Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 12

The claim that the Republican Party no longer opposes legalization of drugs
This is completely unsubstantiated, and misinforms readers as to where the Republican Party stands on drugs. Also, the article does not need to specifically mention the few Republicans who hold pro-legalization viewpoints. This should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why the issue now? The statement "More recently, several[which?] prominent Republicans have advocated for the reduction and reform of mandatory sentencing laws with regards to drugs." was in there for quite sometime.....an editor elaborates on the "Which?" and now all of it should go? I agree what he/she added may be a issue as far as weight.....but if the "which" question is answered....shouldn't that (at the least) be clarified?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the "several" part is an issue.....would "a few" be better?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "some". I don't see why we need to list specific Republicans. The readers do not need to know who Matt Gaetz is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it at all misleading? The number of Republicans who are at present in favour of some drugs (primarily marijuana) at least in some circumstances is more than a few, and it's an example of where social attitudes of the Republican Party at large have been evolving in recent years. To balance it, it's totally justified to talk about Republicans who cling to the traditionally mainstream view, but I see no reason for this edit to have been reverted. The previous (and current) statement is vague and informs readers of virtually nothing. While it's not my intent to personally attack you, your recent edit history shows a tendency of one-sided and sometimes POV-pushing edits in relation to similar topics. As per ArbCom remedies, unless another editor acts before said time or a clear consensus against doing so is established here, I will re-instate a variant of my previous edit following 24 hours' passing. If you have an issue with it at that point, I ask that you once again discuss it here. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your intent to restore your bad version as soon as 24 hrs passes is an example of WP:GAMING and a violation of the spirit of WP:BRD. If you want to remove long-standing text and add contested text, you need to seek consensus for that change. You do not come back here every 24 hrs to force rejected changes back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's WP:UNDUE to give too much weight and attention to individual Republicans that go against the party line here unless the sources specifically indicate that their positions are representative of a larger shift. This is especially true of Rand Paul, who is a bit of a maverick.  One sentence noting the existence of a few such Republicans (I would utterly disagree with the characterization of "more than a few" above; "a few" is an accurate and concise summary of what the article and its sources currently describe) is sufficient - for more than that, we would need sources unamibiguously describing the state of the Republican party as a whole on the issue.  Otherwise, digging out a handful (specifically, in this case, two) Republicans and saying "they believe X" in a way that implies that the position of the party as a whole is changing or has changed strikes me as WP:SYNTH. I'm absolutely not seeing the sources stating that it's an example of where social attitudes of the Republican Party at large have been evolving in recent years, so we can't include anything that even implies it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just partially re-instated the initial edit, this time just including an argument from Gaetz about the supposed generational divide that exists, whilst not including the rest of my previous edit so as to not appear to overstate. Would this more or less satisfy your concerns? thorpewilliam (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This section is starting to concern me with issues of WEIGHT and CRYSTAL. For a party that has been (for decades) rabidly opposed to drugs, we now spend the vast majority of the drug section talking about a small group that wants legalization. That's out of whack IMHO. The compromise version we had (by Snoog) a few days ago seems to be the best. Originally I was gratified that another editor elaborated on which Republicans want legalization.....but I think the version above is a good resolution. If this does turn into a RFC, there may be a problem in that there could be 3 different versions to vote on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz's speculation on where the GOP stands on drug legalization
Two editors have forced content into this Wikipedia page on an "analysis" provided by Matt Gaetz, a fringe conspiracy theorist who is known for peddling falsehoods and nonsense, about the GOP's position on drugs. Gaetz is not an expert on the topic. In fact, he is decidedly unreliable on the topic given his propensity for lying, as well as motives to make his fringe position seem more popular in the party (e.g. the notion that his position will eventually win out). The content is question is mindless speculation. It is on the kind of content which historians and political scientists are equipped to answer and substantiate: a policy shift over time, as well as the demographics for a policy position. It is absurd to include Gaetz's drivel on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Matt Gaetz is a sitting Congressman and a Republican. His perspective on the political views of his own party on issues is absolutely at least worth considering for inclusion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? The purpose of including it is clearly state his position, which is of some value, being a sitting Congressman and a well-known one at that. Like it or not, that is the case. It's not stating whether or not he's correct. It was attributed to two RS. Do you have any genuine reason to revert? thorpewilliam (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm removed this challenged content (which must stay out per WP:ONUS since it has been challenged by multiple editors). This seems to be to be undue weight because (1) it randomly plucks quote from Gaetz (one of 197 Republican House members and 53 Republican Senators); (2) Gaetz is neither a academic or journalistic commentator not a subject-matter expert (i.e., on the history of the Republican Party or the history of drug control policy in America); and (3) existing content in the article already notes that there is a spectrum of views within the party on drug control/criminalization/decriminalization. Perhaps Gaetz's views can be mentioned in his own biographical article. Neutralitytalk 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. My concern was that what existed previously and still exists was/is imprecise, by not mentioning which of the "some" Republicans were being referred to. thorpewilliam (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today, the House voted to pass a marijuana legalization bill. All but five Republicans opposed it. This gets to the crux of why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are forbidden. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020
ADD TO Democracy section of the pag:

Seventeen states attorney generals and 106 (over half their members) Republican House members, including the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy supported the case brought forth by the state of Texas to nullify the certified results of other states, and therefore deny Joe Biden the required electoral votes to secure the election, despite having won the election legally and transparently according to all state electoral authorities.

ALSO ADD:

Many political scientists around the world consider the GOP a far-right party, or at least illiberal. American conservative thinkers and writers have even noticed this sharp departure in the GOP from normal democratic norms. SojournerUSA (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also see WP:SYNTH. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Change 'right-wing populism' from 'faction' to majority
With the rise of Trumpism within the Republican Party, it seems that the party has become overwhelmingly a right-wing populist party, rather than a conservative party. I propose moving 'right-wing populism' from the 'factions' category into the 'majority' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT (talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel rather unsure about labeling the Republican Party as being predominantly right-wing populist. I understand why you may think this way, but I also know that there are myriads of Republicans like me who are opposed to populism and anything right of the center-right, as well as derided—and then decried—Mr. Trump's claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. While there certainly are so many supporters, some sycophantic and others who do not like him but figure he is a lesser evil than Biden, it would be a dramatic change of pace and a national tragedy for the Republican Party to abandon conservative values and embrace populism. Fortunately, we are not quite there yet. While Fox News has let me down, at least it is not embracing populism like its competitors Newsmax and especially One America News Network, which are still fringe members of the right-wing media.  Free Media  Kid!  07:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You would need to show that reliable sources in comparative politics classify it that way, which they don't. In fact the sources for right-wing populism in this article merely refer to populism. Basically it's a party of big business that sometimes uses populist rhetoric, which is what it has always been. TFD (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of reliable sources   that say that the Republican party is a right-wing populist party. Right-wing populism is at least as strong as the Conservatism in the party. Maybe in the future it goes back to being a standard Conservative party, but right now it is not one. We should at least add a paragraph to the 'history' section detailing the Republican party's rightward shift and the growing strength of right-wing populism among Republican politicians and voters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first source cites a studies that ranks the Republicans high on the populism scale but does not mention right-wing populism. Note that right-wing populism is defined topic and does not just mean populist + right of center. Your second source refers to them as "plutocratic populist," which is an "alliance between plutocratic economic interests and right-wing populist forces." Your last sources are opinion pieces hence fail rs. You need something like a textbook on world political parties or on right-wing populism that shows that this is how the party is now categorized.
 * Bear in mind that populist rhetoric is pretty routine in U.S. political rhetoric. Biden for example routinely mentions that he is from Scranton (a working class town in Pennsylvania), didn't go to an ivy league university and stands for Main Street values over Park Avenue values. Ironically, Trump is one of the few U.S. politicians who doesn't play this populist card.
 * Incidentally, which definition of conservative are you using?
 * TFD (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The wiki article you linked specifically defined right-wing populism as "a political ideology that combines right-wing politics with populist rhetoric and themes" Thus, my first 2 sources are proof of the Republicans being right-wing populists. The first sources shows that the Republicans, a right-wing party, are high on populism and illiberalism, thus making them right-wing populists by definition.
 * The second source shows an alliance between plutocratic economic intrests (right-wing) and populism, thus right-wing populism. I did misuse the term 'convservative' in my statement to basically mean 'pre-Trump GOP establishment,' and I should have been more clear about that.
 * We can agree to disagree about whether the Republicans are primarily a right-wing populist party, but there should at least a paragraph detailing the rightward shift of the Republican party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a body of literature about right-wing populism beginning with Hans-Georg Betz' The Radical Right and the Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe (1994). Few of these sources apply the term to the U.S. However, Chip Berlet does in Right-Wing Populism in America (2018). As I said, rw populism is more than just right of center + populist. Betz and others detected a new family of political parties that were to the right of the mainstream and invented a term to describe them. Later writers have noted that mainstream right-wing parties, including in the U.S., Canada, the UK and Australia have copied some of their approach. It doesn't mean they are the same thing. If the Republicans were really right-wing populists, government policy would be more extreme and business elites wouldn't fund them. Not only that, but in cases where moderate parties have transformed into rw populist parties (Switzerland, Brazil), the membership has been entirely replaced.
 * I don't know why you miss the fact that the Republican Party drifted to the right under Reagan and brought the Democratic Party along with it. But that was due to the adoption of the neoliberal paradigm, which happened everywhere.
 * TFD (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This source uses this - admittedly long-winded - definition of right-wing populiism:
 * "Populism’s central and permanent narrative is the
 * juxtaposition of a (corrupt) 'political class,' 'elite,' or 'establishment,' and 'the
 * people,' as whose sole authentic voice the populist party bills itself.
 * Right-wing populism adds a second antagonism of 'us versus them.' Based on a
 * definition of the people as culturally homogenous, right-wing populists juxtapose its
 * identity and common interests, with are considered to be based on common sense,
 * with the identity and interests of 'others,' usually minorities such as migrants, which
 * are supposedly favored by the (corrupt) elites."
 * This definition maps quite closely with Trump's language about 'the establishment' (ik whitehouse.gov is not a reliable source; I am using it for evidence of Trump's views, for which it is a reliable source.) And Trump's langauge about minorities, . This kind of langauge maps cleanly on the definition of right-wing populism as described above, that is, a movement that pits a version of 'the people' that is defined as a culurally homogenous group vs a group of 'elites' that want to make 'the people' not so cultrually homogenous, and thus are agaisnt the people.
 * If you buy my argument that I layed out that Trumpism is a right-wing populist movement, you must then conclude that the Republicans are a right-wing populist party, as the Republican party has become totally overcome by Trump and Trumpism, with nearly every Republican politician advancing the Trump line no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayebhYT (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

, per no synthesis, we cannot make a determination on our own. I would say however that your source says that political parties use populist rhetoric opportunistically. Please compare Trump with Viktor Orbán, PM of Hungary. He re-wrote the constitution, cancelled elections, built a real wall, outlawed "fake news" and forced minorities to flee. Trump OTOH is just talk. TFD (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
Please add the following to the lead:

"Although nominally still a pro-democratic party, after losing the 2020 election the majority of Republican Congressmen supported ending the United States' 300-year tradition of democratic elections, overturning the election which Trump lost by nearly 10 million votes, and installing Trump as a de-facto dictator for life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have an independent, reliable source for that suggested content? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing party based off of House ideological caucus positions
I propose the Republican Party being put as "Right-wing" for its political position. This is where the Republican Study Committee, which is 147 of 198 House Republicans, is put. It also is where the Freedom Caucus (37 members) and the Liberty Caucus (8 members) are put as well. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is not determined by original research or our personal opinions, but on what independent reliable sources state. If you have such sources stating that refer to the GOP as right wing, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * JoeSmoe seems to be going off of what the infoboxes on those other pages say. That's not a super strong argument, though, since those other pages haven't gotten as much attention as this one. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Article should state thing as they are and not try to send a specific message. Some of these articles really sound like it is trying to send a specific message. There is no need to play around anymore. 202.21.96.212 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the field was deleted from the info-box because it added no new information and was ambiguous. If we say for example that their ideology is conservatism, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, different people will interpret that as right-wing, center-right, or even centrist or far right. While we can say they are the more right-wing of the two major parties, where exactly along the left-right spectrum that belong is a matter of subjectivity. TFD (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be described as far-right, not right-wing. It's not right-wing or conservative in the normal sense of those terms. It openly espouses racism (to an extreme degree), climate change denial, fringe conspiracy theories and is involved in a coup attempt, with its leader trying to "find" fictious votes to overturn an election. It's a far-right authoritarian party if there ever was one, and that's how mainstream RS view it, at least from a global perspective. (The fact that far-right racism is "normalised" in the US isn't that important for us as an international encyclopedia; European perspectives quite frankly carry more weight, both because Europe is a larger region and also because Europe is more developed and advanced in this area, in relevant scholarship etc.). We describe parties in Europe that are far, far more moderate than the Republican Party as far-right, even when they're not involved in coup attempts and don't openly embrace racism and conspiracy theories to the same degree as the Republican Party. --Tataral (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the label right-wing authoritarianism would be appropriate to describe their ideology - short of National Socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D473:1700:98B5:514B:80B3:8668 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are they short of national socialist though?? We’ve seen they supported Trump building concentration camps where immigrants were tortured on American soil (yes, separating young children from their parents is tortute by any reasonable definition) and now seek to keep their fuhrer in power by ending America’s 300-year tradition of democratic elections and declaring martial law and simply magically “finding” votes for Trump that don’t exist. I could continue if you’d like. I do not think there’s a political party anywhere in the world right now that’s ideologically closer to that of the German National Socialist Party of 1933 than the 2021 Republican Party. Certainly close to none of these people are conservatives or classical liberals anymore.108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, Trump continued the policies of previous presidents including Clinton and Obama. While he locked up more people than Obama, he deported fewer. The U.S. has a long history of human rights abuses. Trump is different in that he was the first president whose record received wide media attention. TFD (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021
I would like to change all instances of the word ¨blacks¨ to the phrase ¨black people¨ in reference to humans and groups of humans. Dwtnt (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. RudolfRed (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Add to list of supporters
The following line needs to be updated to include women, blacks, hispanics, and orientals. The existing description may have fit the 20th-century base, but not the current one.

"The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, the Silent Generation, and white evangelical Christians.[21][22][23][24]" Billinjax (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Description of the party as far right
I tend to agree that "far-right" should appear in the party's description, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html? appears to be a reliable source positioning the republicans to the right of parties like the Freedom Party of Austria or the Finns party, which are both described as "right-wing to far-right" on their pages so I think it would be appropriate to add this as a descriptor to the Republican Party Netx444 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To bolster Netx444's argument above: this is an article appearing the New York Times, one of the most respected publications in the world. It is an opinion piece, which I foresee people latching on to, but I would have two preemptive rebuttals: (1) where else do we describe the stance of parties? There is no objective definition of right- or left-wing, it is purely a matter of opinion; (2) respected political scientist Will Lowe (of the Woodrow Wilson School in the Department of Politics at Princeton) contributed to the analysis, which was based on data from the Manifesto Project, a project funded by the German government. It's not like this is some random yahoo saying something on Facebook: this is about as a "reliable source" as you can get for something that is inherently subjective. LordDimwit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think given the events of Jan 6, 2021, including not just attempts by the majority of the Republican Congressional membership to overturn election results by procedural means but also by the party leader inciting his followers to march on the Capitol and the party leader's intentional non-response to the dangerous security situation that caused, combined with the fact that the 2020 Republican Party platform was more-or-less "whatever Trump wants", there's no longer any reason to not describe the party as "far right." LordDimwit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a heavily biased article that goes out of its way to make it seem as if the party is mostly made up of "centrists", "libertarians" and "neoconservatives", and in effect to whitewash the party and to make an openly far-right, openly racist, openly fundamentalist and openly anti-democratic party currently engaged in a coup attempt to overturn an election result seem like a normal, mainstream, centrist, democratic party. This is not how the party has been perceived for many years, and there is an abundance of sources that describe the party's current dominating ideology as Trumpism (with little room for centrism and hardly any noticeable centrist dissent against Trump and Stephen Miller) and the party as far right. The description of the party as far right even predates the rise of its current far-right leader; for example MSNBC has described the party as a "far-right party" with reference to its actions in 2010.

We need something in the section on ideology on how the party has developed with the rise of the Tea Party and later Trumpism. Other parties are clearly identified as far-right, even if they are far more politically moderate than the Republican Party. For instance, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) article discusses how the party is regarded as far-right, but AfD's political positions are not nearly as far right, fundamentalist, racist or anti-democratic as the Republican Party, e.g. in their rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, racism, climate change, respect for the democratic process/elections and election results/democratic institutions, and a whole range of other issues on which the Republican Party holds ten times more extreme views. We also describe numerous other far-right parties from other countries as far-right, so there is no reason to make an exception for the far-right party in the U.S. --Tataral (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I would like to see a more global perspective on assessing the position of the party. This is a global encyclopaedia, and 95% of the world's population is not American. Rather than observing where the party fits on the spectrum within the US, I believe we should be trying to reflect how the world sees it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * to me "FAR" means going beyond the normal boundaries of democracy--such calling democratic elections into doubt without evidence acceptable to the court system.That in the last two weeks has become a very live subject in all the media. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) regarding the GOP and its top 100 or so leaders. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , a global perspective clearly places them in the far-right, as currently constituted. It remains to be seen what will happen after Jan 20. The Overton Window in the US is well to the right of the global average. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly is far right. The hard thing is trying to convince most Americans that is the case, because they tend to inevitably believe their country must be somewhere near the middle, and not a lot of them have a good knowledge of politics in the rest of the world, only the handful of countries frequently in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death before. Glaring factual inaccuracies here aside, there is no global political spectrum, and both the Democrats and Republicans are broad, big-tent parties that have little central control over their ideology or membership. Your "MSNBC" source here is actually a quote from the Rachel Maddow Show - a left-wing, opinion commentary source. Most claims of "far right" fall into that same category. Moreover, both parties are broadly representative of the American right and left - this is undeniable. This is not a new debate and has been resolved numerous times in the past. Toa Nidhiki05 01:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the GOP isn't a big tent any more. At least not at the national level. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains the 2020 election, where the GOP gained seats in the House, have so far only lost one seat in the Senate. They did this because they are not a big tent...right! That explains why there are now more female republican representatives than ever before...because the GOP alienates females. This also explains why Trump got more Hispanic and African American votes percentage wise than he did in 2016! Got it!--MONGO (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That can all happen without it being big-tent. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Within his first 100 days, Hitler killed his predecessor and his rivals within his own party, suspended the legislature, was declared dictator, outlawed all rival political parties, took over the media and sent numerous opponents to concentration camps. It only got worse from there. Trump's got a long way to go before he would qualify as far right. TFD (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * that assumes Hitler-1933 is the standard for "far right." None of the RS assume we should use Hitler in 1933 as the minimal measure--that would exclude Hitler in 1932. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parties like Fidesz and the British National Party are non-controversially described as "far-right" and have remarkably similar platforms to the modern Republican Party in the United States. You don't have to be literally Hitler to be "far right" just as you don't have to be literally Marx to be "far left". And given that a very large number of high-ranking Republicans are trying to overturn an election with literally no evidence (when under oath in court they've continually admitted they've got nothing but hearsay and conjecture), I think "fascist" might not be a bad adjective either.LordDimwit (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though Hitler was also far-right, he is not the standard for all far-right people or movements. Islamophobia is a far-right ideology, but Islamophobic parties across Europe that we describe as far-right haven't killed any predecessors or done any of that stuff. Far-right is simply a term for those to the right of the normal democratic right (e.g. CDU). That Trump is to the right of the normal right, even far to the right of any mainstream Republicans just a few years ago (even though the Republican Party before Trump was already a very right-wing party), is very clear and supported by countless RS. That he doesn't operate within the normal conventions of liberal democracy is also clear as the world discusses his far-right coup attempt. We already describe many of the main people in the Republican Party, people with the most senior roles in the Trump administration (e.g. Stephen Miller), as far-right, so it goes without saying that we need to include something about the party having a far-right element here. Yes, we need a global perspective, not just a local U.S. perspective, just as we describe both Putin's Russia and Erdogan's Turkey from a global perspective, not just from the Russian or Turkish governments' own perspectives. --Tataral (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two common definitions of far right: to the right of traditional mainstream political parties and as far right as it is possible to go. I think it's best to just use the term for the second category to avoid confusion. Trump's policies as opposed to his speech and style, aren't very different from his predecessors. But America has a long tradition of portraying political opponents in extreme terms. At the same time, parties have also tried to absorb potential supporters of third parties of the left and right by making a direct appeal to them. We could have been having this discussion about Nixon, Reagan or George W. Bush. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have been calling the Democrats socialist since at least the 1908 election. TFD (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Toa Nidhiki05. Pretty much every comparison I have seen made to call the GOP "far right" is mainly Western European nations. Needless to say, that is not the whole world.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This idea of yours that the opinion isn't all that relevant because it's European is rather odd. Quite frankly, on this particular topic the world's leading authorities are mostly found in Europe (especially Western Europe), and Europe represents the mainstream view of democratic countries and most reliable sources. That the governments of totalitarian or authoritarian countries (like China and Russia) wouldn't agree doesn't matter much; there isn't much room for any independent, reliable sources (like a free press, or academic publications) in those places; the United States just had a (failed) coup attempt by its far-right president, and doesn't have the kind of advanced democracy that most European countries have. Still, even American commentators such as historians and political scientists have described Trump's party or some elements of it as far-right. From a European perspective the Republican Party is now clearly a far-right party, that could possibly be described as merely right-wing in the past. --Tataral (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rja13ww33 - I think you'd find, that if you asked the whole world, far right would be the even more likely answer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anyone's opinion is irrelevant "because it's European". What I said was the (party to party) comparison I have typically seen is a Western European nation's party compared to the GOP (or whomever else in the USA). And again: that isn't the world. Multiple RS weighing in on where the GOP stands as far as world politics go is what is needed to justify this change. And even then we would have to be clear on where they stand in American politics. After all, the Democrats would be considered center-right in some countries.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In most of the world actually, which obviously makes the Republican party far right. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great but for such a point in the article we need some RS here. (Some of them being scholarly sources would be great too.) So far, all I've seen is a [single] article on MSNBC.com.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At the very least, I would describe the Republican Party as it currently is as a right-wing party. There are certainly many Republican elements that can reasonably be described as hard right or borderline far-right, but at the same time, I am hesitant to label the party as being broadly far-right. There are certainly a handful of center-right, reasonable Republicans such as me, all of whom have become the party's black sheep, because we Rockefeller Republicans have been marginalized by increasingly right-wing factions. To keep this from not becoming a forum, I will not discuss how stressful it is for me to be a black sheep of the party, as well as in my own circles. On the other hand, the political alignment of the Republican Parties of the states are not entirely consistent. Some of them such as the Oklahoma Republican Party are right-wing, whereas others such as in California and New York are center-right. However, others such as in Texas are a mixture of them. With that in mind, I think classifying the Republican Party as a whole as right-wing would work. ''' Free Media [[Special:Contributions/FreeMediaKid!|Kid! ]]''' 11:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?

Most of this article describes the Republican Party of 1994-2008, not the right-wing populist party that exists today 2603:8080:7D05:7200:5142:3E33:171B:89C6 (talk)

The Republican party is not far-right, and the the New York Times is no longer a "reliable source". Billinjax (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Those persons above claiming the current republican Party is “nothing like Hitler” and aren’t far-right look pretty foolish now, don’t they? I mean these guys are literally supporting sedition and overturning democracy to keep their dear Fuhrer in power. My god, if this isn’t the Republican Party’s Reichstag Fire moment, what is?"

Ridiculous.

The only ones "supporting sedition and overturning democracy" are arguably those that were AGAINST pausing the certification of electors to follow proper, constitutional procedures to address concerns with irregularities in voting and the various ways in which established election law was subverted. Asking Representatives to follow the Constitution is in no way seditious, and wanting fair elections is not overturning democracy.

Billinjax (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Needs a "structure" section
Clearly this article gets a lot of attention by a lot of editors who are trying to improve it. Yet it doesn't have and as far as I can tell has never had a section on the *structure* of the GOP, its actual functioning. It seems to me like that developing such a section would be more important than any other existing part of this article. 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 (talk)

Structure, Composition or Organization
Unlike Wikipedia articles on the Democratic party or the British Conservative Party, this article on the Republican party has very little to say on the current structure, composition or organization.I will add content but this requires input from better informed editors on the topic as well. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Far Right
what's the deal with the GOP being considered far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.145.25 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected it. TFD (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We should state clearly in the first paragraph that the party has a conservative wing and a far-right wing. This is uncontroversial and supported by numerous sources, who have extensively discussed how the party has moved rapidly in the direction of the far-right in recent years. We also describe many of the representatives of the party's far-right wing (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene) as far-right in their own articles. --Tataral (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for infobox
Include Trumpism as a faction. Prins van Oranje (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See sedition above [] discussing this topic. Springee (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Trumpism
Should Trumpism be added as a faction of the Republican Party? I am suggesting this given the fact that a large cohort of Republicans still support Trump’s agenda and the fact that the Republican Party most recent platform last year was literally just a one page endorsement of Trump. I suppose a case could be made that this covered by right-wing populism, but Trumpism seems more relevant in the American context. Psherman122 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point the Republican Party is a faction of Trumpism. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trumpism is not a cohesive ideology or a faction. There are not a group of people elected on a “Trumpist” platform. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , what matters is, do reliable sources identify Trumpism as a thing. And the answer is absolutely clear: they do. There is endless discussion in reliable sources about the GOP's problem with Trumpism, the possibility of a schism and so on. It's also a label that the Trumpists are probably more comfortable than the alternatives currently in play (conspiracism, white nationalism and the rest). Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't oppose this. The party had as its platform "whatever Trump wants" in 2020 and most of its House members endorsed Trump's attempted power grab after the 2020 elections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously? What on earth could you possibly have as a reliable source for this ridiculous and biased statement?Vinny Gambino (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying to Toa Nidhiki05, I think a strong case could be made that Republicans such as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Madison Cawthorn were elected to their respective seats on “Trumpist” platforms. Heads of various state level Republican branches could also be considered “Trumpist,” such as Kelli Ward in Arizona or Allen West in Texas. Psherman122 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a faction. Trump was able to bring together different factions of the Republican Party, but that happens every four years in both parties. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Faction or not, but it should be mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think most here are in agreement it should see some mention, but not as an ideology, so I just made a new subsection and made Trumpism a "see also" underneath it with nothing further. CaliIndie (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with TFD. It isn't an ideology and shouldn't be treated as such. Springee (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I Slightly agree. Trumpism isn't an ideology but even if people don't call them self trumpists,it is definitely a large group of republicans who split off from the rest of there pack of neo-conservatives. We could rebrand Trumpism as Nationalism, Right wing Populism, or Right wing nationalism overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Lapeyrouse (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reversion by Toa Nidhiki05
, your stated rationale for reverting this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=1010548507&oldid=1010541686

is factually incorrect. Please restore it. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * absolutely has a COI here and needs to cease involvement. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Read WP:BRD. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A consensus has formed, you have repeatedly refused to recognize it because of your COI FiduciaryAkita (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's rewind, where is the COI. If Toa has a COI and didn't declare it that's a big deal.  However, if this is an accusation based on no evidence that's also a problem.  Springee (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think he knows what a COI is, frankly. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * a potential COI exists due to financial links to Republican Party affiliated groups. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you accuse another editor of something like that.....you need to have some sort of proof/good faith basis.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do. Sorry for the heavy-handedness, this is my first time dealing w a potential COI FiduciaryAkita (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if you do, there is a noticeboard for that: . You need to take it there and stop slinging these accusations around.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will strike this COI for now pending whether or not I actually want to continue editing and take it to the COI. This site is very process over truth and I am not a fan. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for inclusion and no evidence has been presented to establish the weight of this opinion. TFD (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above that is incorrect. You need to check your advocacy and adhere to NPOV. Just because you want to argue about it doesn't make it so. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Toa Nidhiki05 first removed the V-Dem part asserting "not notable," though it had two reliable sources and I restored it with two more reliable sources. Then Toa Nidhiki05 removed the Norris part asserting it was "previously rejected," which is false. One might wonder it there could be an unexpressed rationale for removing the content. It should have been left intact as we continue to discuss on Talk, rather than inciting a possible edit war. And it's not "opinion," it's science. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS The disputed content needs to stay out of the article until there is a clear consensus to include. I don't see one.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reversion is not helpful in encouraging a collegial resolution to this matter. soibangla (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also problematic when an editor makes a controversial change to an article then refuses to reply to talk page concerns. I think there was some saying about pots and kettles and their color which might apply here. Springee (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

6 editors for and multiple reliable sources isn’t a clear consensus? As someone said upthread, what is? There is an egregious amount of advocacy and uncharitable discussion here against the disputed content here. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see roughly the same amount of editors opposed to inclusion and you can count me as one of those that are opposed. You have two options, either drop the addition of this controversial content or start an RFC.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion got off on the wrong foot, with aspersions cast against another editor. But the disputed material is good; well-researched and on point. Harvard Magazine published a piece about the same isse. The cited Vox source continues by saying the very next thing in the paragraph: that the GOP has become more like the BJP and AKP. This stuff is accurate, it is represented in the literature, and a summary of the literature should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the accusation that the GOP is of late more authoritarian is DUE but it should not be presented as fact and should be presented with examples and if sources dispute the claims that also should be presented. IMPARTIAL must be kept in mind. Also, because this is contentious material it really would be best to propose the text on the talk page before adding. Rusf10 was correct, at this time there isn't a consensus so the material shouldn't have been restored. Springee (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the RSs hold up to that. Please see the RfC below. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Authoritarianism should be included in the ideology part of the infobox
There are enough sources (such as here and here and many more) to justify it including an international study. So it should be included in the infobox. - Elishop (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First two articles refer to that same study, any other sources you can find? Darubrub (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is this source which talks about the GOP's actions during the Clinton and Obama years, in the state legislature and SCOTUS shenanigans. There's also this source which talks about broader trends of far-right radicalization and democratic backsliding. They do mention the study but that's because reliable news always tend to default to science. Elishop (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These pieces are pretty much all opinion pieces from left-leaning outlets. Adding an inflammatory claim that isn’t backed up by reality is gonna require way more than that. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A scientific study is inflamatory? Elishop (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is inflammatory and frankly inaccurate to try and justify “authoritarianism” as an official ideology of the GOP when it is neither. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not inflammatory. You just don't want it to be included but that does not make it innacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elishop (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism isn't an ideology. TFD (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, many RS describe authoritarianism as a facet of the party's large far-right wing. Broadly speaking the Republican Party has a conservative wing (with the likes of Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney) that isn't authoritarian or far-right, and a far-right extremist wing (with the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Trump supporters) which is clearly authoritarian (among other things); for example representatives of the far-right wing, such as Greene, have promoted false claims about "stolen elections", attempted to stage a coup, called for executions of political rivals, and so on. --Tataral (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * While authoritarianism isn't an ideology, there are indeed glaring omissions in the infobox. First, far-right is missing as a "fraction". It isn't a majority view, but there is certainly a vocal far-right wing of the party. Second, populism belong in the main; right-wing populism is a majority view among Republicans (as several surveys have shown). This article still reads as if it would be the Republican Party of 2014, not the current one.Jeppiz (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I support including authoritarianism, the sources which describe it are reliable and based on science. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I too agree. Far-right is certainly present, and with notable representatives, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this article essentially whitewashes the party and has glaring omissions, and that the far-right wing should be mentioned as a party faction, in the infobox and lead. By now RS routinely refer to parts of the party as far-right, and we even describe a number of the prominent representatives of the far-right wing (Greene, Stephen Miller and others) as far-right in their articles. --Tataral (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Contentious claims, you would need to show that the paper's conclusion have consensus support in academic writing. It is an unusual claim. The Republicans controlled the White House for four years, but there are no reports of the arrest, torture and murder of political opponents, or the censorship or closure of opposition media. The curtailment of civil liberties under successive national security legislation has enjoyed bipartisan support. TFD (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The study uses an illiberalism index (and the GOP scores high on it). Illiberalism is a less strong term than Authoritarianism, so which suits the GOP more. So I propose to use the term illiberalism in the infobox. --PJ Geest (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD is correct, this is a redflag claim and would need multiple, strong sources for inclusion. To date that bar hasn't been met.  Springee (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes or some similar language that indicates a shift in the Republican away from supporting liberal democracy. This piece on 538 from earlier today provides a decent overview of the anti-democratic shift in the Republican Party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The author is a journalist. I would expect an expert source. TFD (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple experts are cited in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which means nothing as you are well aware. If you were writing a textbook for undergraduates, would you use expert sources, or base it on a non-expert's interpretation of expert sources? How do you know that the journalist, Perry Bacon Jr., has presented a representative view of expert opinion? Instead of looking for sources that support our personal beliefs, we should go to expert sources and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD. Apart from the Scandinavian study being trash (I know that is original Research), I do not think labeling the Republican Party as being illiberal or authoritarian would represent the consensus of experts on the subject. We need a lot more proof before we can make such an inflammatory claim. Scorpions13256 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also agree that Perry Bacon Jr. doesn't clear the bar for an expert opinion. I wouldn't cite anyone from FiveThirtyEight as anything close to an expert opinion. I've been deeply disturbed by their lack of a coherent theoretical framework at times, but they do cite good sources. You'd need to have scholars describe the Republican party in a comprehensive framework to clear that bar. I think that's possible but I haven't seen a source that clears that bar. However, it does appear that such a shift is occurring in the field. The Center for Systemic Peace, known for the Polity data series, has declared the US to be a 'non-democracy'; specifically, an 'open anocracy' since the beginning of 2020. Daron Acemoglu, perhaps the most influential name in political economy in the last 20 years, believes Trump has nearly broken American democracy. I haven't done a formal lit review but from what I've skimmed the consensus only seems to be growing.Adamopoulos (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We will have to see to what extent these views become accepted. Incidentally, my observation on my user page is irony. Right wingers keep saying that the left-right distinction is meaningless, yet they continue to call their opponents left-wing, thereby implying that the terms are meaningful. Haven't you noticed that? TFD (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry that I came across kind of rough there. I'm religiously scientific about my studies in political science, upon closer inspection I noticed it was ironic from your badges. You do good work. Concerning your point, this now gets into original research but I think the words people say about their own politics are often times coded language. Pretty much any political argument can be rationalized away, which I believe is a political extension of Camerer and Chong (2004) "A cognitive hierarchy model of games." A lot of political slandering works well in the first move, but ad infinitum there's no logic. However, according to an experiment (which I don't have the citation for atm) more people don't rationalize beyond the second move. Very interesting. I think statements like the one you cite are primarily intended for coordination purposes rather than for substance. Thanks for the great response, sorry again.Adamopoulos (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

, per the discussion above is there consensus for this material[]? I think is consistent with the NOCON discussion I'm seeing above. Why was this restored without returning to this discussion first? Springee (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Some other scientific sources next to the study of the V-Dem Institute (which was already mentioned above):
 * The Global Party Survey is a 2019 poll of nearly 2,000 experts on political parties from around the world. The survey asked respondents to rate political parties on two axes: the extent to which they are committed to basic democratic principles and their commitment to protecting rights for ethnic minorities. The verdict of these experts is clear: The Republican Party is one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the developed world. The GOP scores in the graph very high on undermining liberal democratic principles, norms and practices.
 * Finally, the populist wave also hit the United States, with the Republican Party making a sharp right-wing turn under the obstructionist Tea Party and the illiberal populism of Donald Trump (The rise of illiberal memory - GD GD Rosenfeld)
 * A Trumpian Republican Party means the United States will likely oscillate between the liberal internationalism of the Democrats and illiberal “America First”-ism for the foreseeable future. (ADVANCING MULTILATERALISM IN A POPULIST AGE - THOMAS WRIGHT)
 * So there are multiple scientific sources that say the Republican party is illiberal. WP:REDFLAG is not valid since the scientific consensus is broad. There are multiple sources and one source even consults nearly 2000 experts.--PJ Geest (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot find the chart in Pippa Norris' paper. Also, a position in a chart is a primary source that needs expert opinion to interpret it. Certainly the Republican Party has no respect for minority rights, but that's been true since the Reagan era. The other party doesn't fare much better. TFD (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear if there is consensus for this material in the article at all (see content in this section []). Springee (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here an expert (Pippa Norris) who gives her views on the graph: I’ve done a global party survey in December 2019, asking over 2,000 experts where they place mainstream political parties worldwide on a range of issues, from taxes to health care to environmental policy. And the US results are quite remarkable. If we’re just looking at OECD [post-industrial] countries and trying to measure whether parties favor or oppose checks and balances on the executive, if they’re committed to basic pluralistic values, and if they respect or undermine liberal democratic principles, what you find is that the GOP is surprisingly extremist. The position of the GOP on these issues is close to parties like Golden Dawn in Greece [a neo-fascist party], Fidesz in Hungary, or the Law and Justice party in Poland. These are illiberal parties cutting back on the freedom of press and stamping out democratic freedoms in their countries. And these are the only parties in the developed world that really compare to the Republican Party in terms of their commitment to what we’d call :authoritarian values.
 * Here how Vox (which is a reliable source WP:RSP) defines it: In short, there is a consensus among comparative politics scholars that the Republican Party is one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the developed world.
 * The chart with reliable source explanation is here, which shows The other party doesn't fare much better is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If VOX is the source then we shouldn't use it. Is the material in question V-Dem material or Norris's?  Is the material peer reviewed?  I'm leaning more towards inclusion in the body (not in the info box) but only along the lines of RS opinion shared by several sources.  VOX is really too partisan to establish WEIGHT in this case but I think other RSs were cited as covering the same information.  That said, it would be far better if examples of why are included.  An opinion without supporting facts is iffy for inclusion as it looks like trying to fill the article with dirt because we don't like the article subject. Springee (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The U.S. in general has a poor record on minority rights compared with other industrialized nations, and that includes periods of Democratic administrations. The vast majority of killings of black people for example that were protested last year occured in cities that had been controlled by Democrats for decades. While I agree that Norris is an expert both on political parties and right-wing populism, you are quoting an interview in a popular magazine and the summary of the interviewer, albeit a fairly informed one.
 * As with original research in any discipline, we should expect a reliable secondary source, independent of the author, that summarizes it and explains its degree of acceptance. We also have to show that it is a prominent opinion in the body of literature about the Republican Party.
 * TFD (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you are quoting an interview in a popular magazine and the summary of the interviewer I am citing a secondary RSP reliable source. soibangla (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And even if you leave out Vox and Pippa Norris we still have 3 peer reviewed scientific sources (V-Dem, Rosenfeld and Wright) which support the claim that the Republican Party has at least factions of the party which are illiberal. Here another (4th!) peer-reviewed scientific source Trump: authoritarian, just another neoliberal republican, or both? of Richard Lachmann which says:  I conclude that Trump is now the head of an increasingly authoritarian political party rather than a self-generated strongman. When wil the number of sources ever be enough? --PJ Geest (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here another 5th one of Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris: Trump and the Populist Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse: During the past 35 years, economic growth continued, but virtually all of the gains went to those at the top; the less-educated experienced declining existential security, fueling support for Populist Authoritarian phenomena such as Brexit, France’s National Front and Trump’s takeover of the Republican party. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is yet again another discussion like many that have been mentioned here before. A handful of political science studies and op-ed columns does not establish the inflammatory claim that the GOP is no different than AKP, which has literally rewritten the constitution to benefit itself, the National Front, which was literally led by a fascist for most of its history, or Golden Dawn, which is literally a crime syndicate run by Nazis. Similarly, the labeling of Brexit as “authoritarian” is equally ridiculous and reflects poorly on that item. The prudent thing is to exclude these frankly ridiculous claims from the article. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are not inflammatory claims, they are findings of two independent studies, using different methodologies with data and the scientific method that reach very similar findings. The paragraph is not in the lead, it's not in the infofox, it's not being represented as a definitive and irrefutable description of the party, it is being presented as a significant finding by two studies that a reader can consider among other content in the article, which is entirely consistent with what we routinely do in countless other Wikipedia articles. We would be negligent to exclude it. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Several peer reviewed articles doesn't establish the weight of the opinions express consensus. Also Norris' article doesn't say very much about the Republican Party. It says, "Unlike most politicians, Donald Trump provides emotional support when he openly expresses racist and xenophobic feelings." That contrasts with the past few decades when they (and mainstream Democrats) covertly expressed racist and xenophobic feelings. She doesn't say that Republican policies have changed and in fact mentions that they have maintained policies beneficial to economic elites to the disadvantage of their supporters. Incidentally, the two main U.S. parties have always incorporated the rhetoric of groups and parties that emerged to their left and right. TFD (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Norris' article doesn't say very much about the Republican Party Actually, her article focuses exclusively on her findings about the GOP, as does the provided reliable source, though her study addresses numerous parties globally, such that comparisons can be made. She doesn't say that Republican policies have changed, but the V-Dem study does, and so does this ["The General Social Survey, for example, shows self-identified Republicans moving far more toward the “extremely conservative” end of its scale (as opposed to “extremely liberal”) over the past several decades".] the past few decades when they (and mainstream Democrats) covertly expressed racist and xenophobic feelings This article isn't about the Democratic party. The paragraph shows that two independent studies, using two different methodologies with data and the scientific method, reached strikingly similar conclusions, making it noteworthy. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Two independent studies about a major political party isn't notable. All the books I have found about party politics classify the GOP as a liberal party (i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.) Ian Adams for example wrote, "ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market." (Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press, 2001.) If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category. The Swiss People's Party and the Brazilian Social Liberal Party for example have moved from conservative and liberal respectively to extreme right. But that is reflected in the textbooks.

I remember Keith Olbermann saying that the election of Trump would be the last election in U.S. history. People on both sides overreact. Dems called Trump a fascist and his supporters called the Dems socialists. That goes back a long time and it's as stupid now as it was then. If you have time, read about Hitler's first 100 days in office and compare it to Trump's.

TFD (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @TFD, your source is very old (2001) and is from before Trump's rise to power, so it is not valid anymore since the GOP has changed a lot since then, based on scientific knowledge like V-Dem for example. @Toa Nidhiki05, you finding it ridiculous is of no value, scientific facts do have value. And yes during Brexit the Conservative party did illiberal actions like suspending the Parliament . By the way, not only the acts of a party counts but also their intention: if illiberal ideas become reality doesn't matter so much, it's the intention that counts. For example, the majority of the Republican party did not accept the legitimate outcome of the election.--PJ Geest (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your 20 year-old source, written even before the Bush era, let alone the Trump era, also says a page later: “the American right has tended towards the extreme version of classical liberalism.” I couldn’t care less what Olbermann says and it bears zero weight in this discussion, one way or the other, this transcends the standard casual tossing around of political epithets. I got science, I got data, and it’s current, and it’s notable because they converge at the same conclusion. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the source is twenty years old but what I said was, If it has switched categories then we should be able to find a recent textbook that puts it in a different category. And yes the Republicans tend toward the more extreme version of classical liberalism, but that still leaves them within the liberal tradition (i.e., supports capitalism and constitutional government.) If I want to know the consensus in expert opinion, I don't search through Vox articles or isolated papers and I certainly don't google search "Republican Party"+"authoritarianism", which is likely to return a skewed result. So please provide me with a standard textbook (less than 20 years old) that lists the Republicans in the same group with Golden Dawn et al.
 * Consider what the article on Golden Dawn (Greece) says, "On 7 October 2020, Athens Appeals Court announced verdicts for 68 defendants, including the party's political leadership. Nikolaos Michaloliakos and six other prominent members and former MPs, charged with running a criminal organization. Guilty verdicts on charges of murder, attempted murder, and violent attacks on immigrants and left-wing political opponents were delivered." While the Republicans appeal to xenophobia and Trump has a similar base support, they don't take it to the same extreme.
 * TFD (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why rely on textbooks? Instead, seek good current research based in science, maybe by googling “Republican Party"+"not authoritarianism" and contribute those findings. Again, The paragraph is not in the lead, it's not in the infofox, it's not being represented as a definitive and irrefutable description of the party, it is being presented as a significant finding by two studies that a reader can consider among other content in the article, which you/others are free to add. soibangla (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Textbooks are useful because they summarize different views and explain which are consensus, majority, substantial minority, and small minority views. (See WP:TERTIARY.) Bear in mind that new papers are often written to challenge existing opinion, hence may not be representative. Another good source is review studies and many primary sources begin by identifying the weight of opinion on the topic they are writing about.
 * The best recent source I could find is "Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies" (Annual Review of Political Science 2019). In the paper, the center right includes conservative, Christian democratic and right-wing liberal parties, but excludes the radical right. The Republican Party is identified as center right.
 * Note that the paper mentions the challenge Trump has presented to the party leadership. It says that this type of conflict has advanced in all center right parties, but is strongest in the U.S. But while it has blown up under Trump, its roots go back at least to the 1970s as groups outside the Republican Party have gained influence over it. Before Trump, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush were all portrayed by Democrats as xenophobic and anti-democratic. That process has accelerated as the center left has abandoned its commitment to economic equality, thereby enabling the center right to appeal to disempowered working class white voters through xenophobia.
 * TFD (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another recent data-driven study we can add:
 * soibangla (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * soibangla (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So, here's how the full paragraph can and should read, now including a third recent corroborating scientific study. Three! Science!



soibangla (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: if we were to start including party comparisons (to non-American parties) for such a point, I think a direct quote doing so would be better. Otherwise charges of SYN/OR could come up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is complicated because combined in this section are authoritarianism in the infobox and a paragraph based on [un]democratic tendencies. Perhaps it would be productive to table the infobox for the time being and focus on the paragraph. Based on the sources linked throughout this section, there seems like a good WP:WEIGHT claim here. The paragraph Soibangla has above seems like a fine starting point (with more sources than just the WaPo at the end, of course), which can perhaps be edited for wording afterwards? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Reason posted an article critical of the V-Dem article and the WP's coverage of it. [] Springee (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears Reason's two objections are "a study based on the structured responses of 600 subject-matter experts is basically just their opinion" and "what about democrats". If there are concerns with the presentation of the report in the paragraph above, I suppose we can include some language about the methodology? I wouldn't think that anyone expects there to be a GOP DNA test or policy spectrometer or something, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Altemeyer's original research published in 1981 showed that Republican voters and leaders scored high on the Right-wing authoritarianism scale. (See "Altemeyer on Trump’s Supporters" by John Dean 7 July 2017.) Subsequent research has found a similar phenomenon among other center right parties. Authoritarian in this sense means "tough attitude towards violations of social rules, norms and laws." Ironically, the Clintons and Joe Biden and most of the Democratic Party adopted right-wing authoritarian policies such as the 1996 crime bill and the invasion of Iraq. You would need a source that says these findings take the Republicans outside center right politics. In my reading, all they do is explain why voters would support center right parties, when they don't represent their economic interests.
 * NBC News ran an article today, "The GOP is having a change of heart on economics. It could have implications for policymaking." The only change it sees in the Republican Party is a softening of attitudes toward government welfare programs.
 * TFD (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did you get “tough attitude towards violations of social rules, norms and laws?” As opposed to one of Altemeyer‘s survey statements: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us,” ie “our” social rules, norms and laws, such that “we may have to use force to save it.”soibangla (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was quoting a paper that is available on Jstor ("Multidimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarian Attitudes: Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism," John Duckitt and Boris Bizumic, Political Psychology DECEMBER 2013.) It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Right wing authoritarianism (RWA). RWA of course combines authoritarianism with right-wing views. It's possible of course to combine it with left-wing views. TFD (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a 2020 data-driven study by Larry Bartels:
 * soibangla (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Individual studies aren't going to make this case. TFD is correct, to include this in the info box we need to show that this is now the consensus view among scholars.  A few papers arguing the point isn't sufficient.  What happens if, with the fall of Trump, we see the factors such as demonizing opponents etc reverse?  Wikipedia shouldn't be at the forefront of such claims, ratehr we wait until sources are in clear agreement.  The argument for using text books was sound.  A textbook would represent a consensus view that isn't going to be controversial or disputed among those who would use the text.  It's one thing for a number of studies to define what they feel identifies authoritarian behavior vs there being a clear consensus something is true.  Certainly in the V-Dem case we see examples of questionable items.  Regardless, I'm swayed that these studies in some capacity are due in the article.  It's important to explain, with reasonable detail, why each make the claim.  Sadly, a typical Wikipedia thing is to use the alarmist quotes (2000 surveyed!) but exclude mitigating information etc.  Springee (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Individual studies aren't going to make this case. TFD is correct, to include this in the info box we need to show that this is now the consensus view among scholars.  A few papers arguing the point isn't sufficient.  What happens if, with the fall of Trump, we see the factors such as demonizing opponents etc reverse?  Wikipedia shouldn't be at the forefront of such claims, ratehr we wait until sources are in clear agreement.  The argument for using text books was sound.  A textbook would represent a consensus view that isn't going to be controversial or disputed among those who would use the text.  It's one thing for a number of studies to define what they feel identifies authoritarian behavior vs there being a clear consensus something is true.  Certainly in the V-Dem case we see examples of questionable items.  Regardless, I'm swayed that these studies in some capacity are due in the article.  It's important to explain, with reasonable detail, why each make the claim.  Sadly, a typical Wikipedia thing is to use the alarmist quotes (2000 surveyed!) but exclude mitigating information etc.  Springee (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As the study says, "Social scientists analyzing survey data from the 1950s documented the shaky allegiance of ordinary Americans to supposedly consensual democratic values." At any time, almost 20% of Americans are right wing extremists (similar to other industrialized countries) and since Reagan became president they are overwhelmingly Republican. But standard textbooks continue to describe the party as center right. TFD (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)