Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

Security Oriented

Security Oriented This faction of the Republican party emerged after the September 11th attacks. This group includes people who, regardless of other social or economic views, are very alarmed at threats to the USA. This current has usually been satisfied with President Bush's policies, but recently has criticised him regarding the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. They probably support gun ownership rights for self-defense.

As it stands this seems to be another faction which seems to exist more in the mind of the observer then in reality.

Now I will readily admit to the existence of "Security Moms" but these are largely traditionally Democratic voters who have adhered to President Bush in light of 9/11 and are thought to be some of the same "Soccer Moms" who voted President Clinton in for two terms but have had to place "Women's Issues" in the backseat given their more pressing concerns for the phyisical safety of their families in the face of terrorism. It is generally believed that as the threat of terror decreases or as the Democrats gain credibility in dealing with it, the Security Moms will revert back to their Democratic voting patterns. Given that most of these women are probably still registered Democrats, they could not be said to represent a Republican faction anymore than the Reagan Democrats could.

There does not seem to be any faction of Republicans devoted to security above all else. This does not mean that tensions do not exist. For instance Republican libertarians (and what the article is calling neo-libertarians) hate most provisions of the Patriot Act as much as Democrats do. They just have to hold their nose because they agree with their Republican compatriots on so many other issues. Carambola 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberals

This section really needs to be cleaned up. The definition of liberal is too vague and is fact dehistoricized. If you used liberal to describe Teddy Roosevelt you might be right then and now when discussing his desire to take very, very, aggressive measures to restrain big business. But this proposal by Teddy Roosevelt in his 1906 State of the Union Address would hardly meet the definition of liberal but would instead warm the heart of NRA members everywhere:

" We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of rifle clubs throughout all parts of the land. The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in all matters connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery."

If you are going to use the modern definition of liberal then you need to apply it consistently. The vast majority of Republicans would certainly object to party icons Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt being described as liberals, and it would not be productive to try and explain the difference between a nineteenth century liberal/early twentieth century liberal and a mid twentieth to early twenty first century liberal or for that matter, between a nineteenth/early twentieth century conservative and twentieth/early twentieth century conservative.

Furthermore, 'progressive' positions on racial and gender equality have become as much conservative as they have liberal. The debate is no longer whether say, racism is wrong but rather to what extent the government should try to adjust for latent racist tendancies in society by using quota systems or affirmative action.

You can certainly write an excellent section on liberal Republicans but clear in what one means and if one intends to credibly go back farther than Neslon Rockefeller then one needs to do some research.

As a final note, one might ask whether liberal Republicans even exist anymore or if they do, whether they are not actually mislabelled as moderates. Is Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island a moderate or a liberal or simply a moderate liberal.

• • good points and I tried to clear up the section. "Liberal" in US politics means pro-New Deal and sates from the 1930s. Rjensen 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rjensen I'll agree that "pro-New Deal" is the genesis of modern liberalism and certainly of fiscal liberalsim but the social liberalism came not too long after and is just as important to the definition of liberalism. After, Bill Clinton famously declared "The era of big government is over." and yet many conservatives can call him a liberal with a straight face and point to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his gun control positions. Carambola 01:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Compassionate Conservatives

Compassionate Conservatives do not really represent a distinct faction within the Republican Party. Compassionate conservatives simply emphasize their desire to help all Americans using conservative policies. In short, it is about putting the proverbial silk glove around the gauntlet than anything else.

President Bush's "faith based" initiatives are a good example of this.

But because compassionate conservativism is more (for good or ill) a matter of style rather than substance, most liberals ridicule it as the rhetorical equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Few conservatives feel the need to call themselves compassionate conservatives anymore and one wonders whether this is because the label has been discredited or whether this is because it has worked so well that conservatism and cold heartedness are no longer so closely linked in the public mind. Probably it is a bit of both. Nonetheless, compassionate conservatives do not really represent a faction in the Republican Party which pursues its political agenda in opposition to other Republican factions with different interests. Few conservatives are or would admit to being lacking in compassion for the disadvantaged. All can choose or choose not to couch their agenda in the language of compassionate conservatism as befits their inclination and interests. Carambola 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and just axed the Compassionate Conservative entry altogether. You did such a good job of paring it down to the essentials that I figured that this entry does not really even belong in the article at all-except perhaps in a section entitled popular labels for republicans that do represent a real faction within the Republican Party. I had tried to save the section but it just wasn't worth the effort. Your revision proved that. Carambola 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This page was moved from the Republican Party (United States) page. The main page was over the size limit, plus is in the middle of a NPOV dispute. Hopefully any NPOV issues in this section can be ironed out seperately. In addition, I can see this page incorporating historical factions of the GOP, including the Rockefeller Republicans vs. the Goldwater Republicans. --BaronLarf 23:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

What about Young Republicans and Green Republicans? Rmhermen 00:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Young Republicans are a "faction," just like College Republicans wouldn't be. I would argue that they are just an organization of Republicans of all sorts of viewpoints.

I'm not really familiar with the Green Republicans, and you don't really hear about any Green Republican faction warring within the party, but if you have a good source to attribute then go ahead. --BaronLarf 01:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Religious Right is not just anti-gay-marriage; they are against gay rights (and arguably the existance of gays) in general. Many of them go so far as to class gays as subhuman or state homosexuality is a disease. Also, though neocons are said to be the most militant in the article, I am unsure of that, especially in light of terrorist anti-abortion and anti-gay groups. Obviously they aren't MAINSTREAM even in this faction, but I would argue that the Religious Right is arguably more militiant than the neocons. Titanium Dragon 14:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um, it's not really "arguably"... the standard Christian mantra is "love the sinner, hate the sin". So any member of the Religious Right who classes gays as subhuman should be accused of not being a member of the Religious Right because they are not religious.

I'd like to see inclusion of the thinktanks, i.e. Cato is libertarian. Hoover, Heritage... what others.

Some objectivity

There is a recent study [1] that broke the parties into factions, commissioned by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This would be a good foundation for describing "factions".

AdamRetchless 14:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

Why is this tag on this page? I believe it should be removed because nobody here seems to think it's not NPOV. --Quasipalm 19:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's 'neutral'. Under the description (& naming) of 'Neo-Conservatives', why don't they just put the word "Jews"? That's typical of the distortions.

Achilles 16:43 6 May

I believe the reason for the NPOV sign was because of how some descriptions were opinionated. I noticed, particularly, the Religious Right description read like something written by a Religious Rightist - defining the views as "traditional moral values", almost outright dismissing the legitimacy of the separation of church and state, etc.

I've heavily edited the article - cleaned it up and made it more accurate and much less biased. Should we remove the sign or do a little more editing? Folks, your call.

Dr. K

I see what appear to be two posts in favor of removing the NPOV tag. I am removing it, if someone believes biased wording remains perhaps they could reword the offending text or post some discussion as to what they believe would be less biased wording. Thane Eichenauer 08:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"pro-liberty and pro-personal property"?

Most Republicans, in fact most people, would claim to uphold this. Would someone who is more familiar with American politics like to "neutralise" the page, before I do?

BillMasen 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

merge

I merged Neoliberals and neolibertarians -- the article does not really distinguish them. A few more names would help. Should CATO and think tanks be mentioned here? Rjensen 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Main Street " Republicans

This is an old term, but would now seem to have contradictory meanings. It was originally used to distinguish small town and small business Republicans from the "Big Business" Wall Street faction, implying that the Main Streeters were more socially conservative whereas the Wall Streeters were just interested in "getting business off of our backs" — lower taxes and less regualtion for business with fewer social concerns. Now, groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership are attempting to redefine "Main Street" as being more socially moderate, far from the Christian right. Would like input on whether this should be integrated into the article, and if so, then how. Rlquall 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This articles needs to be referenced properly. What books reference what claims? Arbusto 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact almost all the material is common knowledge to people who read the press. The listed books cover all the groups as well, and each book has an index that aids the user. Putting page numbers in is unnecessary for people who have the bnooks and unnecessary for people who do not have the books. Rjensen 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how citing works. What claim is being used by what book? Arbusto 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "Common knowledge" does not apply here, and removal of the 'sources' tag should be treated as vandalism from here on. --InShaneee 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, people who read the media are familiar with the material. If someone needs more help on a specific point, please ask, rather than demand help on all 400 points in the article. Rjensen 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy on sources is VERY clear on this issue. --InShaneee 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ghost of Goldwater

Before I get started I've got a couple of points to make: 1) I wouldn't say that all of the religious right want to eliminate the separation of church and state. A lot do, but most probably just want to blur the line between the two. That doesn't make them moderates, that doesn't make it right, I just wanted to clarify things. It's a lot like the secularist faction of the Democrat Party, not all secularists want to ban all religion, many just want to ban any public display of religion. 2) The neocons are in the mainstream in the Republican Party. So are the liberals in the Democratic Party. Being mainstream is a matter of numbers not agenda. 1/3 of the American People are Conservative, and the neocons clearly dominate the Right wing. 3) a good example of a liberal Republican is Lincoln Chafee. He has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. The only reason he hasn't been completely ostracised from the party is because he votes for the Republicans on control issues such as who gets to be on what committee. But he always votes liberal on political issues. 4) A good example of a RINO would have been Mike Forbes before he switched parties. Another example of a RINO is anyone who constantly sides with the Democrats and/or bashes other Republicans at every opportunity. But because neither of the two parties is programmatic, voting against the majority of Republicans on political issues isn't the best determinant of who is or isn't a RINO, after all the party is a coalition of various factions. An accurate definition of a RINO would be: a member of the Republican Party whose actions are harmful to the Republican Party (and not harmful to the majority political agenda).

Here is my major issue, why the hell have libertarians been relegated to the loser table. We deserve to sit at the cool kids table, just as much, probably more so than the paleocons(seeming as how the only paleocon left is Pat Buchanan). We libertarians revitalized the Republican party from it's marginalized status of the Post-New Deal realignment where it was suffocating to death as Democrat-lite into the powerhouse that is the Party of Limited Government. The last Realignment may have been called the Reagan Revolution but it was Goldwater that started it. Reagan acknowledged libertarianism in forming the party's modern image with this quote I found in the wikiquote article on Ronald Reagan:

       " 'The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government 
       interference or less centralized authority or more individual
       freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what
       libertarianism is.' 
        -from an interview published in Reason (July 01, 1975)" 

Even Neoconservatism is just a synthesis of libertarian and religious right ideas. The libertarian Republicans may often be sounded out by those damn religious fundamentalists, we still make up a crucial part of the backbone of the party. The point is we aren't dead yet and we still represent an influential faction. Also, further subdividing the conservative movement into social conservative, fiscal conservative, compassionate conservative, and every other conservative position one could take on any given single issue is just splitting hears and they should be deleted. The factions should be re-organized as:

        Core factions:
           -neoconservatives
           -paleoconservatives
           -Religious Right
           -libertarians
        minor/pariah factions:
           -moderates
           -liberals

I will wait for feedback before I go making any alterations to this article. We might not support the Bridge to Nowhere or government video cameras in our showerheads but without us, the Republican party couldn't honestly call itself the party of Limited Government; so we don't belong lumped in with liberals. And we're certainly filled with too much piss and vinegar to be lumped in with the moderates. -Mike Reason

Santorum

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but as it stands, the Religious Right section needs to be changed. Rick Santorum, thankfully, is no longer a Senator. I shall leave the decision of whether to remove, replace, or relabel him to wiser heads than mine.

What about economic librilism?

• Their support for a large national debt and increased government spending aligns them more with supply-side economics than with fiscal conservatives. SteveSims (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Libertarians falsely identify themselves as Paleoconservatives

It's nice to see someone gets it right. Paleoconservatives are the silent majority, they are not a minority, they are the majority.

• Not really. Look at GOP governments expanding debt/spending/the size of the government since Reagan. Anybody who still thinks libertarians are a major faction in the Republican Party hasn't been paying attention for the last thirty years. SteveSims (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To the unsigned poster above: I didn't know Chronicles had such a large subscription base. By the way, which libertarians falsely identify themselves as paleocons? And please, sign your posts by adding four tildes. Thanks. Twalls (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Neoconservatives Were Formerly Democrats???

This false statement reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility. The claim is incredible, and needs to be either cited or deleted by the original claimant or someone in the republican party. It is common knowledge that neoconservatives (Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield to name a few) had important positions in Reagan's administration and were charter members of PNAC, which advocated the use of US military might to promote American-style democracy around the world. The PNAC website is currently out-of-business (June 6 2008), but these facts are easily verified by a google search. It is possible that the PNACers all joined Operation Chaos and as dinos voted for Hillary Clinton ... then it might be fair to call them democrats, or maybe they were democrats before they were republicans? Anne E.

No offense Anne, but you really need to do your homework. This isn't some stupid liberal or conservative blog - its an academic article about a political subject, and just because you are offended by the implication, that does not mean it is wrong. In fact, neoconservatives are in fact former cold war democrats who converted into the republican party when the democrats began opposing war and turning into a more pacifist political ideology. They came to the republican party as a way to pursue their foreign policy ideology, because to them it was a transcendent issue that was more important than party identity, or social policy. Now, many modern neoconservatives were never democrats, and were raised intellectually within the republican party and conservatism, but that doesn't change the intellectual heritage of neoconservatism (its given the moniker "neo" for a reason), which is extremely democratic, and the fact that their modern worldview has little interest in domestic policy, and is more of a single issue theology than anything else. Do some reading before you complain. 69.137.154.10 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The original neoconservatives in the 1960s, particularly Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, had been anti-Communist Democrats (in the tradition of Truman and JFK) and became disillusioned with the antiwar stance of the Democratic Party post-1968. Later neoconservatives such as Perle and Wolfowitz were not necessarily former Democrats. 70.23.87.6 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Religious Right is Fascistic

The Religious Right should be noted as be fascistic as it has advocated or supported fascistic views such as modern corporatism spurred by heavy militaristic government spending (war profiteering in Iraq), extreme bigotry towards minorities (opposition to human rights for LGBT), tolerance of human rights abuses (guantanamo bay, secret prisons, water boarding, other torture) and other polices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.48.39 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

God, would you people PLEASE for the love of all that is holy quit the fire breathing, pick up a book and read about the difference between "republican" and "divisions of the republican party"??? The religious right has absolutely nothing to do with Guantanamo, Iraq, torture or water boarding. You can say the republican party is responsible for this - but this article is about the individual factions within the party, and there is nothing about the religious right that supports those ideologies - they belong to another faction of the republican party - the neoconservatives. This is an academic article about a political subject, seriously - PLEASE for the love of god take your ideological agenda and take it to a blog. This is an article intended to allow people to study the ideological beliefs of the numerous wings of the republican party, and there is no room for such loaded pejoratives as "fascist" (by the way, spell it right if you want to appear intelligent). That's just completely ignorant and shows you have no interest in learning. 69.137.154.10 (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with anonymous user 69.137.154.10. It's quite improper that a public information source be used as a platform for ideologues to defame their perceived opponents. The very notion of "religious right" is ambiguous at best, likewise the term Facistic has been so overused as a perjorative, and is so historically fragmented in it's own right, it has very little meaning without specific illustration. Whom are the Religious Right, and what specific policies are related in what ways to either Ethnic or Economic facism? You will find very few religious organizations that define themselves around a concept of racial unity as is characteristic of Ethnic Facism (though one might argue that Mormonism once did define itself in that way), and few that would advocate a state managed economy required in Economic Facism. We must be cautious about arbitrary grouping together groups of persons we may disagree with into a label such as Religious Right, or we run the risk of the very same sort of unthinking and reflexive demonization as was characteristic of McCarthyism (Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Religious Right? Do beleive in the principles of Facism? Have you ever read The Bible?). It certainly has no place in this public reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.59.141 (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you that this is not a forum, and that wikipedia is not a place to push you POV. That being said if you wish to positively contribute to the article, please do so, if you are here to push your POV please help improve Wikipedia elsewhere. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moderates

Should this be in the Historic factions group? I will be moving it to the active factions group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Moderates" should be a separate category, not a type of conservative. Fixed Larry Siegel (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Change emphasis of page?

I think this page should be rewritten on a different basis.

I don't think that there are identifiable factions in the Republican party. There are obviously major disagreements, but I don't think that there is much correlation between the people who are less conservative (or whatever) on X and the people who are less conservative on Y.

For instance, George Bush. Clearly very right-wing on foreign policy. Holds rightwing views on abortion, gays etc. On the other hand, clearly didn't believe in cutting government spending: which would obviously be a right-wing position. Was more conciliatory than any high-ranking republicans (and some democrats) were towards immigrants.

So is he a moderate or a conservative republican? Whichever answer we give would imply some misleading things about his policy positions on some topics. "He's a conservative republican and they want to cut spending... errr..." "moderate republicans support stem-cell research... oops."

I think it should be represented as binary scales, where your appearance as "liberal" or "moderate" on one scale doesn't imply liberal-ness on another scale. Examples: 'neoconism vs. isolationism' 'nativism vs integration' 'big-gov conservatism vs fiscal conservatism' 'security vs civil liberties' 'moralists vs libertarians'

and so forth. This would expunge the poisonous waffling about "overlap", a problem that constantly bedevils wikipedia. I mean, if these terms overlap almost all the time, they're next to useless, aren't they? BillMasen (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Classifying Ronald Reagan

The article is self-inconsistent. Like any very popular leader, Ronald Reagan embodied the idea of overlap, appealing to multiple factions and avoiding identifying too closely with any one of them. This is reflected in the discussion of the Reagan coalition in "Overlap"; he was mostly a fiscal conservative and a national security hawk, but expressed some views associated with the socially conservative wing of the party (and some views that were more socially liberal). But later in the article he is classified (wrongly, I would argue) as a social conservative. Rather than "fix" the article I am just pointing out the inconsistency in case someone else would like to try to fix it. Larry Siegel (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Ronald Reagan opposed gay marriage. Ronald Reagan opposed abortion. Ronald Reagan opposed gun control laws. Ronald Reagan alligned himself overwhelmingly with the Goldwater Republicans in opposition to the Rockefeller Republicans. Ronald Reagan is overwhelmingly a social conservative.

Traditionalist conservatism and paleoconservatism

It should be noted that virtually all paleoconservatives are traditionalist conservatives, yet not all traditionalist conservatives are paleoconservatives. Paleoconservatives emphasize their Old Right (1933-1955) roots whereas most traditionalists were originally a mix of the Old Right and the first New Right (1955-1964) centered at National Review magazine. Paleoconservatives embrace many traditionalist conservative forebears such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, the Southern Agrarians, and the Distributists, however they do not tend to emphasize the central place of Edmund Burke and the New Humanists like mainstream traditionalists do. This is why I created a separate category for traditionalist conservatives, since most are unknown except within the conservative intellectual movement (I mean does anyone really think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter and their followers know of former Modern Age editor George A. Panichas or Claes G. Ryn of the National Humanities Institute?). The most noted traditionalist conservative politicians are former Michigan Governor John Engler and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, both of whom openly acknowledge their debt to traditionalist conservative godfather Russell Kirk as influencing their thinking.

On a side note some paleoconservatives emphasize the role of race in their politics, such as former white nationalist paleocon thinker Samuel T. Francis and American Conservative film critic Steve Sailer. Virtually all mainstream traditionalist conservatives reject white nationalism and any hints of racism whereas most paleoconservatives have tolerated it. NPWest 04:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Right and the First and Second New Right

The Old Right (1933-1955) was that loose coalition of individualist (now known as libertarian) thinkers and journalists, Midwestern Republican politicians, and others who opposed FDR's New Deal and early entry into World War Two. Their most prominent representative was Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio (whom modern day libertarians and paleoconservatives embrace as a forebear) as well as Col. Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. With the rise of Eisenhower and his "Modern Republicanism" as well as the death of Taft and the founding of National Review, the Old Right died out by 1955.

The First New Right (1955-1964) was centered around those contributors and editors at National Review who were interventionist as opposed to isolationist and who were strongly anti-Communist. Their politics tended to be what National Review writer Frank Meyer called "fusionist" (libertarian economics, traditionalist social views) and they rose to prominence with Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona.

The Second New Right (1964-Present) formed in the wake of the failed Goldwater campaign by early supporters of Goldwater. More populist than the National Review New Right, the second New Right consisted of direct-mail icon Richard Viguerie, antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, and Religious Right leaders Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson. The New Right dovetailed their efforts with the Religious Right as both groups rose to prominence in the 1970s and championed causes such as ending abortion, gay rights, pornography, bringing back prayer in schools, stopping the Panama Canal from being given to Panama. NPWest 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NYC mayor

Bloomburg is not a republican as this article states he is an independant —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

myth of Moderate Republicans

It seems to me that there are no "moderate" republicans. Any republican politician who deviates once from the "conservative" line on any subject, or shows any kind of emollience towards the democrats, or slightly-less-than-absolute dedication to the conservative program, is called a "moderate" by republican activists. That is, on the occasions when they don't rant and rave that he's one step away from Trotskyism.

The ideologically fractious left is complicit in this misunderstanding; any small crack in the granite facade of US conservatism is a sign of hope that it can get something done, which is usually impossible in the face of republican unanimity.

I can't be the only person to think that the Repubs are more ideologically united than the Dems, surely? BillMasen (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• How about Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, and Mike Castle?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I know the last three. But Snowe and Collins have voted against most of Obama's agenda, and got villified for voting for the one thing they didn't oppose (stimulus). As we speak, the Repubs are being hammered by their own voters, and "moderate" pols are being unseated; conversely, the far left has had little success in turfing out Dem incumbents, many of whom really are in the middle of politics (I don't believe in the Golden Mean; this doesn't in itself make them more praiseworthy). BillMasen (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Donald Trump should be mentioned in this article, but where ?--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120021551/http://www.rlc.org/2010/06/25/anti-gay-platform/ to http://www.rlc.org/2010/06/25/anti-gay-platform/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

In the sections describing the various "wings" or "factions", there are long lists of various current politicians names, who are alleged to be members of those factions. In almost no cases is there any source cited. Who says so-and-so is a "moderate", a "conservative", a "libertarian", or whatever? Based on what criteria? Is there an authority somewhere who assigns membership to a "faction"? Who is that authority and why isn't the authority cited? Or is it by consensus? Whose consensus would that be? If there were some studies cited from reputable political scientists, for example using statistical clustering of votes or positions of the various politicians, I might buy it, but there isn't anything like that.

And why are only these politicians classified? Even if we only include Republicans important enough to have Wikipedia articles about them, there must be hundreds if not thousands of Republican politicians, alive and deceased, whose names could be listed with just as much justification as the currently listed names. Why aren't they all classified? We have a few Republican governors listed; why not all of them? We have a few Republican representatives and senators. Why not all? We have Pence. Where is Trump, of all people? Why is the classification of the particular politicians in the article notable? The article does not say, cited or not. Are we going to have the article be a "faction directory" of the Republican party, and have Wikipedia editors wandering through, adding their opinions as to the faction of whoever-someone-feels-like-adding? And who is going to keep it up to date, as Republican politicians change their stripes?

These lists are potentially a disservice to the politicians themselves, who might not agree with the classification, as well as to voters, who might be misled into trusting (or not trusting) a politician because of how Wikipedia has classified him. Classifying politicans doesn't seem like the business of an encyclopedia, and every uncited inclusion of a politician in one of these lists needs to go. Person54 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (edited)

To be more specific, I am asking for verification and citation of sources for the classification of the following politicians. Please do not tell me that it is "obvious", because that is not how Wikipedia works. Per Wikipedia policy, if no verification is forthcoming for a particular name, I will remove that name from the article. It is bit surprising there is not a source cited in the article for any of these classifications. The equivalent article on the Democratic party Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) does not have long lists of politician names for each faction, and the few names which are mentioned for the most part have references on every separate name. That is as it should be. Apparently this article is a little Original Research haven in Wikipedia.

Person	Classification
Mitt Romney	National security
John Warner	National security
Duncan Hunter	National security
Peter Hoekstra	National security
Joe Wilson	National security
John Kline	National security
Duncan D. Hunter	National security
Larry Elder	Neolibertarian
Neal Boortz	Neolibertarian
Robert A. Taft	Conservative wing
Everett McKinley Dirksen	Conservative wing
Ted Cruz (Texas)	Conservative wing
Dick Armey	Conservative wing
Mark Sanford	Conservative wing
Mike Pence	Conservative wing
Jack Kemp	Conservative wing
Sarah Palin	Conservative wing
Tom Coburn	Conservative wing
Steve Forbes	Conservative wing
Grover Norquist	Conservative wing
Ronald Reagan	Conservative wing
Pat Robertson	Christian right
John Ashcroft	Christian right
Sam Brownback	Christian right
Rick Santorum	Christian right
Mike Huckabee	Christian right
Gary Bauer	Christian right
Thomas Fleming	Traditionalists
Scott P. Richert	Traditionalists
Joe Sabran	Traditionalists
Sam Francis	Traditionalists
Robert Novack	Traditionalists
George W. Bush	Neoconservatives
Dick Cheney	Neoconservatives
Donald Rumsfeld	Neoconservatives
Condoleezza Rice	Neoconservatives
Paul Wolfowitz	Neoconservatives
Douglas J Feith	Neoconservatives
John R. Bolton	Neoconservatives
John McCain	Neoconservatives
Lindsey Graham	Neoconservatives, Moderates
Marco Rubio	Neoconservatives
Peter King	Neoconservatives
Charles Krauthammer	Neoconservatives
William Krisol	Neoconservatives
David Frum	Neoconservatives
George Pataki	Moderates
Colin Powell	Moderates
William Weld	Moderates
Paul Celluci	Moderates
Charlie Baker	Moderates
Jodi Rell	Moderates
Bruce Rauner	Moderates
Jim Edgar	Moderates
Jon Huntsman Jr	Moderates
Chris Christie	Moderates
Jim Douglas	Moderates
George W. Romney	Moderates
William G. Milliken	Moderates
Larry Hogan	Moderates
Daniel Carieri	Moderates
Shelley Moore Capito	Moderates
William Cohen	Moderates
Susan Collins	Moderates
Mark Kirk	Moderates
Lisa Murkowski	Moderates
Rob Portman	Moderates
John Hoeven	Moderates
Rudy Giuliani	Moderates
Arnold Schwarzenegger	Moderates
Paul H. O'Neill	Moderates
Scott Brown	Moderates
Olympia Snowe	Moderates
Amo Houghton	Moderates
David Stockman	Moderates
Jim Leach	Moderates
Joseph Cao	Moderates
Fiorello LaGuardia	Moderates
George Norris	Moderates
Harold Stassen	Moderates
Wendell Willkie	Moderates
Alf Landon	Moderates
Thomas E. Dewey	Moderates
Nelson Rockefeller	Moderates
Earl Warren	Moderates
Richard Nixon	Moderates
Christie Todd Whitman	Moderates
Jeff Flake	Libertarian wing
Rand Paul	Libertarian wing
Justin Amash	Libertarian wing
Walter B. Jones, Jr.	Libertarian wing
Raul Labrador	Libertarian wing
Thomas Massie	Libertarian wing
Barry Goldwater	Libertarian wing
Barry Goldwater Jr	Libertarian wing
Ron Paul	Libertarian wing
Tucker Carlson	Libertarian wing
Clint Eastwood	Libertarian wing

Person54 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Extreme Conservatives

This was added to the article today, and I reverted it because of lack of citation. I realize this article already has plenty of uncited material, that is possibly original research. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and while there are certainly people in the GOP whom others would characterize as extreme conservatives, there is no citation here to suggest that any authoritative source regards "Extreme Conservatives" as an organized, or even coherent faction within the GOP. Putting Abraham Lincoln in this so-called faction, along with the mentioned names, seems also to be somewhat idiosyncratic.

Those conservatives who hold extreme radical views are known as, the Extreme Conservatives. They are a hybrid of Christian right and Paleoconservatives, but have many traits that are associated with neoconservatives, in that they fully support the military with high military spending, declare martial law on those who are are unconstitutional and who are not Christian, and free trade. However, like paleoconservatives and the Christian right, extreme conservatives also opposes globalization, and were most critical of all other conservatives in that they are not conservative enough. Members of this type include the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, Oklahoma doctor, Tom Coburn, Maryland lawyer, John R. Bolton, and Christian TV personality, Pat Robertson.

Person54 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Uncited Material

Speaking of uncited material, I'm going to start removing all uncited "lists" of faction members in this article pretty soon, as I "threatened" a few weeks ago. I'm going to give it another month or so for people to step up and provide citations for the names in the lists, or all uncited names are going to be removed. I think that means that the lists will basically disappear because none of the names are cited, or at most a couple. Apparently, we are relying on "common knowledge" here, which as we all know is a faux pas on Wikipedia. So last call for citations, everybody. Person54 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed all the uncited material today. Person54 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There are still a lot of uncited assertions about what "conservative", "moderate", "libertarian", etc Republicans supposedly believe. I don't think anybody feels enough ownership of this article to add the citations, even after people add justified "citation needed" tags. So, this article would seem to be headed for being a stub. Maybe the article shouldn't exist if nobody wants to be bothered to actually gather verifiable information on Republican Party factions Person54 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Right

This article has no alternative right section, which seems somewhat insane. I personally added it, but it got reverted for unknown reasons.

Don1182 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work like that. It needs to be related, sourced, suitable and many times consensus is needed. Simply adding this section after personal gusto is not the way.--Joobo (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the alt-right not a section of the GOP? I'm confused on what you are exactly disputing. All of the information added fits under these guidelines. If the libertarians have a section, then the alt-right should have one.

Don1182 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right Section

I'd like to add my support for a reference to the Alt-Right as one the factions within the Republican Party. Of all the presently identified factions, not a one of them is uniquely Trumpian and Trump has altered the Republican Party substantially. Steve Bannon, Trump's lead strategist, and Steve Miller, Trump's primary aide and fomenter of the Trump immigration policy, do not belong to any other faction, they are Alt-Righters and are considered so by the ideologues of the Alt-Right (Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug). LAWinans (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve Bannon and Steven Miller weren't Alt-right — they would be considered "alt-lite" 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:19E0:EF65:AF1C:C3F2 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose adding an alt-right section? It doesn't fit under the current section of conservatism, and is a notable part of the base. Don1182 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My Suggested Wording:

The alt-right is a loose group of right-wing activists that reject political correctness, feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism. Once considered a fringe element among the party, the faction saw significant and profound growth during Donald Trump's run for President of the United States and his Presidency. The movement is made up of right-wing populists, neoreactionaries, national anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, paleoconservatives, national syndicalists, anti-Zionists, paleolibertarians, white nationalists, and members of the men's rights movement. More extreme elements include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists.

The alt-right has had a significant influence on Republican thought in the United States, including using the Sailer Strategy for winning political support. This has been listed as a key reason for Trump's win in the 2016 election, due to Trump's massive gains among white men. The Trump administration also includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. In 2016, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right".

Notable members of the alt-right include Steve Bannon, Richard B. Spencer, Lauren Southern, Jared Taylor, and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Support - Obviously yes for me, but the movement is different enough from conservatism and libertarianism to warrant an independent section.

• Support This is a very loudly and proudly self-identified faction, as is made clear by the provided sources. No "connecting the dots" here. Having this section, or one of similar content, seems indicated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

This whole section looks like WP:NOR. If there is an actual "faction" within the Republican party is not provided by these sources. What is done is connecting dots, yet that is no verification for an actual faction. The same would be by taking a handful of newsarticles which portray an similar circumstance for the Democratic Party and possible links and attitudes to left-wing groups as Antifa, hence including a section named "Antifa faction" et cetera. Without reasonable, coherent and scientific sources there is no ground for inclusion in this article.--Joobo (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Southern is Canadian. Spencer and Taylor aren't Republicans and AFAIK neither is Milo. This is poorly sourced NOR that is no more useful than a "communists" section on the Democrat page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

While there may be no communists within the Democratic Party, there is at least one democratic socialist! --Mathmensch (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - A term or label does not make a faction. The term alt right is sufficiently of note to warrant an article in the Wikipedia, and in fact there is such an article. But to be included as a "faction" of the GOP and covered by this article, there needs to be evidence that it represents an organized grouping within the party: PAC's, organizations, conferences, think tanks, donor networks, grassroots organizations, notable GOP elected officials, pundits, and journalists, Congressional caucuses, etc associated with the faction. I doubt any of this exists, other than maybe some journalists. Moreover the material that was deleted did not include any sources to that effect. Where is the "Alt Right" Caucus in the House or Senate? Is there even a single GOP elected official who would willingly be labeled as a representative of the Alt Right? It is easy enough to get sources about the Alt Right because that label has been bandied about a lot in the last year or so. Some people on the Internet have embraced the label, as applied to themselves. But you need sources to the effect that it is a coherent "faction" of the GOP, not just a new label for right wing bigots. At most, at this point the term merits no more than a mention in the section on the "Conservative" faction, as a label which became current in 2016 for (some of) the most extreme tendencies within that faction. Person54 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Support - The criteria that are listed by Person54 above are in fact met by the suggested passage. The alt-right is obviously associated to the Republican party, as is exemplified by the alt-right tendencies of many of its members, as well as the winning campaign led by the leading alt-right figure Trump. Trump is now surrounded by alt-right people, in particular Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, but many other advisors, which are part of the Republican establishment. There are loads of similarities concerning donors of the Republican party, ie. many people who fund the alt-right machine also donate to Republicans and support their (I don't even dare say political) causes.--Mathmensch (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it isn't enough to simply find examples of the label being used. We have an Alt Right article in the Wikipedia. Give me the name of even one Republican elected official who has run on an explicitly "Alt Right" platform, supported by "Alt Right" PAC's, "Alt Right" grassroots organizations and donors, etc. who has embraced that term. Don't tell me Trump, because he does not identify himself as "Alt Right". You can only say that his policies are such that he is cheered on by people who apply the label to him and themselves, and he has done nothing to disabuse them of the notion. (Bannon doesn't identify as alt right, either, by the way, notwithstanding his quote about Breitbart being the platform for the alt-right.) The GOP is a political party, a group of people working to support each other to get elected, and if elected in sufficient numbers, to govern. When there are some GOP elected officials who embrace that label and the policies associated with it, together with some examples of the usual support infrastructure for them, the Alt Right will be a faction (God forbid). Until then, it is a label, and this article is not about labels. Person54 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump defining himself that way obviously does not have any reference value, since his claims are mostly total and utter rubbish having no connection to reality whatsoever. Then look at [2], [3], [4], [5]. We can include these in the section if you want. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathmensch, from your edit summary on your most recent attempt to put through a new Alt Right section, I take it that you think that the block on Joobo as a result of ANI resolves this issue. But it doesn't. It isn't clear even that Joobo's edits on this article had anything to do with the block, as your dispute with Joobo seems to predate his reverts of your edits in this article, and the ANI seems to have been prompted by his edits on another article. It is possible that Joobo, as you claimed, was following you around Wikipedia challenging your edits generally. I don't have any comment on that, not being all that interested (to be honest). But even if so it does not mean that Joobo's actions in relation to this article didn't have support from other editors, who have no "dogs in the fight" between you and Joobo. Me, for example. I agree with you that the Alt Right is a movement that merits coverage in the Wikipedia. There is, in fact, such an article. But as I said before, this is the article on Factions of the GOP, not the article covering every American right wing political manifestation. There are no doubt plenty of John Birch Society members, or monarchists, in the Republican party. But that does not mean there are John Birch or monarchist factions in the GOP. Believe it or not, every right-wing lunatic position or movement does not manifest itself as a GOP faction, though perhaps it may seem that way to you. Trump's ties to Alt Right figures do not suffice to make the AR a faction of the GOP either, in my opinion. If you think otherwise, there needs to be a authoritative sourcing for specifically that, not just references to various articles and op-eds about the "Alt Right", generally. However, in the spirit of working towards consensus, I suggest that there might be consensus for adding a few sentences to the "Conservative Wing" section of the article — to the effect that during and after the 2016 Presidential election, several commentators expressed concern that Trump's actions and affiliations were "mainstreaming" the Alt Right and were pushing the "Conservative wing" further to the right, particularly around issues of immigration and religious tolerance. We would still need sourcing for this, of course, but that might be less difficult than finding sources for the notion that the Alt Right has become a full-fledged faction of the GOP, on the same footing as the factions currently mentioned. Person54 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Person54:, I agree that there need to be more sources. I gave them above, but did not yet include them. Since they and others make explicit the connection of the Republican party to the alt-right, I take it for granted that if I rework the section by including these sources, my 3edit won't be reverted again. Is that acceptable? Otherwise, there may arise suspicions that you wish to conceal the affiliations of the Republican party to the alt-right. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should be thinking along the lines of the "Alt Right" being presented as a full-fledged faction of the GOP on equal footing with the three already mentioned. Speaking of those three, it is debatable that the "Libertarian" section describes an actual "faction" of the GOP either. But they do have the Pauls, Paul Ryan, and others, and some institutional presence in the party. It is small. I think the article is currently somewhat misleading regarding the importance or size of the Libertarians, as an institutional presence in the GOP, and the AR has far less of a claim to "factionhood" than even the Libertarians. I think your proposed addition to the article would be highly misleading. The reality right now is that the so-called "Moderates" are mostly dead and of historical interest; the Libertarians are very small; and the real factions of the GOP are the groups mentioned in the article as "sub-factions" of the Conservative wing, the various components of the "Reagan Coalition". Where the Alt Right fits right now is that isn't a faction of the GOP in any sense, at least not yet. A faction is an identifiable group or set of groups, not just an ideology, organizing strategy, or "meme". The AR is mostly an online phenomenon. It is hard to give the name of AR "groups" which aren't mostly websites. The same can be said of the "antifas" as well, in relation to the Democrats. So, please, as I suggested above, come up with a sentence or two mentioning the "Alt Right" as a development within the "Conservative wing" of the party which began in 2016 with Trump's election, around particular issues like immigration, feminism, political correctness, etc. Provided it is sourced, I would join you in a consensus for that. Person54 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article Political faction shows that a faction need not have an institutional presence (whatever the definition of that would be). But doubtlessly, there are alt-right representatives within the republican party, and they are sufficiently numerous so that they form a faction (and even that wouldn't be required by the definition).

Now usually, I try to bend over backwards, even if an author suggests something which is slightly off. But in this case, I won't do so, and the reason is how the republican machine works. Let me explain.

The chieftains of the Republican party are enourmously wealthy billionaires, such as Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. They deliver the talking points to a vast army of people who are paid to "spread the word"; note that the poverty and economic decline caused by their very policies makes them more powerful, since it makes the workforce, from which the "word-spreaders" are recruited, much cheaper.

A good example for this are people like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are basically paid megaphones for Trump, the Koch brothers etc. Any Fox News host is another example.

What these people unfortunately do not know is that if they would collectively stand up to the machine and decline their services, they would in the long run improve their situation tremendously. In the short run, they could improve their situation by telling their story, and telling the world how they were forced to write certain things on threat of economic decline. This would of course yield them much more economic (let alone "soft factors" such as happiness or relations) success than what they're doing currently, but they don't know that.

Now I'm not saying that the Democratic party is much better in all of these regards, and I'm also not saying that things stand better in different countries (in fact, Russia currently is, for all practical purposes, a dictatorship, and not one of the nicer ones). But we always have to point a finger; only if we know our boundaries, we can work on transgressing them. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Anti-Trump Republicans

Some "Republicans" like commentators Ana Navarro and Bill Kristol are fiercely anti-Trump and most of her political stances are different from the Republican Party, should the "Anti-Trump Republicans" add as lists?Paul Lincoln (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say not. That doesn't qualify as a faction as far as I can see. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

School vouchers

I have always wondered about this sentence; "On the issue of school vouchers, conservative Republicans split between supporters who believe that "big government education" is a failure and opponents who fear greater government control over private and church schools." It's because even with all the divides out there, I don't ever see the divide here, I only see conservatives support school vouchers. Perhaps somebody could give examples of conservatives on both sides of this issue? J390 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@J390:I agree. School vouchers are a typically conservative/GOP policy, I don't see such a divide. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I know it's been there a while, but the section should be retouched. The only "divide" on this I could possibly say I ever saw was George Bush signing Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind with minimal conservative activist support, and I've seen no conservative praise it or not support vouchers for fifteen years. J390 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Trumpism

This article should include the Trump faction of the GOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Added section on Trump and then reverted unexplained deletion. Trumpists outweigh all other factions combined. JQ (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Response to recent still unexplained reversions

Editor Toa Nidhiki05 first reverted content that was part of the recent material he's reverted several times since here on 25 August 2021, with the word "no", which is not actually an edit summary. On 3 September 2021, he reverted the addition of the same content with the edit summary "Not an actual faction or real thing", which makes an assertion about the content without backing it up.

"On 4 September 2021‎, he reverted the previously mentioned content and new sourced material with the edit summary "This is an utterly ridiculous section", which explains nothing. His last revert of my reversion was made 13:35, 4 September 2021‎ with the edit summary "As this is new content, BRD suggests this must be discussed on the talk and removed in the interim." which still fails to explain and give backed-up reasons for his reverts.

Since he cites WP:BRD, let's review what that page actually says:

"The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. [italics mine]

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it."

The same page also says "In general, BRD fails if:

a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes", with a link to:

Examples of ownership behaviour WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:

"If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership.

An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior."

I think that covers it. So far, this editor has "utterly" failed to make his case. Carlstak (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for tackling this. It seems as if Toa Nidhiki05 claims to have a veto over new content until they decide to discuss it. In the absence of any specific claims, it seems to me that the additional content speaks for itself. Most of the statements are what "everybody knows" (just Google terms like pro-Trump and Trumpists) But I and other editors who've contributed have added fairly comprehensive sourcing. JQ (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've dismissed this section because it is ludicrously unbalanced and inaccurate. The section has four paragraphs - one based one public polling (utterly irrelevant to elected factions), another which is entirely original research about the 2020 election, an unsourced paragraph about people who don't like Trump, and a section about random primary challengers. Far from a good section, it's objectively awful, poorly sourced and originally researched - and this is without making even a single claim about the ideology of this faction. It's terrible, and shouldn't be on this page. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to the main article on Trumpism. Before edit warring here on the basis that there is no such thing, I suggest you propose deletion of this article, and see how you go.

To the extent that you have gone beyond abuse, you appear to be claiming that a faction must consist solely of elected officials and that it must have a coherent ideology. Neither is true. Many of the faction members referred to in the article have not held elective office, and factions based on support for an individual leader are commonplace in political history (for example, "Eisenhower Republicans" and "Conklingites") JQ (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

From the article on factions "The aims of a political faction are as diverse as the different types of bodies within which they appear. Typically, however, they include: advancing a particular policy or policy agenda, preventing the adoption of alternative policies and supporting given individuals to positions of power within the organisation or in the wider political world. A faction can primarily be based around supporting a given person or group, or a single major aim, with little in the way of common agenda otherwise, or it can have a comprehensive and definitive set of policies" (emphasis added). Again, if you think the rest of Wikipedia is wrong, go and make the case, rather than deleting material that upsets you. JQ (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Vast sections of this proposed section are either unsourced or original research. Continue adding these sections and you will be reported for disruptive editing. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Vast sections" is laughable in a section that had 3,475 bytes, much of which was markup for sources. I've added more sources to support the information that the Lego warrior claims is either "either unsourced or original research", so now it stands at 4,467 bytes. Your argument, slight as it is, amounts to "Because I say so" and "I don't like it"; that doesn't pass muster for removing reliably sourced content. Carlstak (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There are tags to indicate where citations are needed, or where material appears to constitute original research. That doesn't justify wholesale deletion of material you don't like JQ (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This thread raises an important point: Toa Nidhiki05, to this day, exhibits tiresome gatekeeping behavior over this page. Can we report him somehow? Aunger67 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Trumpist" section

There's a few issues here. The first is the lack of neutrality. The second is the contention over whether there is or isn't a proper "Trumpist" wing. Several supposed Trumpists mentioned, including Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, fall solidly into the conservative wing of the party, discussed in the article already. Others, such as Boebert and Taylor Greene, may well be described as "Trumpists" or forming their own, more radical faction. My suggestion would be to either completely redo the section or to remove it and integrate some of the information in it to the rest of the article. I've already made some minor edits to the section. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course you do. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Josh Hawley falls solidly into the conservative wing of the Republican Party? Surely you're joking. Even the editorial board of The Kansas City Star, where Hemingway honed his craft, and historically hardly a bastion of liberalism, says of Hawley: "Those of you in the Senate who understand what he did, in full possession of the facts and the consequences of twisting them, must do more than censure his treasonous behavior. He'll still be the poster boy of the radical right, but if we're going to keep our democracy, there has to be a penalty for being the ringleader of those encouraging overturning an election." Hawley is a radical in bogus populist garb. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As you say, it might be better to add a new Qanon sub-faction to the Trump faction. On some measures, it's a majority of the Republican base [6] JQ (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Trumpism, or - more neutrally - populism, deserves a subsection. Probably below the conservative section of the article. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I propose to remove the "Neutrality disputed" tags on the Trump and anti-Trump factions. Only one user objected, and the only ground put forward (apart from disputes about citation, which have been responded to) was that "there is no such thing as a Trump faction". In the absence of any explanation, I don't think that can be regarded as a serious grounds for dispute.JQ (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation page says, under the heading When to remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." I don't see where any of the tag defenders has explained what "neutrality issue" they have with the sections. Thorpewilliam's comment, "There's a few issues here. The first is the lack of neutrality..." is not an explanation of what the issue is, and this is typical of all the tag defenders' comments—mere hand-waving that doesn't address whatever specific neutrality problems they claim are here. All I get from them is that they seem to think the term "Trumpist faction" is itself non-neutral, without explaining why, which behavior itself is typical of Trumpists—that's how they operate. Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Trumpism to Rightwing populism.

The reason I say this is because Trumpism isn't really an ideology. And if you would describe Trumpism, it would fall under right-wing populism and not as its own thing. Trump has also ben described as a right win populist, so this change would make since. if you support this change instead of rewriting it, I would just revert the undo on my edit that changed Trumpism to rightwing populism.Zyxrq (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's not like the people in Republican party are inherently pro-trump and anti-trump. It's a spectrum sort of thing JayBirdtyper (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Do all of these so-called factions really exist?

I removed the small section on traditionalists on the grounds that there is no faction within the Republican Party that calls itself that. The label is obsolete.

I have tagged the sections on paleoconservatives and business conservatives for the same reason. Are these actual factions in the GOP? Who within the GOP calls themselves by these labels? Perhaps the answer to each question is "yes," but the current text is less than persuasive. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

The user Toa Nidhiki05 consistently rolls back edits by users to keep the page from being updated and changing and moreover provides limited feedback as to the reasons for doing so. For instance, I made an detailed edit today and provided extensive commentary as to why I made the edit before I published it, and within hours Toa Nidhiki05 simply said “This is not helpful.” The user needs to explain and justify that and stop edit warring—even if the user believes they are correct. Anyone else experienced this? Aunger67 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit isn't helpful, correct. It uses British English instead of American english, introduces extremely tenuous claims (Ron DeSantis being a "far-right" faction member, conservatives being right-wing and not center right, and the lack of a centrist wing at all). It's bad, and that's why I reverted it. This article is already a mess, and your edit does nothing to help that. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If you believe this, than edit the parts you don't like--reverting the entire article is gatekeeping behavior. For instance, if you believe Ron DeSantis is not far-right, than remove him from that section and place him elsewhere...if you believe conservatives are centre-right, state that. Also, your note about British English is incorrect--Wikipedia articles are titled that way and that is why the so-called "British" form is used (political science refers to it as Centre-right and Centre-left, and so does Wikipeida--NOT "Center-left" and "Center-right"). Aunger67 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be a new editor here, but I'd advise you to follow WP:BRD and use American English on American articles. Your insistence on using British English gives me the idea that you might not have the firmest grasping of American politics (nobody here uses British spelling). Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Aunger67, While I am tempted to include my thoughts on this, I will only state that this is not really an appropriate venue for this kind of discussion (article talk pages in general). The editor's (Toa) user talk page would be where this goes, because putting it here gives the perception of WP:CANVASS type intentions and it is off topic from the article. DN (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

More information on factions

Would it be possible to include a "paleocon" faction ? Considering that the Neoconservatives are designated as a faction in here, I consider it reasonable to insert Paleoconservatives as a faction as well. JayBirdtyper (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Paleoconservatives have always been a wing outside the party, not inside it really. There's no formal lobbying body internal or externally, no caucuses... nothing, really. Toa Nidhiki05 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Voter base

I noticed that there is a section in the Democratic party factions page that discusses the Democrat's voter base. Should there be a part on this page also discussing voter base of the Republican party? JayBirdtyper (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Third photo for Trumpist faction

Who should be the third photo for this section? As of right now, it is the absolute only section in the 21st century Republican Party factions with only two photos. That shouldn't be, not only does that show a lack of balance, but it also shows potential bias. It's arguably the largest faction of the party as it stands currently, so there's no reason we shouldn't be able to come to a consensus on this. User Toa Nidhiki05 has reverted every single person I have recommended with no (none whatsoever) explanation, nor will they even offer up alternatives. Just sabotaging and hijacking the article. I think the best option is Elise Stefanik. She is one of the most vocal Trump supporters in Congress right now, and as chair of the House Republican Conference since 2021, she is the third-ranking House Republican, thus making her one of the most leading figures of this faction. As for her staunch support of Trump, "Initially elected as a moderate, Stefanik has shifted increasingly to the right. She was a strong supporter of President Donald Trump during his 2019 impeachment amid the Trump–Ukraine scandal and backed Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, objecting to Pennsylvania's electoral votes after Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol. On the day a House investigation into the attack began, Stefanik asserted that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was responsible." ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

When you're trying to claim leaders of a faction, it's kind of important to actually define them as leaders. The fact you can't actually find someone who is a "leader" in the "Trumpist faction" other than Trump is pretty telling as to how valid of a section it is. That being said, I think at bare minimum asking people in the section to be actually be leaders, not "strong supporters", is a bare minimum. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What even is your criteria here? I don't understand it. Like what is it about all the figures who have photos in every other section that makes them meet your made-up criteria but not Stefanik? What makes all them "leaders" and Elise Stefanik not one? How is Jim Jordan any more of a Trumpist leader than Stefanik, Noem or Abbott? I didn’t create an arbitrary criteria for three photos per section, other editors did, I’m just staying consistent and fair to that number. Look at the Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) article, every single section in that article sticks to 6 photos. I guess here we’re doing 3. Just like in the Democratic Factions article though, they must all have the same number of photos to show that we are treating each and every faction the same editorially. You’re not treating the Trumpist faction the same here - you have a different set of standards for this faction than the others. I chose Elise Stafanik for reasons stated above, she’s clearly a fervent, loud, unapologetic Trump supporter ("sycophant" might even be another way to describe her, just like Jordan), and she has a leadership role in the party. Period. What makes her not worthy of a photo here in your contrived, manufactured, totally baseless set of guidelines? Who else then?! Offer an alternative. Any alternative. What about Cruz instead then? Or Tuberville? Scalise? Chaffetz? I’m listening, I’m willing to compromise. It’s you who’s not. To suggest that Jim Jordan is the only “leader” in this faction (other than Trump himself) is absolutely absurd. The faction is massive, consisting of a majority of the entire party as it stands right now. There are other notables in it. Jim Jordan is not the ONLY notable politician in this faction. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't need six photos, or three photos. This is an entirely arbitrary criteria you have claimed. Surely it wouldn't be hard for you to find another politician explicitly identified as a leader of the "Trumpist" faction of the Republican party? Toa Nidhiki05 16:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference, quoting: "Stefanik’s stout support of Trump helped catapult her to a leadership role". And then the source goes into great detail and even provides a timeline. It's all in regards to her evolution into a leadership role in the Trump faction. Please read the whole thing before reverting, to actually become educated on the topic: ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no context or previous investment in this page, but here's my two cents:

• Neither Jordan nor Stefanik are mentioned at the Trumpism page. As such, they may not be the best representatives of leaders of this movement, even if they do align with it as a movement.
• Aiming for three pictures for each section is arbitrary. Each movement should only have pictures that best encapsulate the subject matter. In some cases, it may be too excessive to try and come up with three or six pictures, possibly creating issues of undue weight. Also, WP:OTHERCONTENT applies regarding the Democratic page.
• Please read the whole thing before reverting, to actually become educated on the topic. Flyedit, this sort of inflammatory comment helps absolutely nobody. Consider this a gentle reminder to work towards friendly cooperation and consensus. All Wikipedians, including myself, need that reminder at times.

Just some things to consider. TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

These are all reasonable points. Toa Nidhiki05 03:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Flyedit32. I did, and to be fair to your made-up, arbitrary criteria of inclusion here - we must then also remove Jim Jordan, because according to these ridiculous standards, no one except for Trump himself is a leader of the massive Trump faction within the Republican Party. I agree with removing Jordan. "Leader" in this context is an arbitrary criteria, and it does not benefit the reader to show pictures of every potential leader within a faction, simply because it is impossible to define this exactly, particularly past the top few. As I said earlier, inflammatory comments also do not help your case. TNstingray (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray, "Leader" in this context is an arbitrary criteria... simply because it is impossible to define this exactly, particularly past the top few. I agree. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Drafted earlier: I am still the only one who has provided any outside source here. And the source is credible and substantial, too. How is this the way that things should be conducted on Wikipedia? Why are we basing things off of the Trumpism article?... Which is not even an actual source; it's original research. If we look at that article too, there aren't really any US political allies mentioned - does that mean there are NO US political leaders of the movement? There are foreign leaders listed. Pence is listed once but is obviously no longer an ally. Steve Bannon is mentioned once. Should we include his photo? But he's not even a politician anymore. If I went to that article and created a section right now, titled "Current US Political Allies and Supporters of Trumpism", or whatever, Stefanik would be listed, Jordan would as well, McCarthy, Scalise, Tuberville too, as would Cruz, Noem, Gaetz, Taylor Greene, Boebert, Cawthorn, Hawley, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, Cheafetz, Steve Miller and Kellyanne Conway (both not even technically politicians anymore either), the list goes on and on. But then the question is, who is actually considered a "leader" of it?... That's a question to the group by the way - who? .... Please provide who you think is a leader besides just Trump, and then provide a credible source. I did. Can you?... Or is Trump its only leader? And what is the criteria for being a "leader" of the movement? Can you define what that means and how a politician within the party must meet that definition? Aparently Toa Nidhiki05 sets the standard that we all must adhere to, so can you please lay it out here and explain the rules and guidelines for what it means to be a "leader" in the Trumpist faction? Thank you. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If you removed all the material in "Trumpist faction" that wasn't sourced to material actually referring to a Trumpist faction, it would leave the first ten words of the first sentence. Even that would be questionable, because its a couple of words used in passing by a journalist with a B.A. in English literature.

Trump was able to put together a coalition to win the nomination and keep control of the party, which is what every president does. Like every president, he has opponents within his own party, but again as in most parties, most politicians are opportunistic and back the leader while the grassroots support him. But that does not mean the leader's coalition is actually a faction, unless it has an organization, a coherent ideology and a chance of survival after the leader's exit. A good example is the Democrats' three major factions: Blue Dogs, New Democrats and Progressives.

Do you think you could find a credible sources about the factions of the party that mentions Trump supporters as one of them? TFD (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unequivocally agree with TFD here. The section should be removed. There is enough coverage of "anti-Trump" Republicans to warrant a section, perhaps, although actually elected ones are in fleetingly small number. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section with new sources; we don't go by editors' opinions given here on the talk page, per WP policy we follow what reliable sources say, and many refer to a "Trumpist faction" or a "Trump faction". Carlstak (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Question

What is up with the constant churn in placement of images in this article? This seems disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Total removal of JBS from Historical Factions section

In regard to this edit which removed an entire section that has been in place for months, political historian, Matt Dallek, is only one of many sources for the JBS movement's involvement and influence on the GOP. There is a prevalence of RS that acknowledges this historical faction, that remains active to this very day. While the faction may be considered small by today's standards it was still a notable faction that grew to have lasting effects according to experts, scholarship and mainstream consensus.

Removing any mention of JBS in this article because it doesn't mention page numbers seems to be overkill, ie WP:PRESERVE. A simple tag would have been more appropriate. Regardless I have added plenty of citations (below) for anyone to look through in case they wish to find something better. Due the the quality and prevalence of sources I am restoring this section unless/until there is a consensus for removal.

Notable GOP adherents and associations with the JBS movement also include...

• Barry Goldwater “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society,” Goldwater told Buckley and Kirk. “I’m not talking about commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks. I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs.” After considering Goldwater’s concerns, Buckley and Kirk agreed to a compromise. They would challenge Welch without directly criticizing the John Birch Society’s members, creating an opening for Goldwater to do likewise. Gingerly at first, but more forcefully as the 1960s went on, the conservative thought leaders began to distance themselves from the Birchers’ paranoid denunciations of the U.S. government."
• Ron Paul "In the interview, Mr. Paul said he parted ways with the John Birch Society over its emphasis on conspiracy theories — “that 12 or 15 people for hundreds of years get together and plan the world.” "The factual record on Ron Paul and the John Birch Society is clear, and his association with the fringe organization that made itself famous by alleging that Dwight Eisenhower was "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy" cannot be so easily brushed aside. In October, Paul delivered the keynote address at the Society's 50th anniversary dinner; prior to his speech he released a statement praising the "great patriotic organization." Nor is his involvement limited to this one address. When I reported my story last year, a Birch Society spokesman told me that Paul had spoken to the group about a half dozen times over the past decade."
• Phyllis Schlafly a notable American attorney, conservative activist, author, anti-feminist spokesperson for the national conservative movement, and 1952 Republican party nominee.

The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 CPAC and attended in 2023

JBS had a hundred delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention.

More citations..

• The Conversation Christopher S Parker, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Washington
• The Conversation Chris Towler, Assistant Professor of Political Science, California State University, Sacramento
• WaPo Matt Dallek
• Time Matt Dalek
• WaPo via E. J. Dionne
• The Hill Professor John Kenneth White, Ph.D. in Politics - Catholic University
• Rick Perlstein & Edward H. Miller
• David Barstow via NYT
• Sean Wilentz via NPR
• John Cassidy (journalist) via The New Yorker
• Thomas Mallon via The New Yorker
• David Leonhardt

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, can I ask what the point is of listing all of these sources here on the talk page without putting any of them in the article itself? You've now reinstated this content and it still cites only one source--and it's an entire book. MonMothma (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to add any of the sources you think are best. I wanted to give you an opportunity to look at them and give your opinions before adding anything or tagging the current section.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget Larry McDonald, the Democratic congressman chosen as chair of the Society in 1983 until his plane was shot down by the Soviets. Otherwise, none of the named polticians was actually a member of the Society.

The fact that the JBS has rarely been invited to CPAC, which itself is on the right-wing fringe of the Republican Party, shows how little significance it has on the party. The Democratic Socialists of America actually has members in the Democratic congressional caucus, but there is not a subsection about it there and it is not treated as a faction. And certainly socialist though has had some influence on the Democratic Party over time, even if it is highly exaggerated by their opponents. TFD (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, I took a look at the numbered footnotes you cited above and have the following comments:

1: Behind a paywall, so I couldn't read the whole thing. The block quote you included shows that JBS was influential in Arizona in the early 1960s. It does not show that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

2: Behind a paywall, so I couldn't read the whole thing. The block quote you included shows a connection between Ron Paul and JBS. That is not the same thing as showing that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

3. Shows a connection between Ron Paul and JBS. Does not show that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

4, 5, and 6: Shows that JBS has had a presence at the Conservative Political Action Conference. That does not mean that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party. CPAC and the Republican Party are not the same thing. (Does every group that shows up at CPAC have an entry on this page?!) Also, The New American is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and The Fieldston News is published by students at a prep school in New York City.

7. The fact that JBS had a hundred delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention is the most persuasive information you have offered so far on the point in question. We could use more information, and we could definitely use a page number.

8. Strongly suggests that JBS has influenced some Republicans. That is not the same thing as showing that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

9. Behind a paywall.

You listed several other sources, but I don't want to go through them all. Do any of them show that there was a JBS faction within the GOP? MonMothma (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble with paywalls, however as you probably know, that doesn't disqualify sources, besides, I don't think I need to "persuade" anyone, history and the sources speak for themselves.

It seems you are looking for a more literal use of the term "faction."

Something along these lines?...

• “As an ADL operative wrote, those Birchers were going to argue that the communists killed Kennedy, and then add that it was a Jewish plot, because the commies were all Jews.” In truth, Dr. Dallek added, the Birchers “were relieved that the assassin was not one of their own. A number of Birchers came up with all kinds of crazy theories about who was to blame, and Jews often were part of it. Revilo Oliver, a raging antisemite, gave speeches about how the government was planning Kennedy’s funeral weeks before he died.

“Even some Birchers thought that he was nuts.”

"Now, much has changed, but much has remained the same. “One of the biggest differences between then and now is that the Bircher ideas and sensibilities have become more mainstream,” Dr. Dallek said. “They’re not the only faction within the Republican party, but it’s a dominant one." (at the time - 1960's) Jewish Standard

• (Summary of a book by historian Donald T. Critchlow "When Hollywood was Right") In 1964, California Republicans and the Hollywood Right found themselves once again in a familiar pattern: disarray. Democrats held the governor’s mansion, with Pat Brown’s victory in 1962 over Nixon, and Democrats controlled both houses in the state legislature. As a result, the Democrats were able to push through a progressive social agenda. Nixon’s loss left Republicans split into factions, divisions that were deepened in the following two years by the rapid rise of the hard line right led by the John Birch Society. Formed in 1958 by New England candy manufacturer Robert Welch, the Society attracted considerable support in Southern California. Birchers, as members of the Society were called, continued to believe that domestic communism was a real threat in the United States, going so far as to proclaim that communists controlled 80 to 90 percent of the federal government. Cambridge University Press
• By 1962, the John Birch Society had become a major faction on the American right, especially in California. Richard M. Nixon, running for governor there, denounced the group, called on all Republicans to do the same, and said he wouldn’t endorse any Birchers for political office. Nixon’s reward was an outpouring of right-wing support for his opponent in the Republican primary and anemic support from the right in the general election, which Nixon lost." Wapo (same source as earlier)

Are the Reagan and Rockefeller constituency portions held to this same test? After all, they were from about the same time period.

Along this line of thought, why aren't the Lily-white movement and Black-and-tan faction included here?

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, the Dallek, Critchlow, and Washington Post sources are satisfactory. MonMothma (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The WaPo article fails rs per WP:NEWSORG. The author is a lecturer in communications, not an expert in polisci, sociology or history. But assuming we did use it, it merely says the JBS was a major faction on the "American right," not the Republicn party. Some of them, such as Larry McDonald were Democrats, others had no party involvement.

The faction Critchlow referred to was the "hard line right led by the John Birch Society," not the JBS itself.

Finally, the article in the Jewish Standard also fails rs and the author appears to use the term faction in a loose sense.

You seem to have googled "John Birch Society"+"Republican Party"+"faction" and thrown your hits against the wall to see what sticks.

If you are serious about identifying factions of the Republican Party, get a hold of a book on the party and look for a section on factions. If I recall correctly, most source identify two major factions that have long existed: Main St. and Wall St. The Main St. faction became dominated by radical right-wing ideology. But the JBS was not the only influence. There was also McCarthyism and the National Review. They coalesced to nominate Goldwater. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to have googled "John Birch Society"+"Republican Party"+"faction" and thrown your hits against the wall to see what sticks"

Your "attempts" at trying to belittle my efforts are noted. DN (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Republicans

What happened to the section with the liberal faction of the Republican Party? BlueBlurHog (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

BlueBlurHog, in answer to your question, please see my series of edits dated November 8 of last year. MonMothma (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have fallen into the moderate and Rockefeller categories. DN (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Racial Factions

Hi there! This is the recommended post on the talk page about racial factions. It is necessary to add that section, since there were three uncategorized factions of the Republican Party, all three of which were defined by race. I still see it necessary then to create a separate section, since they are alone otherwise. 108.40.120.49 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary photographs

This page suffers from serious photograph overkill. Most of the politicians listed in factions appear to be entirely arbitrarily selected, and four is far too many. This page should reduce the number of photographs by at least 50%, and likely more. Toa Nidhiki05 06:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The groups of four photos shown for each faction section are unnecessary and a distraction from the text. Being arbitrary, they give undue emphasis to the persons selected, and they have been the cause of constant turnover. The article would be substantially improved without them. Carlstak (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support that as well DN (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've gone ahead and removed them. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Trumpists aren't "supportive" of Russia

The article states in the section on the Trumpist faction that Trumpists are "generally supportive of Russia." However, the sources that are cited only say that Trump Republicans act friendly and soft-gloved toward Russia. Being friendly and cordial is one thing, but being supportive is another those two things are not equivalent. Saying that Trumpist Republicans are supportive of Russia is misleading. The article should reflect what the sources say, that Trump Republicans are soft on and friendly towards Russia. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In common English parlance, "supportive" is an accurate description of what the sources say. Trump (and this is about GOP MAGA people) supports Russia over America, believes Russian intelligence over American intelligence, sides with Russia against NATO, sides with Russia against Ukraine, refuses to ever say a negative word about Putin, etc. That's pretty supportive. Are there Republicans who vote for Trump but don't like Russia? Of course, but we go by what the sources say. He aids Putin's MRGA goals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources are all opinion and analysis in news publications which are reliable sources only for opinions attributed to them. Are there any studies by experts that support that view? TFD (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)