Talk:Republican Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2008! |  |
| Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 |
Contents |
[edit] Mormons
In the ideology section, it states "Evangelicals are not the only religious conservative faction in the Party, though: there are also the Mormons, who emphasize traditional family values"
This strikes me as a Mormon slight, as many Mormons are evangelical. Protestants and Catholics are not the only evangelicals.
- The term 'Evangelical' is used in political and religious analysis to refer to a particular self-identified group of conservative protestant American churches. It is not to say that no other sect or ideological group evangelizes, no more than the term 'Baptist' means no other sect or denomination baptizes. This usage is rather common and understood.--Primal Chaos (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you're mistaking the difference between evangelism and evangelicalism. Evangelism is the act of spreading the "good news", while evangelicalism is a theological trend in, primarily, Protestant denominations. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Free market
The Republicans for the past 30 years have supported a high national debt, high government spending, and supply-side economics as opposed to a laissez-faire free market. If "economic conservatism" means reduced government spending and meddling (including meddling by handing out pro-business subsidies) in the economy then this article should't say that GOP's fiscal policy is "economic conservatism." SteveSims (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- You raise a good question, what should the article say about Republican Party stances when they say one thing and do another?Readin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- From a non-POV standpoint, the article should describe both what the party says (platform as well as statements by leading members) and what it does (how most Republicans vote as well as how leaders vote). Probably the best neutral language is to leave out "the party supports ..." and replace it with "the party platform says ..." and "this and that leader say ...." SkyDot (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pakistan
Refers to Bush's policy towards some dictatorships; dunno whether it is particularly urgent to change as the gist of the statement still stands.. but there have been significant changes recently; maybe a couple of words to indicate this? heh.. just thought I'd mention it.. 86.160.211.0 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) RJ UK
[edit] Is this a joke?
"They support the idea of individuals being economically responsible for their own actions and decisions. They favor a free-market, policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism."
How can a party that supports mercantalism, managed trade, business subsidies, regulations, fiat money, deficit spending, welfare (social and corporate), etc. possibly be considered economically liberal? Josh (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The spin doctors say so. This is a weakness of wikipedia, where whoever edits last wins. SkyDot (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the Bush Administration does not represent the entire Republican Party. In fact one of the major reasons Bush has grown unpopular with Republicans is because of the things you mentioned above. I wouldn't consider Bush a fiscal conservative at all, just a big government spending drunken monkey hiding behind the name "compassionate conservative", ruining the party with his unconservative policies. His administration's economic habits do not represent the entire party's.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you have the GOP's stated positions on one hand (i.e. the lip service to free markets and economic liberalism) and then on the other, you have actual policy, which turns out to be the opposite. I think this distinction can be reflected in the article, and something like the above captures the gist of this gap between what is stated and actual policy (and reasons why the Bush administration has become unpopular with free-market advocates in the GOP). Twalls (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This actually completely wrong. This idea is not a Democrat/Republican compare and contrast. This is a Conservative/Liberal/Neo-Conservative/Libertarian compare and contrast. The Republican party as a whole, and by as a whole I mean the Dwight Eisenhower Republican party, is Conservative. You have Neo-Conservatives that call themselves conservatives but are more liberal than moderate Democrats. Some Republicans, like Ron Paul, are Libertarians, which is what this part of the article refers to. The Republican party as a whole does not believe in economic self-responsibility. They also don't believe in small, state's-rights government. Why? Most Republicans are pro-life. They made that choice for those that are supposed to be "self-responsible." Not only that, they practice "Reganomics" or "Trickle-Down" economics. This leaves no room for self-responsibility when the bourgeoisie that receives the most benefit from trickle-down makes all the economic decisions and controls the economic climate and future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.202.98 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Here's a question worth answering...
I have always thought of this question. What is up with the mascots for the political parties? Like, how did political parties base their parties on animals? Anyway, just a question to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupethemonkeyboy (talk • contribs)
The DNC is a donkey because Jacksonian Democrats were called stubborn as asses. The GOP is an elephant because they never forgot about the War of 1812 or something like that. Elephants never forget anything. What I'd like to know is why the Republicn Page is locked and the Democrat Page isn't. Some immature little quasi-socialist Democrats on here, or what? Chenzo23 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard that they got their mascots from the political jokes and cartoons that the press was printing. I think its pretty funny that they would take up the animals as their mascvots when the animals were ment to make fun of the 2 partys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.52.69 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ron Paul
Why is Dr. Ron Paul nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.188.149 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Because Paul is barely upholds the principles of the Republican Party. He is very liberal compared to true Republicans. Guanako512 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Libertarian," but not remotely "liberal." The man describes himself as "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion;" supported DOMA and criticized a Supreme Court ruling overturning anti-sodomy laws in Texas; delivered a long speech about Christmas, how the Democrats wanted to destroy it, and how the founding fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of a state church but supported a "robustly Christian nation." (An idea disproven, by the way, by the fact that the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If the founding fathers had meant "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national church," they'd have said that instead).
He may seem like a classical liberal because of his positions on economic matters, but on social issues even he doesn't dare criticize the religious right's dominance of the Party. His only substantive difference with them is on foreign policy. Otherwise, he's a Republican through and through, who only sounds different because he emphasizes different parts of the Republican message. The reason he isn't mentioned isn't because he's a liberal, it's because he's so insignificant in party politics that he simply doesn't rate mentioning. 147.9.201.154 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Someone needs to add an l to the "nationa debt" In this line: "Yet, libertarians are increasingly dissatisfied with the party's social policy and support for corporate welfare and nationa debt," under the "Future trends" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.168.88 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Social Conservatism
The Republican Party is the more socially conservative "(from an American Christian point of view)" - social conservatism isn't limited to Christianity. You'll find social conservatives who believe in modesty, restraint, etc, etc, in pretty much every culture on the planet.
Is there a point of view in which a "social conservative" from some view OTHER culture or faith than that of an American Christian would differ in their definition of what is socially conservative...? Would a socially conservative Hindu believe in, say, casual sex? Or would a socially conservative Islamist condone his children experimenting with marijuana in college? Social conservatism is not the purview of Christians, per se, although the faith and the philosophy do have a lot in common...
Just a thought.
-
- I see your point. I have removed the parenthetical as unnecessary. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Official Color Red?
I remember back in the 1970's, 80's and even the early 90's. All the political maps I have seen were blue for Republicans and red for Democrats. Why has the media(?) changed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.41.34 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Because during one particular election some stations showed the Republicans in red and the Dems in blue, and some guy wrote an article about the huge swaths of red on the map. It was rather unfortunate and confusing. I associate red with socialism, Democrats, and anti-Americanism. I associate blue with conservatives and America, and Republicans. It always confuses me when I hear "red state" and the speaker means the Republicans as I expect just the opposite.
It is not the official color. I'm pretty sure neither party has an official color.Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The 2000 election was when the colors "switched". Some believe the GOP became associated with red (the color of "power") when the change in power of Senate came about, giving Dems the "old [British Empire] power" color (Dems controlled Senate for decades before the '90s GOP revolution). Of course, it's all speculation. It could've simply been one intern in a TV network control room in NYC who decided it for the remainder of time... we may never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.183.239 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Neither party has an official color. Every time I hear people talk about red and blue states, they associate red with republican and blue with democrat. I honestly think the whole "official color" part should be taken out as neither party has stated an official color. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Southern Conservatives
Shouldn't it be mentioned in the ideology section that southern conservatives are historically for free trade, the free market,small government, and are traditionally fiscal conservatives. e.g. some of the causes of the American Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.231.252 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, because the south was historically for the democratic party all the way until the 60's. It only recently became largely conservative. See: Solid South. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental policies
A considerable percentage ... and doubt scientific studies that demonstrate the impact human activity has on climate change, instead ... Someone please show a reference to any of these "scientific studies that demonstrate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.233.253 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarianism
I noticed that under ideologies there is no mention of libertarianism. I have always known the Party to have a Libertarian wing. (Ron Paul for example). I personally think that Libertarianism should be added, what do you guys think?
Dunnsworth (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
