Talk:Republican Party (United States)

"Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right"

We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.

• The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
• Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.

@Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.

It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From the closer's comment: 'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)

The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.

A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.

Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The republicans under Trump are “Right-Wing to Far-Right” in my opinion. Jaybainshetland (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

This doesn't say that Republican party is far right but makes very good and interesting observations on how much right it is

Please have a read everyone 2409:40E1:100E:6F93:5B56:46AD:AB19:390C (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK Richie1509 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the "right-wing" classification should be removed, and only "center-right" should remain. The Democratic Party is listed as "center-left," and it is no less to the left than the Republican Party is to the right. Donald Trump is not right-wing or a conservative, he is a populist (and one who causes a lot of controversy at that). The Republican Party platform has shifted its position on same-sex marriage, abortion, IVF, and birth control much further to the left than it was before, and it would make no sense to suddenly classify the party as "right-wing" when it has been becoming gradually centrist overtime. DocZach (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been lots and lots of reliable and very credible sources that the republican party, in recent years, has shifted much further to the right, compared to the level at which the democratic party has shifted to left EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep I definitely agree. The source given for right-wing populism in the party itself states how that block has become the dominant faction of the party EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Centre-right and far-right faction

Since only a faction of the Republican Party is far-right and the main position of the party is just Right-wing, can we change the position. Also, can we add the far-right faction Richie1509 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wholly support adding "far-right" into the political position box, but despite the fact that the House Freedom Caucus is universally defined as far-right, nobody seems willing to add that in on this page. It's annoying. Dhantegge (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Freedom Caucus is defined as right wing in parts and far right in others. It’s also vastly outnumbered by two larger centrist factions defined as center and center-right. We’ve already had extensive discussion over ideology on this page as well, but if you want to argue the merits of “center to far-right”, go right ahead. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue with the idea of equating the amount of far right politicians in the GOP strictly on the basis of HFC members and concluding that therefore they are a "small" group, is that membership for HFC is not publicized. The House Freedom Caucus does not disclose the names of its members or it's allies. The only way we've managed to justify making this claim is from "estimates" by RS that it only has a few dozen members.

Even if the Freedom Caucus's members and their allies are outnumbered, they still seem to wield more of the power and clout within the party, which may or may not be due to overlap of growing far-right views within the party.

• "There isn’t even complete clarity on who’s in it. The group has no website, no official roster, and definitely no cameras in the room where it happens. Yet while Freedom Caucus members have more clout than ever, including key seats on committees and subcommittees, this latest standoff has also exposed cracks within the group itself." CSM 2023 - NYT 2017
• "Part of what makes the Freedom Caucus a unique intraparty faction is also its greatest strength. If 80 percent of its members agree to a position or action, everyone has to be on board. That’s different from other groups throughout American history, according to Matthew Green, a professor of politics at The Catholic University of America and the author of a book about the Freedom Caucus. It isn’t just a group of likeminded members; it’s also an effective, disruptive voting bloc that stands together." fivethirtyeight 2023

Another consideration is that factions do not necessarily determine the ideology of all of it's members. Since Trump's rise, the number of GOP senators and representatives parroting certain far right views has grown, despite not all of them being generally considered far right or "official" members of the HFC. For example, MTG is no longer a Freedom Caucus member, but she is still clearly considered far right. As political expert Daniel DiSalvo once wrote..."

• "Consider ideology. While it is common to hear that the parties are more ideologically divided than ever before, there are reasons for skepticism about such claims. Ideological distance between members of Congress as measured by political scientists is inferred from roll-call voting behavior. But the extent to which roll-call voting patterns capture members' substantive policy positions is debatable.

One problem is that it is very hard to distinguish ideology from partisan loyalty as the driver of voting behavior. To calculate ideological distance between members, one must assume that all votes are sincere — i.e., that before casting a vote, a member of Congress looks at each item and determines how far the measure is from his ideal policy point. If some members' votes represent efforts to enhance the party brand or burnish their own political images, or simply to support their own party as a default position, then measures of ideological distance lose their precision." National Affairs 2022

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The exact members aren't known, but we know how many there are - or close to it. Washington Post pegged it at 33 total (1 of those has since been expelled from the caucus) - that's far less than the Governance Group or Main Street Caucus, and marginally more than the Problem Solvers Caucus. Toa Nidhiki05 17:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to split hairs, but if they don't know who they are, then how do they know how many there are? The other point was that HFC faction numbers alone don't provide us with an accurate portrayal of prevalence of far-right ideology and views within the party. It seems an iteration of the great replacement far-right conspiracy theory that has been pushed not just by HFC members, but also may have been somewhat codified in the official platform of the GOP.

• "We must not allow Biden's Migrant Invasion to alter our Country."
• "Republicans will protect Medicare's finances from being financially crushed by the Democrat plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the rolls of Medicare."
• "We will not allow the Democrats to give Voting Rights to illegal Aliens."

"Trump and the Republican Party’s depiction of the border as seen in their advertising is part of a broader trend, according to Mittelstadt. “We’ve really seen, and not just in the U.S., but over the last decade, far-right, nationalist and populist parties have latched on to immigration as a very effective issue to motivate their base and turnout support. Some thinking that used to be reserved for the dark places of the internet — like the great replacement theory … now you see them on the airwaves across the United States,” she said."

"But the gathering also underscored how speakers with views once considered fringe have seeped into the conservative mainstream. Researchers who study far-right movements say their prominence reflects the scope of radicalism that courses through the party..."

"Rockefeller remained in pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, but due to the new winds blowing in the party, he spent the rest of his career trying to convince an increasingly doctrinaire and southern party that he would not commit the same error again. The failure of his effort in 1964 helped set the party on the path to becoming the GOP that arrives in Milwaukee: a far-right one in which the fight from San Francisco would be unimaginable because there are no dissenting voices left."

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources know roughly how many there are. The Hill estimates about three dozen, so 36. There's really no doubt on (roughly) the size of the caucus. A vote to remove a member was decided 16-13, so there's at least 29, but three members also were booted or resigned. And even if sources uniformly called them far-right - they don't - they are far outnumbered by two centrist groupings and only marginally larger than another. The far-right, objectively, has less impact on the party than centrists; it would be undue weight to insist otherwise. Toa Nidhiki05 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the HFC does not appear to be the penultimate indicator for the prevalence of far-right views within the party, and I do not see any RS here saying otherwise.

"The far-right, objectively, has less impact on the party than centrists" I don't claim these sources contradict that, only that the prevalence of far-right views has grown.

"it would be undue weight to insist otherwise." We can determine weight of the extent far right views and ideologies have grown by distinguishing centrist views vs far-right views. I think there is at least a strong possibility for consensus on that.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't use the info-box and instead explain everything in the body of the article, we can avoid these discussions which have taken up thousands of hours of editors' times. Right-wing, center-right, far-right, centrist etc. mean different things to different people and people can even use the terms with different meanings depending on context.

Let's just report the ideology and let readers decide for themselves where they place them along their model of the political spectrum instead of telling them where Wikipedia editors do. TFD (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with changing to solely right-wing with a note referring to "center-right and far-right factions", as one or two have already suggested in above discussions. "Center-right" having the same weight as "right-wing" is not reflective of the current party at all; insisting on a lean to CR while passing over a similar number of RS put forward on here describing an overall shift towards the far-right seems WP:UNDUE and likely violates WP:NPOV.

Sticking to just "right-wing" with a note has numerous benefits: it's purposely broader, a more ambigious label works well in this instance; it's better-supported by sources and less contested; and it distributes weight more evenly between sources.

Additionally, some of the currently given sources for CR aren't particularly strong. The second one for example is from 2015 – pre-Trump – and describes the American center-right as "incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party". Dated source, and specifically refers to the CR as 'factions', meaning this could be handled with a note. On the other hand, two of the sources for RW are more recent and explicitly describe a shift away from the centre-ground.

To state the obvious, Trumpism has had a chokehold on the Republican Party for not far off a decade, regardless of caucus size. The formerly fringe views of MAGAism – which are bordering on far-right – have been brought into the mainstream. CR to RW may have been accurate 10-15 years ago but not anymore.

Much of this has already been said in above discussions, just wanted to contribute to reaching a consensus. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have an extensively discussed consensus that rejected this idea. Reliable sources do not solely, or even mostly, describe the party as right-wing, as current sourcing and research establishes. And as established above, centrists make up a larger chunk of the party than the "far-right", which would lead to "center to far-right" - at which point you might as well just take The Four Deuces's idea and remove the column entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to caucus sizes or the party as a whole? As @Darknipples said: HFC faction numbers alone don't provide us with an accurate portrayal of prevalence of far-right ideology and views within the party. It seems an iteration of the great replacement far-right conspiracy theory that has been pushed not just by HFC members may have also been somewhat codified in the official platform of the GOP.

Can you repost these reliable sources and research that supports your claims? In terms of influence and overall policy of the party, centrists absolutely do not have more influence than the hard/far-right.

How much does caucus size matter really – enough to sway the position? The hardline anti-immigration sentiment in the GOP's current platform is very far from anything remotely centrist. Trump has been the nominee three times in a row, most recently without major contest even though he was no longer the incumbent.

Numerous reliable sources have been provided on here stating the blindingly obvious and challenging the CR label but they seem to have been largely dismissed. The weight of CR and FR sources is even enough to bring the overall position to a broad right-wing. A "with center-right and far-right factions" note is sufficent and is the most logical conclusion taking most recent RS into account.

Take a look at other "centre-right to right-wing" parties on Wikipedia: Canada and UK's Conservative parties and Australia's Liberal Party. No way is the GOP on the same wavelength as these. While I'm aware the US overton window is slightly to the right of most of the west, but even then, this is simply not accurate. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The numbers have already been litigated. It is undeniable the HFC is smaller than the centrist factions. And given the HFC isn’t uniformly regarded as far-right, you would absolutely be against what our sources say. Ultimately, we’ve already discussed this and found a consensus through viable, credible academic sources. The personal opinions of editors disputing caucus sizes or comparing other Wikipedia pages can’t override that. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel you may be misinterpreting some of my points.

I'm not disputing caucus sizes or denying that the HFC is smaller than the centre-right factions (I wouldn't call any GOP faction outright centrist but no point going down that rabbit hole now); I'm rather questioning if position should be based solely on caucus size. It's clear – regardless of caucus sizes – that Trumpism has a firm grip on the GOP and this is not hard to verify.

The positions of the broader MAGA grouping, including the HFC, are firmly right-wing to say the least. The far-right statuses (or close to) of both the Freedom Caucus and Trumpism are well sourced on their respective pages. Even neo-fascism is extensively sourced on the latter. This shouldn't really be up for debate.

You still haven't provided credible, recent academic sources in this discussion that describe the GOP as a whole as "center-right". I'm sure there are some but you've just repeatedly pointed towards the caucus numbers, including in previous conversations, without explaining why it should determine the position. There are plenty of sources provided here – including ones already on the page – explicitly claiming the GOP is no longer CR, but I haven't seen you address those.

To clarify, I'm not advocating for 'far-right' being added as a standalone position, or even RW to FR; my proposal is to remove center-right and by extension, add a note which says "With center-right and far-right factions". This is not just a personal opinion; this is – from the sources I've seen – the median point between various reliable sources which describe varying degrees of right. Including centre-right as a main position is giving undue weight to one side, especially in the face of rising Trumpism. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you refer to the party as a whole when it doesn't have a membership and is not even a legal entity? TFD (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, broadly speaking, which factions have the most influence? It's definitely not "centrist" ones when there's wording like "illegal aliens" in the official GOP platform, not to mention the policies themselves. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If using the phrase "illegal alien" is far-right, the party has been such since Reagan. But more specifically, the evidence is in the sources cited and pieces like the Washington Post one - one of the hallmarks of the Freedom Caucus's fringe is they are insurgents. In other words: they lack institutional power, and seek to get it. But they are outnumbered broadly by the rest of the caucus, and even specifically by the moderates. Toa Nidhiki05 20:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by others' comments on the Washington Post article (I can't read it due to paywall), it just states that more 'moderate' caucuses make up a bigger share of the house than the HFC. I ask again though: why should caucus size alone determine the position?

There are also high-quality sources already on this article directly challenging centre-right:

• McKay, David (2020), Crewe, Ivor; Sanders, David (eds.), "Facilitating Donald Trump: Populism, the Republican Party and Media Manipulation", Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–121, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17997-7_7, ISBN 978-3-030-17997-7, retrieved 2024-06-13, the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party that was hostile not only to liberal views but also to any perspective that clashed with the core views of an ideologically cohesive conservative cadre of party faithfuls
• Greenberg, David (2021-01-27). "An Intellectual History of Trumpism". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2024-06-13. The larger ideology that the president-elect represents is a post-Iraq War, post-crash, post-Barack Obama update of what used to be called paleoconservatism: On race and immigration, where the alt-right affinities are most pronounced, its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right.

You seem very determined to prove that further-right types are just a fringe group on the edge of the party. The extent of far-right ideology and views within the party is not reflected in the current position; there are numerous sources put forward on above conversations that prove there is as much FR influence in the party as CR. This evens things out to 'right-wing' as the sole position. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any Republicans that avoid the term illegal immigrant. Can you name any centrist Republicans that refer to undocumented workers? TFD (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an attempt to generalize the entire party, rather, to clarify the prevalence of far right views. The most obvious example is that centrist views do not include a conspiracy by democrats to put illegal immigrants on voter rolls etc...That is purely far-right. DN (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That sound good. This idea also had majority support during the last RfC on this. Cortador (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This was not, in fact, the case. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was. When that poll happened, the position had previously been right-wing with the two factions mentioned, and that was supported by a majority of editors. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that was not the case. Moreover, following the poll (which ignored sources and focused solely on editor personal opinions), it was agreed upon through a further examination of reliable sources that "center-right to right-wing" is the accurate descriptor presented by academic sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was just "right-wing", despite a majority agreeing with the previous version in the article. Cortador (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A majority, without sources, argued right-wing with sources to be found in the future would probably be right. Later discussion, which you evidently are unfamiliar with, found that (shockingly) making a consensus without sources was a bad idea, and that academic sources present the party as variously center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources were present based on a previous addition to the article.

Above you claimed that the poll was in favour of right-wing/centre-right, and now you say it was just right-wing. Which one is it now? Cortador (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

maybe we should get a third party involved here? if the disagreements about the previous consensus are so stark, maybe we should get a set of neutral eyes? Carlp941 (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has been established. Valid reasons need to be presented to remove it. They haven't been presented yet 5.35.115.76 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind linking, or pointing out this consensus, so we know which one you are referring to? Cheers. DN (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

i thought the current consensus was workable, and i am not swayed by your reasoning. i am going to read through the sources linked below, so give me a little time, but maybe they'll change my mind.

but to be blunt, i'm not sure rehashing this particular point is productive. we also seem to be saying the same things as last time, but adding on some disagreements on how consensus was reached. i dont think that's a productive direction, either. we reached consensus on a politically charged article. even if the process wasnt perfect, we reached a consensus that i thought was pretty good, and very well sourced. Carlp941 (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind linking to the previous consensus? It will help make this thread easier to track. Thanks and cheers. DN (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Right wing is sufficient. Leave the details to the article text where these things can be given context. This is especially true since Wikipedia's far-right article quickly associates "far-right" with neo-nazi's etc. As others have pointed out, where the center of the party actually is may not reflect the rhetoric coming from various sources. Even with scholarship we need to be careful since we should be reflecting the consensus of scholarship, not just recent papers that might be trying to argue something new etc. Springee (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing is not sufficient. We have a slew of contemporary reliable academic sources regarding the party as center-right. That's why we list both right now. Maybe that changes in the future, but it hasn't changed in the few months since the last discussion as far as I can tell. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. A good argument has been made for not using any of these labels as both major US parties are big tent groups and currently as well as over the years have had a number of different factions. I think listing nothing is better but if we agree that the major two US parties are represent the left and right of US politics then then this one is the right wing and the democrat party should be labeled left wing. Springee (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that a cool idea Richie1509 (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at the democratic candidate's political orientation I'm not sure. I tried to take a look at the 2024 DNC platform, but it's extremely over-detailed. DN (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it odd to call a party left-wing when it is favored by big business and was founded as a bourgeois party. It's like calling Gladstone's Liberals left-wing because they faced a more reactionary opposition. TFD (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC closed with "consensus to include the political position in the infobox, as stated in and supported by reliable sources [and] to include the general position as "right wing", (as long as backed up by the relevant sources)." (Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 31#Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?)

The problem is that most sources do not refer to the Republicans as right-wing. Historically, the most common description was center-right, which put it in a group with major parties such as the Australian Liberal Party, the German Christian Democrats and British Conservatives. Like the Republicans, they too have moved to the right and become internally polarized.

Three months of failure since the RfC should persuade us that there is no clear or correct answer. TFD (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that the right link to the RfC? I don't see it. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I linked to the page. The link now goes to the RfC section. TFD (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References

William Howard Taft has an RfC

William Howard Taft has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideological position in based on the politics of the country, not a universal standard

This is to explain that ideological position is based on how RS describe the party and the politics of the country. This is not about changing the ideological position of the Republican Party in the infobox. Please do not substitute your own views for how reliable sources describe the Republican Party.

Side-note: My personal political views are mostly libertarian, that is mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though not on all issues. I have a similar set of views as Chase Oliver, who I will likely vote for in 2024.

Examples

• Many political parties around the world are socially conservative, such as in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia, but still considered to be politically left-wing because they are liberal on fiscal issues and their countries are socially conservative.
• Similarly many political parties that are socially liberal in countries that are very socially liberal, such as the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Canada, are still considered to be politically right-wing because they are fiscally conservative and their countries are socially liberal.
• Some political parties are big tent or ideologically diverse parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, with several factions. For these parties, a range of views on the political spectrum may be appropriate.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, parties that have been fiscally conservative had been considered left-wing, while parties that have been fiscally liberal have been considered right-wing. That's because mainstream political parties deal with reality. They select policies which best reflect their ideology according to time and place. TFD (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to add a point though that even with the countries political standards rather than the universal, mainstream political parties can have ideological positions that is not Centre-left or Centre-right such as Likud, Fidesz . Mhaot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

NIB tag - Russia

With regard to this edit by Firefangledfeathers, which was then immediately removed by Springee. There appears to be some context in the body on this, but please feel free to discuss. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely some body content on GOP+Russia, but I don't think it was best summarized with that new content. I was on the fence about removal. It's been long enough that there's probably some scholarship on the phenomenon, if someone cares to strengthen the sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be in the lead without some strong sourcing in the body. The sourcing shouldn't be partisan reporting claiming some GOP members seem to want to cozy up to Russia or don't support Ukraine. Rather this needs to be solid sourcing on the topic that says these people actually want to help Russia (not just saying they feel placating is the less bad path etc). The lead is not something that should be frequently changing given the subject of this article is a political party that was founded over 150 years ago. In the mean time this should be removed. Springee (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, any mention of Russophilia is unwarranted because sources don't appear to support it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the bit about Russophilia seems out of place, and can be removed. The rest seems up for debate. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples, maybe self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to reconcile all these issues per BRD. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is typical propaganda that both sides use. People who wanted to end the war in Vietnam were pro-Communist, people who opposed the invasions of Iraq were pro-Saddam Hussein, people who oppose the invasion of Gaza are anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas. Of course these takes should be mentioned, but they are opinions, not facts. TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

oh my god... No one in this talk page said "THE GOP LOVES PUTIN", we are talking about subfactions of the Trump-Populist faction. That's what it said IN THE FIRST place. Plus, you yourself seem to be biased, since all of the examples you listed are plausibly positions against the United States. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is sourcing available on the pages of individual GOP politicians in the populist camp, If you want me to go ahead and gather them LMK. @Toa Nidhiki05: 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Iallwayscomeback123, your revert reinserts unsupported context that is contradicted by the body, specifically in the Europe, Russia and Ukraine section. Unfortunately, without RS a {CN} tag comes back into play. DN (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to be the most common stance among the Republican establishment, embodied by someone like Mitt Romey considering Russia to be the U.S.'s greatest adversary. Iallwayscomeback123 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion that no longer seems accurate. The lead currently says "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia..." I might agree that the GOP used to be tough on Russia during the Reagan era, even up through Bush, but AFAIK there is no source stating that Romney currently embodies the GOP, compared to Trump. Things have really changed since 2016, and the body currently contradicts the lead in this context. That's not my opinion BTW, that's just what sources say.

1. The GOP has been softening its stance on Russia ever since Trump won the 2016 election following Russian hacking of his Democratic opponents. There are several reasons for the shift. Among them, Putin is holding himself out as an international champion of conservative Christian values and the GOP is growing increasingly skeptical of overseas entanglements. Then there’s Trump’s personal embrace of the Russian leader.

2. For years, the party treated Trump’s Putin adoration as something to be ignored or grudgingly tolerated. That’s no longer a tenable position. With Russian forces capturing Avdiivka while a desperate Ukraine waits for U.S. aid blocked by the House GOP Caucus, Trump’s apologist posture toward Russia and the Republican Party’s position are essentially indistinguishable; it’s a dynamic that has enormous consequences across the globe.

3. Large parts of the Republican Party now treat Vladimir Putin as if he were an ideological ally. Putin, by contrast, continues to treat the U.S. as an enemy.

4. American historian Anne Applebaum - "Only a minority of House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, joined most Democrats to approve $60 billion in aid yesterday. What is now clearly a pro-Russia Republican caucus has consolidated inside Congress."

References

DN (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The article body states that neoconservatives are now a minority, whereas the opening claims they are the party establishment. The body also states that a majority of GOP representatives voted against aid for Ukraine, whereas the opening claims that only a populist faction is isolationist. It should be the other way around - stating that the party generally opposes aid, and a minority support it. The current wording warps what the body (backed by RS) states. Cortador (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In light of this, please consider reverting from this dated and inaccurate version of the lead. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to both be careful about putting to much weight into a few commentary articles. Also the desire to avoid entanglements, especially given the US was getting out of two belt long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly explain being less included to use force vs diplomacy. Isolationism seems like a fat better explanation vs some sort of love of Putin/Russia. Springee (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say the GOP is still neoconservative on foreign policy when it comes to Russia? That is the issue here. DN (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Or takes a "tough stance" against Russia? (also part of the issue) DN (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have anything against removing that content from the lead and leaving it in the body where it can be given fuller context. Springee (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's probably something similar already in the Reagan era section. DN (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I support removal. Hopefully someone can take on improving the body content. North Korea isn't even mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. Likewise, North Korea and Iran aren't discussed in the article. Unless that has happened, mention of them in the lead paragraph should be removed as well.

There's also plenty of sources that support the GOP being divided on Russia, with parts of the party being pro-Russian now and/or regurgitating Russian taking points: 1 2 3 4 Cortador (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Foreign policy section (below), I don't see anything specifically mentioning the other countries either...

• "The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

If they exist elsewhere in the article I'd be glad to discuss how we can relocate the current text (below) in the lead...

(Current) "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, while the populist faction is isolationist and in some cases supporting non-interventionism."

With this and other pre-existing context from the article in mind, I offer the rough draft (below), and I welcome productive criticisms and suggestions with RS...

(Proposed) After 1945 and into the early 2000s, the party establishment was generally neoconservative. By 2016, populist factions that advocated for isolationist, and in some cases non-interventionist policies, began to challenge the neoconservative establishment again, as they had prior to World War II.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Id' word it like this: "Following World War II, the party establishment generally supported interventionism. After the peak of Republican neoconservatism in the early 2000s, populist factions advocating isolationist and non-interventionism gained strength within the party."

This avoids the issue that neoconservatism is more of a post-60s movement and has been diminished greatly since the Obama years i.e. I don't think the article body supports that they are still the establishment. I'd also date the rise of isolationism back to 2009 (as per article on the Tea Party), tough I agree that it again gained strength post Trump. Cortador (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't have any major issues with that. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to an article in the Brookings Institute, "The Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric."[1] It then lists 52 actions Trump took against Russia. Another article points out that Trump was far harsher on Russia than Obama.[2] The problem is that the rhetoric by talk show hosts doesn't reflect the reality. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

While Trump and the populist faction are in no way mutually exclusive, they are both part of the GOP, respectively. I'm not advocating for cites that use "talk show host rhetoric" for the GOP populist faction that is advocating isolationist and non-interventionism policies. For example, one of the cites I referred to, (4.), comes from American historian, Anne Applebaum. DN (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum is an specialist in Communism who wrote a number of popular books published outside academia. She supported Hillary Clinton in 2020 and most of her writing is political opinion for news media. She was also associated with the American Enterprise Institute. I don't want to argue about how credible her opinions are, but they're not the final word.

Due to the nature of the major parties in the U.S., virtually anything you say about "some members" is bound to be true. Some members of both parties have been serial killers for example. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were even active in their respective parties. We need to respect weasel-wording. How many Putin admirers are there and what influence do they have on the party? TFD (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the LEAD still seems to contradict the body with unsourced material. I would like for this update to be as objective as possible, and omit any weasel-wording. That is why I'm counting on editors here, like yourself, to help us avoid such pitfalls while fixing the problem, so I'm open to your suggestions. If you prefer the Brookings Institution as a source, they have articles that also seem to identify and shed light on the current republican party's opinions and stances on Russia. Some even include opinion polls by Pew Research on the subject, if you think we should examine those.

"Pew’s findings indicate 60% of Democrats believe that “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs”, compared to 39% who say that “we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.”Among Republicans, however, fully 71% say that we should concentrate on domestic problems, while only 29% endorse an active international role for the United States. We will find out after the 2024 election whether these differences augur the greatest change in U.S. foreign policy since the Republican Party abandoned its longstanding isolationism after World War II."

"Today, these figures are no longer on the fringe of GOP politics. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from May, an astonishing 49 percent of Republicans consider Russia an ally. Favorable views of Putin – a career KGB officer who hates America – have nearly tripled among Republicans in the past two years, with 32 percent expressing a positive opinion."..."To be sure, the Republican Congress, at least on paper, remains hawkish on the Kremlin, as evidenced by the recent 98-2 Senate vote to increase sanctions against Russia for its election meddling and other offenses. But in no way can they be said anymore to represent the GOP party base, which has been led to believe by the president and his allies in the pro-Trump media that “the Russia story” is a giant hoax." - journalist & author James Kirchick

"It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing...." "The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress". - political scientist Robert Kagan.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with neoconservatives is that they have aways been wrong from Soviet power in the 1970s and 1980s to Iraq in the 1990s and how we were winning the wars in the years after. For an entertaing history watch "The Power of Nightmares" on youtube or read They Knews they were Right by Jacob Heilbrunn. Their analysis is so unreliable, that they can ony get published by right-wing think tanks or in editorials.

Kirchick's statement that 49% of Republicans considered Russia an ally in 2016 is wrong. The total was for ally or "friendly nation." In its legal sense, that means they were not at war with the U.S. The same poll said that 24% of Trump supporters viewd Russia favorably, compared to 19% of Clinton voters.[3] I don't have access to the actual poll, but imagine the numbers were cherry-picked.

Both sides btw are protectionist.[4]

I accept there are differences but we need better sources to explain them.

TFD (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I feel as though we may be getting off track by looking at new citations for a consensus on to how to update the last paragraph in the LEAD.

We already have citations and context in the body that the LEAD simply needs to follow.

What about something similar to this...?

• In the 21st century, the Republican Party receives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, and white voters without college degrees. On economic issues, the party has maintained a pro-business attitude since its inception. It supports low taxes and deregulation while opposing socialism, labor unions and single-payer healthcare. On social issues, it advocates for restricting the legality of abortion, discouraging and often prohibiting recreational drug use, promoting gun ownership, easing gun restrictions, and opposing the transgender rights movement. On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative but signaled some decline with Trump's election in 2016. Since then, the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds fine. TFD (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I still think the article body doesn't support that the party is neoconservative on foreign policy at this point. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the Foreign policy section....

• ""The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That section is not backed by its sources. The Oxford Reference sources states that neoconservatives had "some influence during the administration of all Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan", whereas the article turns that into "a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency". "Some influence" is much milder than that, and does not support the claim that the current party establishment is neoconservative and/or the main driving factor behind GOP foreign policy. I suggest we just strike "neoconservative" from the lead paragraph entirely. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So far there appears to be some consensus for removing the list of countries that don't appear in the body, but your proposal for removing "neoconservative" from the lead all-together, while somewhat relevant, is not what we are discussing here. I would suggest a separate topic of discussion for that proposal. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Another version, that is a bit less clunky and more to the point.

• On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative, but since Trump's election in 2016 the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

DN (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Lacking of sourcing for "neoconservative establishment"

The lead paragraph currently states that in "foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative". This claim is not supported by the article body or its sources. Neoconservatism is mentioned only a few times, and I don't see sourcing backing that neoconservatives are the party establishment either in general or in regards to foreign policy specifically. We could just drop the descriptor "neoconservative" here, which I don't think is ideal because we have so little sourcing on what the "party establishment" is actually supposed to be now, but that would be a start. Cortador (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So in your view, the rise of the neoconservative establishment isn't accurate? What about Reagan and both Bush 1 & 2? DN (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be better to provide details about their foreign policy, rather than use a term that was better known during the Bush administration. TFD (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That said, I have not made any decision as to whether I agree or disagree. It would help if other editors shared their thoughts on this as well. DN (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That was 20 to 40 years ago. If we want to state that the current party established is neoconservative, we need more recent sourcing for that, or avoid that term. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This article encompasses the entire history of the GOP, not just current events. DN (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That sentence in the opening is written in present tense, and thus it needs somewhat recent sourcing. It should reflect the body, and right now, the body doesn't state that the present-day (or at least recent recent) GOP establishment is neoconservative. Cortador (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove and see if anyone objects that's fine. I don't see a reason to revert it as of yet, since no one else has chimed in. DN (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Tag on Political positions - LGBT issues

I see there is a dispute tag that has been there since May. If this is an ongoing dispute that's fine, but I don't see any current discussions on the subject. Does anyone still object to removing the tag? DN (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. If someone has an issue with the section, they can always start a discussion and re-add it. Cortador (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

List of parties included in the Merger of Section

I think that there is a good argument that the democratic party more accurately the Free Democratic or Barnburner wings of the party should be included in the Merger of section in the Info box. I cannot edit this page and even if I can its much too important for me to feel comfortable doing so. Maybe this has been covered before but i think it would be a fairly important addition to the infobox.

Thank you,

W Wnettles03 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Add 'Trumpism' as a faction

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

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral symbol or logo??

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

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Party membership

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You make total sense, I did not know it only captured membership figures from 30 states. Now that I know that I am against adding it myself. Even if it did capture results from all 50 state then we would have to question how they got that. I am against adding it to the national parties and I suppose we should scrutinize it for state level parties. Ultimately it would be helpful to have membership figures for both parties but unless we find a reliable source we should leave it blank! Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)