Talk:Republican Party (United States)/archives5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Immigration under international policy? 2 Grand Old Party (GOP) is actually the younger of the two parties; what's wrong with saying that? 3 Conservative Party (United States) redirect 4 New infobox things 5 GOP and Black Voters 6 Question 7 G.O.P. Acronym and symbolism 8 Semi-protect? 9 Political position 10 Inaccurate Commentary 11 Pejorative labels 12 Paleoconservatism in infobox 13 No mention of the Dixiecrats? 14 Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 15 Source/verification for this statement? 16 Democrat/Republican article differences 17 Time-sensitive information 18 Would anyone come away from this discussion believing NPOV was honored? 19 "Economic liberalism" 20 Support of Sandanistas? 21 Added libertarianism to Infobox 22 Bias Exposed AGAIN 23 Smart... 24 Environment 25 Center-right? 26 I dispute the neutrality of this Article 27 Requires clarification of what "party membership" means 28 Incredibly NPOV Paragraph? 29 "Pro-Business" is a terribly vague peacock term 30 Bonzohnomics 31 International affiliation 32 Pentagrams 33 The Reagan Era 34 Merge history into History of the United States Republican Party 35 Republicans Control Wikipedia 36 Conservative Podcasts

Immigration under international policy?

Wouldn't domestic opposition to domestic immigration be a domestic issue, not an international one? It's currently listed under international policy.--Primal Chaos 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i was wondering if you could help me understand what is domestic imigration--Missionimpossible 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Old Party (GOP) is actually the younger of the two parties; what's wrong with saying that?

I think that's a very interesting and not-so-well known fact. I personally have always wondered why the younger of the two major parties gets to be called the Grand Old Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.174.82 (talk)

It's the Grand Old Party, not the Grand Oldest Party. The characteristic of being old is not mutually exclusive with anything else. Besides that, it's pointed out in the introduction that it's the second oldest active political party in the United States. That is more than good enough. Settler 22:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More than good enough? No, considerably less than good enough. The wording "second oldest active party" is obfuscatory wording. Second oldest out of two is "youngest". Why not be honest and direct? Tom NM 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, there are more than two political parties in the United States. If you think "second oldest" is "obfuscatory," how would you have it phrased: "The GOP is the youngest of the two major political parties which are both older than the minor political parties and all are younger than certain other parties (major and minor) which are no longer active." Is that really more direct? Is it really clearer? I think that second oldest gets the point across effectively... unless you want to make it: "second oldest (after the Democratic Party)..." Lordjeff06 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That it is older than the minor parties seems of rather little importance. It is the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. That's what the article should say. john k 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is the younger of the two major U.S. political parties, and the second oldest active political party in the United States". Surely the premise of the second half of this sentence is implicit in the first half? Blakkandekka 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. It may be like in Canada, where there are a handful of minor or regional parties which are older than major ones.--Primal Chaos 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but "It is the younger of the two major U.S. political parties" i.e. the Democratic party (the other major party) is older than the Republican.

"and the second oldest active political party in the United States". i.e. only one major party is older than the Republican, which, given the first half, must be the Democratic party. If the Democratic party is assumed to be an active major party then all it says is that the Democratic party is older than the Republican party and they're both the two oldest active parties in the system. Blakkandekka 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But it only says 'oldest active', not 'oldest active major'. So one does not imply the other.--Primal Chaos 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that if the Democratic Party is assumed to be active (discuss?) then, according to this sentence, it must be the oldest active party in the system, as long as the Republican Party is also active and is the second oldest. Blakkandekka 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Here's an example. In the country of Example, a fine and noble land with a rich history, there are three active political parties. Major Party #1 was founded first. Minor Party #1 is founded second. And Major Party #2 was founded last. Major Party #2 can be said to be the "younger of the two major political parties in Example." Since there are only two major political parties. But, it would be false to say "It is the second oldest active political party", since Minor Party #1 has that honor, since it is active, just not major.

So, one does not necessarily follow the other. In this case, it does, but it is not self-evident. Remember, Wikipedia is an international project, we may have readers who do not understand the party system in America, so I think its clear and easy as it stands.--Primal Chaos 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I'm British and this has given me an excuse to read up on American Democracy - I see from the linked article that the Democratic Party is indeed the oldest established active party. I still think that the sentence is a little clumsy though: if you say that you're youngest in a list of two and also the second oldest then there's redundancy.

I'm assuming that, in the minds of most voters, age in a political party is regarded as a sign of wisdom rather than decrepitude and is a 'good thing'. Hence there may be some wariness in the GOP of feeling it may be perceived as the 'second wisest' party in this context. Blakkandekka 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That people who consider themselves intelligent enough to debate such matters can waste irretrievable sections of their lives on such minutiae as this is utterly bewildering. Please move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.201.82 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people will think it means members of the Republican party are younger than members of the Democratic party. I don't understand why this is in the opening paragraph. I'm moving it to the history section. KenFehling (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole statement of age is biased, as is the entire article. The slant is so obvious, my monitor fell off the table. I'm not a Republican, but this article reads like it was designed to highlight inconsistencies in the party. Change the title to "Republican Doublespeak".

Conservative Party (United States) redirect

Should that really redirect here? The only time "Conservative Party" has ever been used as an official party designation in American history is for the white Conservatives in the Reconstruction South, who were, effectively, Democrats. Obviously, the Republicans are the conservative party in American politics today, but they aren't the Conservative Party. john k 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget United States Conservative Party, either. --Ali'i 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirect to here, you mean? There is the New York Conservative Party, as well. I think that Conservative Party (United States) and United States Conservative Party should both point to the same disambiguation page, which ought to a) mention the use of the term to refer to the southern anti-Republican party during Reconstruction; b) the New York Conservative Party; c) any other groups that have called themselves the "Conservative Party" in the U.S., and only then perhaps d) mention that the Republicans are currently the more conservative party in the U.S. john k 06:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would Conservative Party (United States) redirect to Republicans? Some republicans are not conservative. Its like redirecting Liberal Party (United States) to Democrats. Believe it or not, there are a few conservative democrats. -Yancyfry 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

New infobox things

The article on right wing doesn't make enough sense to place it in the infobox for "social position". I think social conservatism and economic liberalism make enough sense to place in the respective places. Why does "position" need to be on the right-left scale? If it doesn't make sense, then why have to use it? Thanks. --Ali'i 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense; the article mentions conservatism, the religious right, nationalism and militarism, all of which apply to the Republican Party. The biggest problem I see with using specific ideological terms in the position category is that it does not show the scale of it all. The Green Party and Democratic Party both adhere to cultural liberalism, but it is clear that the Greens are further left on the scale for social issues. There must be a way to point out the scale of things. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored themachine's version in which all ideology is covered in the ideology section. There is no need now to put it in the position section; I think this is a good compromise. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not really a compromise... but anyway, how is cultural liberalism a position on the left-right political scale? It isn't... it's an ideology. Or maybe we should put the separate "fiscal" and "social" infobox fields under the Ideology filed, as well? Then we could distinguish all of this even finer. --Ali'i 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to put ideology in the ideology section, and leave the position section to a left-right scale? It is much simpler, yet also clearer, assuming the ideology is still present (but in the ideology section). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be my reaction to the terrible right wing article. And how if I knew nothing of the Republicans, saw that they were defined as right wing on these issues, clicked on the wikilink, and read the article... I would have no idea what they were being defined as. It just isn't informative. I see, "oh, they're socially right-wing, but would have no idea what that meant by reading the article. Guess it's just me... do as you like. --Ali'i 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the right wing article is not sufficient reason for placing specific ideology terms in the political position section, at least in my opinion. Anyway, I think that most people would understand what it means to be socially right-wing. If not, they can follow the wikilinks in the ideology section or simply read the section on the positions of the party. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GOP and Black Voters

The discussion of the GOP and Black voters completely missses the point.

Black voters have always supported a strong role for the Federal Government - regardless of party. This is because it was the Federal Government under Republicans that ended slavery (and the extreme concept of "states rights"). And it was the Federal Government (including the Supreme Court)under Democrats that dismantled legal segregation.

The opposite of this are conservative white voters who always support a weak Government at all levels. It was conservative southern whites that supported slavery and segregation(and voted Democrat back then) and who switched to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. And continue to oppose affirmative action, etc.

The weak Federal Response to hurricane Katrina was another conformation in the minds of many Black Voters that the "small government" idea championed by conservatives hasn't changed much during the last 300 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.36.244.4 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

What a bunch of hocus. It was the federal Constitution that enshrined slavery into being the law of the land. It was the federal government that forced slaves to be returned to slaveholders across state lines. It was the federal government that plundered and made poor vast swaths of the southern economy after the Civil War and forced millions of residents, blacks included, into penury with huge, expensive public works projects that profited corrupt "carpetbagger" officials. It was the federal government itself that encouraged segregation by keeping many of its own institutions segregated right up into the late sixties. Remember? The big deal about the Tuskeegee Airmen was that they were the first black pilots allowed to fly in wartime for the US military. Do you really think their existence marked the "end" of US government-mandated racism? All is not black and white, everything evil is not southern, white, and male, and not all good is northern and multicultural. A big deal is made about how the right fails to appeal to blacks and women -- now, why isn't it just as bad that the Left fails to appeal to whites and men? How each individual answers that question reveals the bias. The truth is that people cannot be buttonholed or stereotyped by race, sex, or religion. 24.125.223.151 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I was reading the article and it didn't answer my question i was hoping somebody could. I read a article on cnn recently saying that the GOP or the Republican party after the recent election loses are fighting amongst each other and even the presedential candidiates for this party are blaming each other apparently this is not which confounded me what did was that this speak no ill about your party member ronald regan's 11th commandment is being broken so why dosent the republican party try to adivise thier own members to stop complaning about each other's campaign policy and instead shift their attention to democracts? that's my question--Missionimpossible 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Most Republicans are power mongers who after running many businesses and thus other peoples lives they expect everybody to follow their direction even if it may be misdirected and/or misunderstood!

Don't know much bout wikipedia, but I know political commentary DOESN'T BELONG HERE. Daily Kos is over there <---- Ninja337 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

G.O.P. Acronym and symbolism

Edited information on the origins of the acronym, G.O.P. per the Republican Party website. We ought to be consistent with the organization we're writing about, don't ya think???

I need to now the philosophy of the republiican party for a project...Pleae help me??? Thanks Sandra 5/16/07

Have you read Republican_Party_(United_States)#Current_ideology? This is a good first step. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Does anyone else feel this would be beneficial considering the recent vandalism? The machine512 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made a request at WP:RFP. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The machine512 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been heavily vandalized lately. I move for semi-protection. -Kris Schnee (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Political position

For some reason, every time I look away from this article, someone changes the political position in the infobox to specific ideologies. I thought we had covered this already; there is an ideology section for ideologies like economic liberalism, whereas the position section is for left-right position. The Democrats embrace economic liberalism too, but not to the extent of the Republicans; that's why we differentiate with the left-right spectrum.

Also, I'm removing Libertarianism from the ideology section, because libertarianism hardly jives with social conservatism. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents. But, while I think the left-right spectrum may be beneficial in some aspects for simplifying a party's stance on certain political concepts, the degree and extent are highly subjective to POV, and also certain qualities cannot be easily defined in this scale. For example you've brought up economic liberalism which I think is a perfect example of this. Many right-wing scaled ideologies from an economic standpoint would be considered polar opposites to this, for example Monarchism, Fascism, which have from an economic standpoint many similarities with left-wing scaled ideologies such as Communism, Socialism. So how are we to accurately scale economic liberalism for example as being exclusively left or right? The machine512 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy and fascism are considered right wing because they are authoritarian; it has nothing to do with economics. In fact, monarchy does not have a specific place on the economic scale (one can have a socialist monarchy or a completely free-market monarchy), and fascism is somewhere near the center, even a bit to the left. That's why there are two areas in the infobox, one for fiscal policy and one for social policy.

Anyway, there are plenty of ways in which one can measure position on the economic and social scales. Take a look at politicalcompass.org for a start. Republicans are quite clearly right wing, while Democrats are actually centrist or even center-right. However, considering that global politics today are in general significantly right of center, I think it is fair to the place Republican Party at right wing on economic policy and somewhere between center-right and right wing for social policy. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Monarchy and fascism are considered right wing because they are authoritarian" I don't think that is an accurate statement. According to the american heritage dictionary authoritarian is "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime." Any sort of government employing a form of Statism (large government) with many rules and regulations would be considered authoritarian, and these can be found on both the left and the right. This is really one of the flaws with the primary left and right scale, the somewhat odd intermix of types of government, and on a strictly fiscal standpoint the left and right scale is more ill-defined.

In this system I wouldn't agree with Democrats being centrist or right of center, because they very often tend to be polar opposites to Republicans on many social and economic issues. Again the left and right system is heavily subjective to POV and dependent on how one compiles a multidimensional measurement into something unidimensional. The machine512 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're only considering this from an American perspective. Outside of the United States, the DP would be somewhere near the center. Look at the political compass link I gave and the positions of EU governments in relation to US presidential candidates. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If the UK Conservative Party is seen as centre-right on social policy, I somewhat doubt the Republicans can be seen as centre-right too. Perhaps its the European in me but the Republicans don't rank alongside the Tories, CDU or other European Conservatives. Please consider having them lsted as purely right wing, both fiscally and socially.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.239.140 (talk)

Have to agree with above. What centrist doctrines does the Republican party support? American parties are pretty right wing by global standards anyway (see Wikipedia Is an International Project), and the Republicans the rightest of a right wing nation.--Primal Chaos 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree; the Republican Party is pretty clearly right wing when compared with other Western democracies. However, I put both center-right and right wing in the infobox because in comparison to countries like Saudi Arabia, even the Republican Party looks liberal on social issues. I realize that that is an extreme example, but such regimes are not that uncommon, and if we only put right wing there, it's likely that supporters of the RP will be up in arms about it. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree there, but no one is asking to label the party "far right", which is what Saudi Arabia and so forth are. I still ask the question, if the Republican Party is center-right... what centrist policies are in the overwhelming right wing mix?--Primal Chaos 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure; I can't think of any off the top of my head. I don't really have any qualms with removing center-right, if that's the consensus. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would once again advocate for the removal of the political position fields from the infobox. It is original research, and for many people, not fitting a neutral point of view. I doubt it will happen, but I'd say remove the fields from the infobox. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I still hold to my position that it can be informative in different ways than ideology. It's really not OR; there are sources like the political compass to support it, if you really want a source cited. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Republican party is very Oligarchy in ruling manner. They are the power of the few with the rules of the few imposed toward the many. [vegetguy]

Inaccurate Commentary

The section about Article III and Hamdan is completely wrong and should be removed. The Supreme Court's ruling in that case is blatantly mischaracterized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.32 (talk)

Read the article on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This commentator is mistaken.--Primal Chaos 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative labels

referring to Republican fiscal and social policies as "right wing" sounds lot more incendiary than the "centrist" and "socially liberal" titles the United States Democratic Party got in their boxed info. Maybe we should even this out more? Comments? ObsidianRE 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the above discussion and chime in there if you'd like. The fact is that US politics in general are pretty far to the right compared to those of most other countries. But since when is "right wing" pejorative? Republicans refer to themselves as on the right, after all. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. You can not claim that the Democrat Party is "Fiscal: Centrist" and the "Social: Centrist-Left". And then claim that the Republican Party is "Fiscal: Right Wing" and "Social: Center-Right, Right Wing". That is completey disingenious. The RP is far more diverse than that of the Demos. The Repubs. are "Fiscal: Centrist" and "Social: Center-Right". The Demos are "Fiscal: Left Wing" and "Social: Left Wing". There is no politcal diversity in the Demo Party. These things need to be changed. Jtpaladin 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Primal Chaos writes below, from an international perspective, the Republican Party sits squarely in the right wing. If the Democratic Party was left wing, where would the Green Party, Socialist Party USA, and Communist Party USA lie? One must put things in perspective. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most international commentaries agree that the politics of the United States are the most right-wing liberal democracy in the developed world. To the point that on an international scale, the United States is seen as not having a major leftist party, only a centrist one with leftist tendencies. Other factors such as unprecedented religiousity, high degrees of nationalism and militarism contribute to this. For a good demonstration of this, here's the political compass layout of the 2004 Presidential Elections, where Kerry tests as center-right, while the Greens come in as the largest party whose candidate crosses to the left side of the axis. For more information about the standards, consult Political compass.

We've discussed this extensively here before, please look through the archives and scroll up for more discussion. And keep in mind, Wikipedia is an international project, so international political standards apply.

And, and since when is right wing a pejorative? The French representatives who took the label certainly didn't think so, and doesn't Rush Limbaugh proudly declare his position within the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?--Primal Chaos 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing is not a description of economic policies or philosophy. Rhetorically, the GOP tends toward economic liberalism, but in practice, Republican administrations and legislative bodies favor a mixed economy with substantial taxation and government spending. Center-right is still fuzzy, but probably more accurate. Suffice to say the old left-right spectrum is inadequate in describing economic policies. Twalls 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox used to contain a wide spectrum of political philosophies, such as economic liberalism, social conservatism, etc. However, it was decided by consensus that the 'arch-position' of Right or Right-Wing would be sufficient, and those more interested in more detail can look at the policy's section and find out more.--Primal Chaos 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's still the ideology section for terms like economic liberalism and so forth. Anyway, I think that for center-right parties, you're looking more at parties like the British Labour Party. The Republicans aren't libertarian when it comes to fiscal policy, but libertarians are further right than just "right wing," I'd argue (I'd use the term "far right," but it's seen as pejorative). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism in infobox

I removed paleoconservatism from the infobox again, seeing as most Republicans are not paleoconservatives. It would be misleading to label it as part of the party's official ideology, as most Republicans support the war in Iraq. Paleoconservatism is closer to the Constitution Party. It'd be like putting Libertarianism in the infobox; some Republicans follow it, but most do not. Adding Neoconservatism would be more appropriate, but I don't agree with that either...there are tons of terms we could use, but let's keep it short. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. A lot aren't that either. The Evil Spartan 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

been bugging me, all economies are mixed economies, its the degree to which they lean towards either the public or private sector that makes them liberal, mercantilist, etc. -A. Smith

No mention of the Dixiecrats?

The Nixon campaign strategy in 1968 to absorb the Dixiecrats and their supporters, angered by the Johnson administration's embrace of the Civil Rights movement, into the Republican party is a pivotal reason why the 'South is red' to this day. Yet, no mention of this is made, even though that absorbed white Southern base remains an important faction in internal party politics to this day, being the driving force of the anti-immigrant front within the party, for instance.--Primal Chaos 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I don't know enough on the subject to change the article, but seeing this, I realize that it is lacking. StormRyder 01:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Source/verification for this statement?

The following statement is in the article at Republican Party (United States)#Separation of powers and balance of powers:

The administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory was ruled unconstitutional by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the President does not have sweeping powers to ignore or revise laws and court rulings, stating "the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails."[6].

The source for this statement, currently footnote 6, refers to page 72 of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which is where the quote within the article comes from. I fail to see the relevance of the quoted statement (which actually ends with " . . . in this jurisdiction.") to the issue at hand, and have not been able to find within Hamdan a statement that the President "does not have sweeping powers to ignore or revise laws and court rulings" or even an assertion that the President was attempting to do so.

For the time being, I will assume good faith and refrain from removing this section from the article. However, a clarification to this statement and source would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised the language to read "called seriously into question" rather than "unconstitutional". Added a published article by David D. Cole, a respected legal voice in these matters (Law Professor at Georgetown University; Yale Law Graduate), which overviews the Bush Administration's ideas about the unitary executive and how seriously Hamdam v Rumsfeld threatens them. Also removed court rulings, articles only discuss ignoring laws by citing overriding authority as Commander in Chief.--Primal Chaos 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Democrat/Republican article differences

I've noticed something about these articles. The Democrat article shows all the issue stances the Democrat Party takes, while the Republican article isn't really clear about their stances. I think these articles should be mirror images of each other, and touch on everything important about both parties like voter base, factions, issue stances, etc. It would help some people (including me) see both parties stances on stuff. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia right? WikiTaco 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the common WP norm is "don't let the contents of one article affect decisions regarding another article," but as two subjects are ones which really beg for comparison, I think an exception here would be appropriate. --XDanielx 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help with the comparison. WikiTaco 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead split the stances out into their own pages, leaving the high points - on the main page? 24.18.54.49 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That could work. WikiTaco 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm republican, but gotta admit, our article isn't quite as good as the democrat's article. Everything over there is very clear. I definitily think we should borrow heavily some format and style and clearity from the dem's article. I've always been extremely frustrated in trying to help out controversial articles. I normally edit biology and physics. I am in a top university with a 3.8 gpa, but feel like my edits get reverted by sneaky manipulative admins with multiple accounts who have their own agenda on here, and can devote way more time than I can. Can anyone reply below this line, advice on how to contribute to "hot articles" like this one. 70.223.149.24 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Time-sensitive information

The article lists the Party as "currently" holding a majority position in the houses of Congress. Shouldn't that either be corrected (as well as other parties' articles) to reflect the current reality, or instead changed to a time-neutral tone? There's already a "current composition" heading on the House page, which is presumably kept up to date. Information duplication leads to skew over time. 24.18.54.49 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone come away from this discussion believing NPOV was honored?

I would prefer to comment on individual statements in this article, but it is the summation of the articles partiality that bothers me. To illustrate what I am talking about, it would be beneficial to review the Wikipedia article about the Democratic Party. In contrast, the article about the Democratic Party reads like a commercial, listing no faults or shortcomings, while the article about the Republican Party disparages the party throughout. It takes liberal opportunity, and too much of the discussion, to lambast President Bush, as if he is the current and historical Republican Party.

To apply this to the article about the Democratic Party, one would have to dwell extensively on the travails of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. As such, its articles are responsible for reporting facts, both historical and current. The impression this article leaves the reader with is not one of reporting facts, but instead a series of opinions expressed by an author hostile to the subject.

Wikipedia claims, in its founding principles that: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

Truthteller51 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reader who takes the time to review this article followed by the article about the Democratic Party will come away with the same deflated view of article neutrality that I see now. Bush hatred is insidious, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. If the aim of the article is to present a laundry list of things that the Republican Party does wrong, then the same approach should apply to the article about the Democratic Party; but in either case this serves no purpose since the whole NPOV principle is thrown out the window.

Unfortunately, I think has to do with the current state of play for the Republicans more than a bias on Wikipedia's part. Settler is a great neutral editor in particular, and I know he watches this article like a hawk.

The Republican party has been swept into minority status on the federal and in most state legislatures, tied to an unpopular president and an unpopular war, while Bush has single-handedly defined the Republican Party for the last six years both in policy and in image. And those policies are under attack from both the newly christened Democratic congress and from a Supreme Court that has flatly ruled the predominant theory of his administration (the unitary executive) is pretty much hogwash. In short, they are in trouble (not insurmountable trouble, but trouble). And the article reflects that.

If you have any specific objections of POV, or think something is missing, feel free to change it! The edit button has no litmus test, on both party's articles, and is open to all comers. --Primal Chaos 12:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave the history a minor revising. What I'd like to do is merge the history with the History of the United States Republican Party and leave a summary on this page but I just do not have the time right now. Settler 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

One particular section that does not meet NPOV comes at the front of the Economic Policy section: "Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They favor free-market policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and limited regulation. Recently, opponents have stated that Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility, citing the 2006 federal deficit as the largest in US history.[9]." I think the last sentence is not warranted here, for three reasons:

1) The federal deficit is just one of many possible measures of fiscal policy. As just one example, national debt as a % of GDP actually peaked under Clinton (through no fault of his policies) and has stayed slightly below those levels under Bush II. Wouldn't this be evidence that supports the view of Republicans as fiscal conservatives?

2) It's not the *policy* of the Republican party to run a deficit; without context (as with debt / GDP) we can't really draw much of a conclusion about why they ran a deficit, and

3) Anyone with extra time on their hands could run through the various economic and social policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties and show where outcomes fell short (ex. - don't ask, don't tell), but that doesn't give any insight into the parties' underlying core values. Any comments on deleting this last sentence? CBoz 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the "delete last sentence" query, I would like to point out that WP:NPOV guides content within articles, and not across multiple related articles. Most specifically, WP:NPOV means that all views are represented equally within the GOP article; it does not mean that it should match the DNC article (in form, content, or tone). The "but look at article foo" argument carries little weight on Wikipedia -- strive to make sure articles encompass all points of view about their subjects instead of making accusations of bias because you feel a related article is not as critical of the subject. I'm sure most of the articles that could be compared in such a way (I see it all the time between CNN and Fox News Channel) are edited by seperate editors entirely. Each article (and the content therein) should be able to stand on its own without referencing how it's done elsewhere. /Blaxthos 12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your comment, then, it's not coming down one way the other with regard to deleting the aforementioned sentence, only on not using "this site vs. that site" arguments as a general rule. If no one takes issue, I will delete the sentence in a couple of days.

But going back to your comment that comparisons across articles are not relevant, I would think that when subjects are frequently compared and contrasted -- such as rival political parties -- a balanced view *should* carry weight. The alternative does not serve the Wikipedia community well. But as others have noted, the responsibility to do so falls on us. Too bad there aren't as many editors on the right as there are on the left ;) 24.148.175.197 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Economic liberalism"

Look at the statements and actions of almost every Republican in office and you'll find that in no way shape or form do most Republicans support economic liberty. That they occasionally pay lip service to business doesn't matter; they generally support any government intervention that they think will "help" the economy, and they can hold virtually no philosophical weight against the Democrats' proposals because they're almost the same. They're [with few exceptions] big-government religious conservative socialists. Fix your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.104.206 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NoNinja337 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support of Sandanistas?

According to this document [1], it appeared that Reagan supported the Sandanistas. He was concerned about the stability of surrounding countries, and wanted the governments to work despite his distaste of the Sandanista government. Brian Pearson 01:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Added libertarianism to Infobox

With influence of Ron Paul, the R-NH and R-AK republicans, and the GOP's state's rights and gun control position, the infobox should reflect upon this. Obviously the Republicans aren't purist Libertarians, and pot, abortion and gay marriage prove this, but it's obviously there somewhere.Ninja337 22:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With all respect to Mr. Paul, he has less than 5% of the votes in opinion polls on the primary. He doesn't stand a chance and has not influenced the party's platform at all. If you refer to the national platform at their website, you'll see nothing that resembles libertarianism. The infobox should relate to the national platform and the mainstream views of the party, not politicians who don't represent these views. Hence, I'm removing libertarianism from the infobox. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias Exposed AGAIN

The Paragraph: "Today, the Republican Party supports a pro-business platform, with further foundations in economic libertarianism, nationalism, and a brand of social conservatism increasingly based on the viewpoints of the Religious Right.[2]" Is not offset by something on the Democratic Party Page reading: "Today, the Democratic Party supports a pro-labor union platform, with further foundations in economic socialism, inernationalism, and a brand of social liberalism increasingly based on the viewpoints of the Secular Left."

If I were to remove the statement summing up the GOP in the opening Paragraph, it would be called "vandalism". Wikipedia is DOMINATED by administrators with a Socialist/Leftist agenda, so I would expect nothing less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to this rant on the Democrats' talk page. The Evil Spartan 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Smart...

Yeah, Minnesota's become more Republican since 1990, which is why the DEMOCRATS made massive gains in the state legislature in both 2004 and 2006. Not to mention, Klobuchar completely demolished Kennedy and the Democrats almost seized all statewide offices up for election that year. Smart. Saying a state is becoming more Republican just because of reversed gains and a Republican governor who just barely even hung on to his office. This is why I'll never use Wikipedia as a source. It's so full of big shots who think they know everything but in reality know nothing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.170.110 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 

I kind of agree with you. I edit Wikipedia, but I don't use it as an actual source (my high school didn't allow it, nor does my college), I use it for, uh, what's the words? Personal gain... yeah. Anyways, I know little of what you just spoke about (note I am not a Democrat... or a Republican... or Green Party, or whatever), but I did find that you are right in a sense, "In the 2006 mid-term election, Democrats were elected to all state offices except for governor and lieutenant governor, where Republicans Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau narrowly won reelection. The DFL also posted double-digit gains in both houses of the legislature, elected DFLer Amy Klobuchar to the U.S. Senate, and increased the Democratic U.S. House caucus by one, Tim Walz (MN1)." - Wikipedia. However, by more Republican, they mean there have been more Republicans in Minnesota in the past ten years than before. But you are still right, yet again, about: "Because of Pawlenty's narrow reelection in 2006, Republicans will have held the governorship for 16 of the last 20 years by the end of 2010. Since that election, however, Republicans are in the minority in the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronCrow (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

flsjhf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.38.254 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Environment

This page needs a section talking about how the Republican party is deeling with the issues of the environment. Phantomwolf13 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The current one is a disaster. It is sloppy, has numerous grammar and spelling mistakes, and is unabashedly biased. It needs to be rewritten by someone who can take a neutral stance (and I'm not that someone). I mean, the line, "They are speaking up... to let their leaders know that they want their environment preserved, not squandered for short-term gain" is painfully biased. --Seldumonde 16:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the existing section and added one that hopefully will solve the problems brought up here.--Antodav2007 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Center-right?

Center-right social policy? Seeing it as the GOP is known for having many prominent members who want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and oppose even civil-unions. I have added a {{cn}} tag in the meantime. I personally think that the center-right & right-wing classification for both social and fiscal policy was more accurate. Signature^brendel 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a fair characterization. Only a certain (albeit very prominent) wing of the party is right-wing socially; much of the party is comprised of economic conservatives. I'm also not sure that characterizing people who overturn R v. W or "even opposing civil-unions" is that far right wing, given that a good 35-40% of the public agrees with those positions (cf. with the Democrat party labels, which is center-left, for a party that supports partial-birth abortion - supported by only 11% of the public). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Democrat party"? Using a partisan epithet in a comment speaks loads for your neutrality. I'll sneak over to the Homosexuality article and let those "pinkos" know what's what.--Primal Chaos (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good litmus test. Name a centrist social position of the Republican party. While its economic policies are certainly center-right (an emphasis on supply-side tax systems but still for maintaining income tax and large government-funded economic stability programs), its social policy seems dominated by this 'prominent minority' of the Christian Right. Show where the centrist won out in the social planks of the party platform.--Primal Chaos (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know. Unless I'm mistaken the Republican Party was in control of the US Congress and US Senate in 2006 and for a while before then. The fact that they didn't for example overturn Roe vs Wade may mean that they are resonably centre-right even if it isn't always clear from the rhetoric and propaganda they use in some circles. In any case, none of this matters. All that matters is what the reliable sources say. If the sources say they are centre right, then centre-right it is. If the sources say they are extreme right, then extreme right it is. If the sources say they are so extreme right they make Hitler look good, then Hitler right it is. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this Article

I have to agree with some of the previous discussion points, this article contains elements that are not 100% neutral POV facts. -Jay, Dec.20.2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.103.48.20 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will have to give us specifics if you wish to see anything changed; we cannot work in the general. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: A sentence in the Civil War era section reads: "By 1890, the Republicans had agreed to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers." The sentence implies that the Republicans grudgingly gave in to these measures after some period of dissension ending before or during 1890, which is not the case. In reality, both parties were in favor of antitrust legislation, and it was a Republican, Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, who authored the act in question. The only dissenter in the entire legislature, Sen. Rufus Blodgett of New Jersey, was a Democrat. Personally, I don't see the relevance of this sentence to an article on the Republican Party, and accordingly, I will remove it unless someone enlightens me to the contrary.Bottledmark (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requires clarification of what "party membership" means

This article states at the beginning that the Republican Party has 55 million "registered members" but no further details of this are provided. The article about the Democrat party makes a similar spectacular claim. These seem to be very large numbers. What do they mean exactly ? Do these people all pay membership dues ? Do they belong to local party branches or committees ? It seems to be more than the number of people who actually vote in the US. In other advanced democratic countries , rarely more than 5% of total population are active members of polical parties, other than voting. The explanation of this may be self-evident to US citizens, but maybe not to people outside the USA. Maybe someone with knowledge of this needs to provide more information about membership of the US political parties. Eregli bob (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It means registered voters... i.e. when they register to vote in their state they can choose to align themselves with a political party or be independent. IIRC some U.S. states (like Virginia) do not ask people for any affiliation. Settler (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for that comment. So in the USA, when you register as a voter with a State agency responsible for registering voters, you tell that agency what party you support, and that makes you a "member" of that party ? How strange! Whats the point of a secret ballot if people tell the State electoral agency, in advance, what party you support ? Is this system described anywhere ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Various states have different rules. When you register to vote, there is generally no declaration of party affiliation. But when voting in a primary election, there are often different ballots for the parties. In such cases, you have to ask for the ballot of a particular party when voting in a primary. This really means very little, as voters often cross party lines to vote strategically in a primary for a candidate in the opposite party that they think will not do well in the general election. Or in some districts where one party is dominant, the election is decided in the primary election and voters from the the other party may vote for the least objectionable candidate from the dominant party. In a general election there is only one ballot and hence no explicit declaration of party allegiance. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly NPOV Paragraph?

Most Republican candidates for President of the United States in the 2008 election for some reason favor closed borders and believe there are illegal aliens and dislike them. Some candidates are against hiring “illegal immigrants” or helping them or giving them welfare. Most of the Republican candidates in 2008 want to replace the income tax with a sales tax rather than create money. They say they want less U.S. government itself and less government spending on things like personal welfare and corporate welfare, claiming it’s because of taxes. Some of them favor competition in world business and want private insurance and to buy oil from Iraq. Others Republican candidates for President favor a strong military, energy independence and to stop “terrorists” by using the military or by way of spies. Most of the candidates are against abortion. Some are against stem cell research. A few want to protect the weak and helpless and Social Security. Some Republicans running for President in the 2008 election are concerned about the environment and want to take care of natural resources. All of them seem to see nothing wrong with there being a supply and demand curve. Yet some want better education such as art and music being taught in the public schools.[48] Although some people might not want a job, Thompson, Paul and Huckabee favor a two-year limit on welfare benefits, and McCain, Hunter and Huckabee favor working 40 hours a week while on welfare. [49][50] The name echoed the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.[51] The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism "G.O.P." is a commonly used designation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known reference to the Republican Party as the "grand old party" came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation G.O.P. is dated 1884.

Does nobody see this paragraph as terribly biased? The tone is highly critical and the language unneutral itself. Examples: "a few care for the weak and helpless" "some candidates are against hiring 'illegal immigrants' or helping them " "believe there are illegal aliens and dislike them" --68.144.14.32 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Business" is a terribly vague peacock term

Bonzohnomics

Presidential candidate John Cox in, "Let the Free Market Work, Please!" [www.cox2008.com/cox/let_the_free_market_work_please] shows that Republican party doesn't understand the demand curve. The demand curve shows that people on the left side of it are not able to afford what they need to buy. Supply and demand are not something to be patriotic about -- they are an illustration of a concept. Supply and demand are not able to increase supply. They are graphs showing that poor people are poor. Graphs showing what's going on are not able to correct themselves. The fact is, charging more for merchandise than you paid for it does not increase supply. It just causes inflation. Calling unsubsidized capitalism "free" is nonsense. Merchandize has been costing more and more since Reagan was president. Therefore, this article ought to be more balanced. --Chuck Marean 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Oniononion (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

International affiliation

An editor claims the RNC is not the embodiment of (the same as) the Republican Party. The RNC notes it "The Republican National Committee shall have the general management of the Republican Party, subject to direction from the national convention. The members of the Republican National Committee shall consist of one (1) national committeeman and one (1) national committeewoman from, and the chairman of the state Republican Party of, each state." [2] The IDU [3] notes the Republican Party as a full member. Republican National Committee chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. wrote in 1983 that "Republicans can play a unique role in this process as the Party's international programs continue to expand under the Endowment structure. For example, our position as a charter member of the world's newest international political organization, the International Democrat Union (IDU), offers a key set of opportunities. The IDU, established in June 1983, brings together some of the leading conservative and moderate political parties of the world, including the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, the German Christian Democratic Party, the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party and a host of other parties from Europe and the Pacific. Together, IDU member parties can claim the voting support of 150 million voters worldwide, placing the organization on at least a par with the much older Socialist International. The objectives of the IDU are straightforward and clearly in line with Republican philosophy - to provide new international support for the virtues of "political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and economic development under the rule of the law. After its formation in London this year, which was attended by nine heads of state and government including British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl. The Wall Street Journal hailed the IDU as 'The Nonsocialist International.' With Vice President George Bush representing President Reagan, and former National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen in attendance, I signed the IDU's founding charter marking the first time that the Republican Party has joined an international political organization of this magnitude." [4] Settler (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pentagrams

Someone has recently added the following passage under the 'Symbols' section:

The modern mascot symbol is a red elephant with a blue back that contains three inverted pentagrams (stars with two points up). Satanists use stars with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle, with the head of a goat inside the pentagram. However, to date, for the United States` Republican Party as a whole, there have been no direct correlations drawn between them and Satanists.

I reverted it once, and it was re-added. My question, as before, is what is it doing here, if there is no correlation? AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You were correct to revert. This is vandalism, pure and simple, and as such reversion of it does not count against WP:3RR. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Reagan Era

I don’t believe the references support the statement, “The frustrations of stagflation were resolved, as no longer did soaring inflation and recession pull the country down.” I remember inflation increased from what he did and entry-level jobs were either low-paying or volunteer work, and it got me down. I also object to the statement, “Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion,” because it implies he was a conservative. Reagan’s goal was of less government and less regulation on small business, in my opinion, is not north-eastern conservative but rather southern conservative, i.e. confederate as opposed to federalist. -- Chuck Marean 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge history into History of the United States Republican Party

I'm beginning work on doing this and am asking for comments or opposition to this in this talk page article section. Can't say exactly when work will be completed. A summary will be left behind. Settler (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Easier than I thought it would be. I finished work on the merge, but will wait approximately 3 days before implementing it. Settler (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Republicans Control Wikipedia

Wikipedia allows only their version of history.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.63.124 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Podcasts

Does anyone object to my putting a link to our podcasts? We read columns of major conservative writers such as: Michael Barone, Dick Morris, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, David Limbaugh and many others.

• Podcasts of convservative articles

---

In my opinion, since you describe it as a site of your podcasts, you probably shouldn't link to it as that would seem to be advertising and/or original research. You've made us aware by putting it on the discussion page, let other editors decide if it should be linked to by the article. Readin (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)