure it using a tool Altemeyer developed in the early 1980s, called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale..Altemeyer’s scale measures respondents’ agreement or disagreement with 20 statements, such as: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us”...They found a striking linear relationship between support for Trump and an authoritarian mind-set: The stronger a person supported Trump, the higher he or she scored on the RWA scale. People saying they strongly disapproved of Trump, for instance, had an average RWA score of 54. Those indicating complete support of the president, on the other hand, had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents. [15]
So, here's how the full paragraph can and should read, now including a third recent corroborating scientific study. Three! Science!
A 2019 global survey of nearly 2,000 experts on political parties conducted by Harvard comparative political scientist Pippa Norris found that the Republican party ranked very low among the parties of OECD democracies, and compared to the Democratic party, in terms of commitment to basic democratic principles and protecting rights for ethnic minorities. An October 2020 study by the V-Dem Institute found that the Republican party had become increasingly illiberal in recent decades, appearing to follow a similar trajectory to authoritarian parties such as Fidesz of Hungary, the AKP of Turkey and the BJP of India. The study found “data shows that the Republican party in 2018 was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies.” National survey data based on a "right-wing authoritarian" scale developed in the 1980s by Bob Altemeyer found that by 2020 Republican voters had a strikingly strong desire for authoritarian leadership, particularly among those Republicans who strongly supported then-president Trump. [16]
soibangla ( talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Reason posted an article critical of the V-Dem article and the WP's coverage of it. [ [17]] Springee ( talk) 13:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Growing partisan polarization and democratic “backsliding” in various parts of the world have raised concerns about the attachment of ordinary Americans to democratic institutions and procedures. I find that substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force in pursuit of political ends. The strongest predictor by far of these antidemocratic attitudes is ethnic antagonism—especially concerns about the political power and claims on government resources of immigrants, African-Americans, and Latinos. [18]