Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 13

Data driven scientific studies

 * ''V-Party’s Illiberalism Index shows that the Republican party in the US has retreated from upholding democratic norms in recent years. Its rhetoric is closer to authoritarian parties, such as AKP in Turkey and Fidesz in Hungary. The data shows that the Republican Party in 2018 was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies. Only very few governing parties in democracies in this millennium (15%) were considered more illiberal than the Republican Party in the US. Conversely, the Democratic Party was rated slightly less illiberal than the typical party in democracies" ('V-Dem Institute study - 2020)


 * Pippa Norris, a comparative political scientist, says about a study she has done: ''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 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.


 * In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey (2020) showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters. They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come. Altemeyer and Dean define authoritarianism as what happens “when followers submit too much to the authorities in their lives.” They measure it using a tool Altemeyer developed in the early 1980s, called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale..Altemeyer’s scale measures respondents’ agreement or disagreement with 20 statements, such as: “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”...They found a striking linear relationship between support for Trump and an authoritarian mind-set: The stronger a person supported Trump, the higher he or she scored on the RWA scale. People saying they strongly disapproved of Trump, for instance, had an average RWA score of 54. Those indicating complete support of the president, on the other hand, had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents.


 * Growing partisan polarization and democratic “backsliding” in various parts of the world have raised concerns about the attachment of ordinary Americans to democratic institutions and procedures. I find that substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force in pursuit of political ends. The strongest predictor by far of these antidemocratic attitudes is ethnic antagonism—especially concerns about the political power and claims on government resources of immigrants, African-Americans, and Latinos. Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy - 2020

Other scientific papers (or books) which label the GOP in their paper

 * Trump embodies Authoritarian Populism (American Nightmare Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism 2016- Douglas Kellner


 * 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. (Trump and the Populist Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse - Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris -2017)


 *  I conclude that Trump is now the head of an increasingly authoritarian political party rather than a self-generated strongman. (Trump: authoritarian, just another neoliberal republican, or both? - Richard Lachmann - 2019)


 * 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 2021)


 * 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 - 2021)

Scientific sources which say the Republican party has, since Trump's rise to power in 2016, no factions which can be labeled as illiberal or authoritarian

 * None

Suggestion for next RFC
Some sources talk about the Republican Party as a whole, some about Trump's part of the party (which is the largest faction nowadays). So I think the next RFC should be with the question ''Should the ideology section of this article's infobox, more precisely at the Factions section, include illiberalism? --PJ Geest (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Illiberalism isn't a faction. It may be a characteristic of a faction but it's not a faction itself.  As for the info box, if you can't answer the question regarding showing that this is a consensus view then no, it doesn't go there.  Springee (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There won’t be another RFC. The consensus is very, very clearly against this and attempts to keep kicking a dead horse should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest we deemphasize the infobox and focus on a paragraph in the body at this time. soibangla (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ^^ &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC for Ideology
Should the ideology section of this article's infobox include authoritarianism? FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support there are multiple RSs that categorize the GOP as an authoritarian party--I believe it is additionally self-evident from their own platform. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Malformed This is an open question with no evidence presented. I would suggest closing this RfC, reforming it then starting again.  Springee (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As discussed in earlier threads, this change simply doesn’t comport with policy, sources, or reality. Toa Nidhiki05 03:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose-No evidence has been presented to support this and as previously discussed authoritarianism isn't an ideology.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Authoritarianism is not an ideology and there are degrees of authoritarianism. And we don't have any sources saying there is academic consensus to describe the party that way. TFD (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Sufficiently self-evident" is no argument whatsoever; it means "I think it is". We don't work that way here. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There is clear evidence for this based on multiple scientific sources (see above at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)). People who oppose this don't give any evidence or good sources for making their case. Saying there is no evidence that has been presented to support this is just not true and is no constructive behavior. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion above doesn't support this change. As was pointed out, we haven't shown these sources are widely accepted in their opinions and we haven't shown this is become a consensus view.  I would also note that Reason was concerned with how the V-Dem report was presented [].  They didn't feel so much that Trump didn't have authoritarian tendencies but they were concerned with the methods.  The V-Dem report was basically just asking some opinion questions, not hard data, and some questions did not actually indicate authoritarianism - for example state support for working women.  Additionally, they took issue with the claim that Democrats had remained unchanged since the 1970s.  Certainly the recent wave of security state measures and calls for limiting free speech since the Dems came to office suggests the Dems are not immune from this authoritarianism.  Realistically what we are seeing is increases in partisanship on both sides.  But if we are going to make the factual claim that the GOP has really made a major shift in this direction you need to show this is academic consensus vs just a few reports that may or may not have been peer reviewed and certainly have not shown this is a new consensus.  Springee (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Robby Soave of the magazine Reason is not a scientist. If this critique would be raised by a scientist it would be valid, but this is not the case. Science should be the basis of Wikipedia, not the opinion of political commentators. --PJ Geest (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't have political scientists weighing in on this study one way or the other. Soave however makes a good point. The political scientists were polled on aspects of the the parties and the authors decided where to place it on the spectrum. Trump's villainization of "Crooked Hillary" for example goes well beyond the norm in politics. But true authoritarian leaders follow up by imprisoning or killing their opponents. A lot of Golden Dawn leaders for example were convicted of murder. But I should not have to argue that. Policy says we shouldn't include this. Common sense says we need to know how accepted the claim is. TFD (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed by "Is the Democratic Party really no more inclined to demonize its opponents today than it was in 1970? Such a claim simply does not square with reality—but again, there's no real science being done here" in which he makes a sweeping assertion of established fact...with nothing to support it. He wasn't even alive in the 1970s to claim he remembers how things were then. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This extraordinary claim would need extraordinary sourcing. Where is it? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful RfC - Can we create a rule, please, whereby anytime a new user creates an RfC that damages rather than helps discussion, it can just be closed? Or at least require ECP for RfCs on active pages or something? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support: I think, based on the talk page section linked above, that there's enough sourcing to include this, but it's frankly difficult to tell since those sources are scattered through a discussion. It seems to me from skimming that discussion that there are two or three scientific studies and a bunch of news articles, some of which are about the studies and some of which are just analysis of events like the attack on the Capitol. I think this proposal would have a lot more force if the proposer went through that discussion, pulled out the sources, and laid them out in their initial support vote. This has been done below and so I'm changing my Weak Support !vote to a full Support !vote. Loki (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: there’s a bit of difference between inclusion in the infobox and inclusion in a paragraph deep in the article, as I propose, and which others might seek to offset/dispute there with other content. I suggest we focus on the latter approach at this time. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Springee. Screechybird1 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there isn't evidence to support this, and it's contrary to many of their policies (encouraging private gun ownership and a Norquist-esque desire to drown government in a bathtub, to name two). The earlier discussion shows there are some parts of the party that are "illiberal", but that's different. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. I don't see the sources backing this up; a few opinion pieces and studies are simply not enough. Eccekevin (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The party cannot be neutrally described as unqualifiedly authoritarian given their large libertarian faction. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Request snow close - Consensus is abundantly clear on this malformed RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

False claims of fiscal conservatism in the lead
A few weeks ago, someone added text to the lead saying that the Republican Party is fiscally conservative. The body of the article disputes this. The lead should not falsely claim that this political party, which has only advocates for fiscal conservatism when Democrats are in power and has never implemented fiscally conservative once they themselves are in power, are a "fiscally conservative" party. The long-standing lead should be restored and we should certainly not mislead readers with brazen falsehoods about the nature of the party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That section refers to their "21st-century ideology". Needless to say, sometimes ideology and what happens in practice are two different things. I agree that they talk a good game when it comes to fiscal responsibility....actually executing it is something else. So we need to find a way to communicate that effectively.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support "the party advocate for fiscal conservatism when Democrats control the presidency, but run up deficits when they themselves are in power or control the presidency", but that may be too detailed for the lead. It's either that or saying nothing about fiscal conservatism in the lead. The lead certainly can't say it's a fiscally conservative party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of government spending through the tax code would be appropriate: soibangla (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Oh, and. soibangla (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "but run up deficits when they themselves are in power or control the presidency" Only partially true. If the History of the United States public debt is accurate, budget deficits and increased public debt have occurred under the administrations of both major parties. According to the table we have, the administrations which contributed most to the debt-to-GDP ratio (by percentage points) were:


 * 1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941-1945). Increase by 67,1%.
 * 2) George W. Bush (2005-2009). Increase by 20.7%.
 * 3) Barack Obama (2009-2013). Increase by 18.5%.
 * 4) George H. W. Bush (1989-1993). Increase by 13.0%
 * 5) Ronald Reagan (1981-1985). Increase by 11.3%.
 * 6) Ronald Reagan (1985-1989). Increase by 9.3%.
 * 7) George W. Bush (2001-2005). Increase by 7.1%.
 * 8) Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (1973-1977). Increase by 0.2%.
 * Administrations which experienced a relative decrease of the debt-to-GDP ratio included: Bill Clinton (1993-1997, with a decrease of 0.7%), Richard Nixon (1969-1973, with a decrease of 3.0%), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981, with a decrease of 3.3%), Dwight D. Eisenhower (1957-1961, with a decrease of 5.2%), John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson (1961-1965, with a decrease of 8.3), Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-1969, with a decrease of 8.3%), Bill Clinton (1997-2001, with a decrease of 9.0%), Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1957, with a decrease of 11,0%), Harry S. Truman (1949-1953, with a decrease of 21.7%), Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (1945-1949, with a decrease of 24.4%).
 * While both Presidents Bush, President Reagan, President Nixon in his second term, and President Ford run up deficits, President Nixon's first term and President Eisenhower's both terms were quite successful in handling the public debt. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would editors feel the statement While claiming to advocate for fiscal conservatism, actual platforms have varied widely during different administrations is short, to the point, and can be considered to be based on the article's body/cited text? I don't think it's important to identify in the lead which administrations have better/worse compliance with that claimed platform, nor is it appropriate to use charged terms such as "run up deficits" in the lead - this information should be reserved for the body where it can be expanded upon using neutral language. I'm also fine with no mention of fiscal policy in the lead at all - I can see the opinion that it is too detailed for the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the statement you suggest in your first sentence is alright but it leaves out essential info: I would add the clarification that Republicans only advocate fiscal conservatism consistently when Democrats are in charge, and not only stop advocating for it when they themselves are in charge but run up deficits. There's nothing wrong per se with running up deficits and it wouldn't be noteworthy to mention unless it specifically sheds light on whether the fiscal conservatism that the party claims to espouse is principled or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is too “into the weeds” for the lead regardless of if it’s included or not. It does not matter as much when they go against fiscal conservatism, just that they do. And that’s covered by the second part which says that their platforms have varied widely during different administrations. I’m open to better wording that clarifies they have been “unconservative” during some administrations, but specifics about which/trends should be left for the body. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the sources for this claim? If this is in the lead it needs very robust sourcing.  Springee (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "It does not matter as much when they go against fiscal conservatism, just that they do." Our article on fiscal conservatism associates this term with the ideology of Bill Clinton and the so-called Clintonomics:


 * "While the mantle of fiscal conservatism is most commonly claimed by Republicans and libertarians, it is also claimed in some ways by many centrist or moderate Democrats who often refer to themselves as New Democrats. Although not supportive of the wide range tax cut policies that were often enacted during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the New Democrat coalition's primary economic agenda differed from the traditional philosophy held by liberal Democrats and sided with the fiscal conservative belief that a balanced federal budget should take precedence over some spending programs. "
 * "Former President Bill Clinton, who was a New Democrat and part of the somewhat fiscally conservative Third Way advocating Democratic Leadership Council, is a prime example of this as his administration along with the Democratic-majority congress of 1993 passed on a party-line vote the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which cut government spending, created a 36% individual income tax bracket, raised the top tax bracket which encompassed the top 1.2% earning taxpayers from 31% to 39.6% and created a 35% income tax rate for corporations. The 1993 Budget Act also cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families and 90% of small businesses. Additionally during the Clinton years, the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) system originally introduced with the passing of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (which required that all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases and was very popular with deficit hawks) had gone into effect and was used regularly until the system's expiration in 2002."
 * "After this combination of tax hikes and spending reductions, the United States was able to create budget surpluses from fiscal years 1998–2001 (the first time since 1969) and the longest period of sustained economic growth in United States history. "
 * The article also contrasts the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton with the lack of conservatism of Ronald Reagan, when tax rates were cut while military spending was increased.: "By the end of Reagan's second term, the national debt held by the public increased by almost 60% and the total debt equalled $2.6 trillion. In fewer than eight years, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. " Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Right-Libertarianism Listed as a Faction of the Republican Party.
Are we sure that we can list Libertarianism as an official faction of the party? Especially since there is a Libertarian party. Although there is a tea party faction, and they do have Libertarian traits and ideals I don't know if Putting Libertarianism as a faction of the republican party Is a fair statement. It Makes it seems as if Conservatism and Libertarianism are similar and can be put in a big tent party, and i feel as if they cant. Would love feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Lapeyrouse (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say so sense the prevalence of prominent US republicans that identify as libertarians such as Rand Paul and a GOP Libertarian congressional caucus Liberty Caucas--AbledAtol (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point, but I dont think its enough too be listed as a official ideology. Although there are politicians in the republican party who conform too libertarian beliefs, The republican party is anti-immigration, has imposed government intervention on the free market, Donald trump imposed gun control like red flag laws ( I know trump is very unique but he is still a republican) I think The republican party has more right wing nationalist and conservative values over libertarianism

Anti-democratic behavior under "composition" rather "political positions
The GOP's anti-democratic maneuvers have nothing to do with the party's "composition". Instead, it belong under political positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ignoring that the premise of this statement is based on subjective conjecture (which would perhaps be more fair if it were made to precisely refer to specific policies and individuals/sections of the voter base), it does not denote a policy. There is no such things as "anti-democracy" in the GOP platform, for instance. The text largely refers to the sentiments of the Republican voter base and the actions of Republican politicians, which exist in themselves separate to actual policy. thorpewilliam (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What a strange response. The Republican Party does not even have a formal policy platform at the moment. The section in question coves the actions of the Republican Party as whole, its leaders, and its userbase, which peer-reviewed research has characterized as entailing anti-democratic measures. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * GOP platform The section which covers the composition of the party as a whole, i.e. "its leaders, and its userbase [sic]" is the "Composition" section. Placing it in "policy" under the imprecise and negatively-implicating heading of "democracy" is neither neutral nor linguistically good practice. And that's putting aside that the section of text itself offers no response/fair comment from Republicans which would produce greater balance. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actions taken by the party to block policies or undermine democratic norms is not the "composition" of the party. It's nonsensical. Also, click the 2020 platform link. It's one page expressing their full support for whatever Trump wants (unspecified) and then the old 2016 platform is added at the end. In other words, the party does not have a platform. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems many of the efforts to block policies are typical of a party not in power concerned about the actions of the other power. I do understand the concerns with respect to IMPARTIAL raised by Thorpewilliam.  Springee (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure maintaining the 2016 platform doesn't nullify it, so yes they have a platform. CaliIndie (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The platform exists; it simply remains unchanged from 2016. In other words, the party has maintained their platform. Note the text previously under “policy” does not cite the GOP platform or any other party document, or, for that matter, any elected representative of the party. Otherwise, the positions discussed in the policy section can all be found in the platform. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Restrictions on Immigration"
Isn't it supposed to be illegal immigration? The only legal immigration restriction the GOP did was Trump's travel ban on Muslim-Majority countries. But that's the only one I can recall.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the GOP platform is not broadly in favor of limiting legal immigration. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though the GOP does advocate reform to the immigration system. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the party is broadly anti-immigration. It supports cuts and restrictions to legal immigration, as well as stringent policies against illegal immigration. In 2018, three-fourths of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted to cut legal immigration to the lowest levels since the 1920s. Furthermore, the last Republican president took a number of actions against legal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even a 40% cut in legal immigration isn't no immigration, and you can't say that's straight opposition to immigration. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the article include polls on public support for GOP positions?
Apparently, the new standard on this page (aside from telling brazen falsehoods about the party's positions on various issues and edit-earring to restore those lies) is to introduce cherrypicked poll results on public support for cherrypicked Republican Party positions, and then edit-war that content into the article in the absence of consensus. I sincerely doubt that this is a principled standard that the editors on this page truly support. Should we go ahead and add public polling results on all the Republican Party's positions? For example, should the article clarify that the public overwhelmingly supports automatic voter registration and early voting, whereas the Republican Party opposes and/or seeks to restrict both of those? Or should the article exclusively cherrypick poll results that make individual Republican positions seem popular? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Snoogans, the opening sentence of this section is a broad attack on many editors who don't agree with your particular POV on this article. This is far from a neutral content question.  Your concern may well be justified but your opening comment is very problematic. Springee (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:It would help if you knocked off the personal attacks (for a change).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The prior status-quo was that the great bulk of the particular section is criticising that particular policy and only giving light to condemnation of it. That in itself is fine but on its own does not achieve the balance that Wikipedia strives for. If the policy is criticised in academia, but supported by the general public, surely these both ought to be mentioned given sufficient reliable sources are available. Also, as respectfully as possible, are the OP's contributions cherrypicked as well? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If an academic literature is negative on a subject, then the appropriate NPOV action is not to cherrypick polls to mislead readers into thinking the public broadly supports the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The very basis of academic literature is that it is not broadly conformist on any one subject as broad as the subject of this article. The issue is when edits only use academic or other literature to further the editor's own ideological ends in violation of encyclopaedic standards. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Adding National Conservatism as a faction.
Going to restart this debate, as more concrete actions are taking hold. While I don't think it should be added YET, this should be looked at, even though it is still only in the idea phase and will only consist of a few members. What are the thoughts of others?

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/America-First-Caucus-Policy-Platform-FINAL-2.pdf https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-america-first-caucus/index.html https://apnews.com/article/politics-marjorie-taylor-greene-immigration-eefdf9c180f69008d60ed92b9ef2ce03? Rapmanej (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This caucus has exactly three members and has been repudiated by even the Freedom Caucus. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any mention of national conservatism in any of those sources and in fact cannot find any reliable sources about it. TFD (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with including the 'America First' caucus as a faction. There seem to be sources about it. I just wouldn't give it undue weight by making it seem bigger than it is; we are still talking about a relatively small faction even within the GOP.JMM12345 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Third Paragraph in Lead
So notice how it mentions that the GOP advocates for "Restrictions on Immigration."

The only legal immigration restriction they advocated for was the 7-Muslim-Majority Country Travel Ban. That's all. The GOP is anti-illegal immigration. Not anti-immigration. There's a difference. Could you please change this to Restrictions on Illegal Immigration?


 * Agreed. We need to be careful about separating illegal immigration vs legal immigration.  Laws intended to deal with the former do not mean a restriction of the latter.  Springee (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Paragraph under "Democracy" subsection
Should this paragraph be included under the "Democracy" subsection of the article? soibangla (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Democracy paragraph):


 * Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * *Oppose Per WP:REDFLAG, we would have to show that the study has received considerable acceptance in academic sources. Some of the parties the report compares the Republicans with have apparently far worse human rights records at least within their borders. Golden Dawn (Greece) for example was declared a criminal organization by the Greek courts and many of its leaders have been convicted of murder and other serious crimes. It has directed hate toward Jews, Roma, immigrants and other minority groups to a far greater extent that the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Golden Dawn has advocated the expulsion of Greece's Muslim minority, and is strongly affiliated with the Greek Orthodox Church. The article on the Greek Wikipedia covers the party's attempts to censor the theatrical play "Corpus Christi" on religious grunds, and its co-operation with religious organizations. See this 2012 article for more details. The article on the Greek Wikipedia mentions that the party draws much of its support from the religious right-wingers of Greece, which formerly supported the 4th of August Regime. The article also includes a number of Greek bishops who have vocally supported the party, such as Ambrosios Lenis, Bishop of Kalavryta and Aigialeia (who is a both a vocal homophobe and a veteran officer of Hellenic Gendarmerie). Does the United States have a religious right which vocally supports the Republican Party? Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have got to be shitting me. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support reads fine to me, and should fit in the article. Golden Dawn was never in government, so I don't think that is a relevant comparison.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not a relevant comparison, then why should we use a study that compares the Republican Party to Golden Dawn? TFD (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again: Golden Dawn is literally a criminal syndicate run by Nazis. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Premature RfC There is an active, generally amicable discussion already in process above.  To have a RfC specifying the exact text to be inserted when we don't have a consensus as to which sources etc should be included is more disruptive than productive.  Springee (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now at least - I agree with TFD that this likely is more than due weight for this article. The first 5 pages of Google results provide no evidence that the V-DEM institute is widely renowned or accepted as mainstream information. Their website is a ".net", and the citations for articles they publish in journals are barely in the hundreds from what I can see, even for articles published years ago - all of this does very little to aid the credibility of this institute. It may not be a bad idea to have a discussion about this institute as a whole on Wikipedia - as it's only used a couple dozen times in articles at all, which doesn't help its case here either. This suggested addition also relies in large part (but not completely) on three US sources which are politically biased, Vox even being listed explicitly as so on WP:RSP, and the Washington Post/CNN being generally understood to be more left-leaning than right leaning. Thus, I lend no volume to the fact that they've published something about the V-DEM institute - of course those sources would publish such information, just as Fox News would (and does) publish negative information about the Democratic Party sourced to questionable sources. I also feel that this proposal relies heavily on quotes from the study or articles about the study - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, and if this information is to be included, it should be summarized without quoting whenever possible, even if it means some of the charged language such as "ethnic antagonism" in the sources isn't in the article (I know this may disappoint some people). Long story short, while I am not at this time saying a hard no to including any information about/from the V-DEM institute in this article, the proposal here is more than undue weight and seems to be crafted carefully to include as much negative information as possible here, instead of neutrally summarizing the findings. Lastly, I think this entire desire to include "surveys" in this article, instead of fully published research violates the principle that we are to rely on secondary research whenever possible - which surveys are not. If reliable sources can be found that analyze the surveys, then that should be brought up here so it can be discussed - otherwise, inclusion of surveys should start from "not include" and there should be a very compelling reason that each individual survey is due weight for the article itself. None of these discussions - on V-DEM institute as a whole, on the inclusion of surveys in the article, or on the amount of weight any of this information should be given have taken place - thus at this time, it is inappropriate in my view to discuss specific proposed text. I believe the three discussions should take place (and finish) beforehand (be they local or broader) before specific text should be proposed, and as such I oppose this text and the addition of information contained in this text until such time as those discussions happen. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC) note - edit conflict resolved using beta gadget when making this comment
 * The V-Dem source is a scientific source: Google Scholar, so it is a neutral source. --PJ Geest (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Something appearing on Google Scholar does not make it a reliable source - in fact, all of the sources explicitly called out as unreliable at WP:CITEWATCH can be found on Google Scholar. Furthermore, a source being neutral doesn't matter - it doesn't make it more reliable, nor does it being "non-neutral" make it less reliable. I'll note you didn't respond to any of my actual reasons that it may not be a reliable source, nor did you attempt to suggest why we should be using one primary source to begin with when we are intended to summarize secondary sources on Wikipedia, not be a compendium of primary research that exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose And stop it with the goddamn RFCs. I have never seen so many RfCs on the same page at one, let alone baseless ones.<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose These studies have not been widely covered. Inclusion, is violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think it's hard to deny that this would certainly put bias into the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:FRINGE, these studies are not widely covered. Seems like a big stretch and a massive violation of WP:NPOV. Anon0098 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Opppose as giving WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support enough sources support this (see above at Talk:Republican Party (United States), certainly not WP:FRINGE --PJ Geest (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Seems like WP:RECENTISM and probably WP:UNDUE. This content might belong somewhere, but not here. NickCT (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of the general topic. Research about this trend has gotten quite a bit of coverage over the past few years, including material not sourced in the paragraph above. In the grand scheme of the topic, "the last few years" (or even decades) is indeed "recent" but we are in a time when changes in the party are very well documented/researched such that it's not a violation of WP:RECENTISM but simply due weight to include (appropriately attributed, of course). Supporting not because this is an ideal version, but because the topic in general seems DUE and this isn't a terrible place to start, although it could probably be tightened/shortened/summarized more. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support leaving this out is just plain whitewashing.Shadybabs (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling an elephant pink does not make it so - User:Shadybabs, you may wish to read this information about persuading others, not simply stating opinions without backing them up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE, and WP:REDFLAG. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per REDFLAG. Mgasparin (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems totally against WP:NPOV and some way of shoehorning in something controversial. Also WP:REDFLAG Jdaly81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:REDFLAG and possibly WP:UNDUE as all the other opposers are saying. Even with the evidence provided, it's too soon to determine whether the Republican Party has actually evolved this negatively. We should probably wait for more definitive evidence to come in before making such inflammatory claims. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:REDFLAGSea Ane (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Properly supported and factual, this paragraph shows the scholarly view conclusively. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons discussed elsewhere on this talk page by myself and others. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support.The scholarly literature is clear that this is a significant trend within the Republican Party. If there is scholarly literature of equal quality showing that this trend hasn't occurred, then we need to include those studies as well to ensure neutrality. Do such studies even exist though? The big problem with all the "no" votes is that they aren't attempting to refute the existing scholarship. If this viewpoint is the only accepted one among scholars, we must include it. If it exists alongside other viewpoints, we should include both. However, it shouldn't be an option to just omit something so important and widely accepted based purely on the suspicion, without citations, that more accepted viewpoints might exist somewhere. IvoryTower123 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is a sizable academic literature on democratic backsliding in the Republican Party, both preceding the 2020 coup attempt and after it. A little of it is included in OP, but there is a lot more (see for example my page). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party's unique position: "Prosecutes crime"
One of the positions of the Republican Party is apparently to "prosecute double voting". Is there anything unique or noteworthy about this purported position? Do Democrats not support prosecuting crimes? My removal of "prosecute double voting" was promptly reverted without explanation. "prosecute double voting" should be removed and I fail to comprehend the rationale for keeping it in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You decided to be “pointy” by adding additional polls with no additioanl citation or context. It is worth noting, for example, that the GOP is not proposing the abilition of early or mail voting, so saying “the public supports early and mail voting” as an abstract statement doesn’t actually deal with the proposed GOP laws. Georgia still has mail-in voting and more early voting than states like New Jersey, New York, or Delaware. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can kind of see what the editor wanting that in the article is getting at - it's known that the Democratic party is against the prosecution (or at least the jailing or large fines) of people who vote when they are not aware they are ineligible to do so (or fraudulently). Republicans, on the other hand, advocate for the "full force of the law" being applied to anyone voting when they aren't eligible - even if they were misinformed and didn't do it intentionally. If that is to be included, it should be explained more fully than "prosecute double voting" - because it's more complex than that. To reply to the user above, if reliable sources release the results of those polls together, it is not appropriate for us to "cherry pick" one of them to include here. We either include the results as correlated/connected by reliable sources, or we don't include any of them - thus including the one polling result without including the rest would be a violation of WP:SYNTH because the reliable source connected them yet we are saying they are not so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My principled position is that Wikipedia articles should generally not be citing polls to say this or that is popular/unpopular (precisely because of the risks related to UNDUE, NPOV vios, and cherrypicking), but if there's a will to do that then clearly the polls should not be cherrypicked. As you say, "if reliable sources release the results of those polls together, it is not appropriate for us to "cherry pick" one of them to include here." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was part of a rather pointy edit. This really needs to be written in a generalized, summary form, not one that suggests we are hoping to catch the GOP is a lie or something.  That reeks of failing IMPARTIAL.  Springee (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

, your edit here [] restored newly added, disputed content []. Your reason for restoring was claiming that this was to restore long term content. In that case the correct action is to restore only the long term content, not the newly added, disputed content as well. Please correct this oversite. Springee (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , will do. Give me a few minutes to sort out precisely which parts are longstanding. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how far back we need to go to say "stable". It looks like much of that content has changed in the last 30 days.  It may be best just to present things here and let people debate an impartial version of the text.  Springee (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a few edits bundled together. I was initially focused mainly on the lead, but from the section here, it seems you're more looking at the voting requirements section. I compared to a revision April 1 when I was looking for the status quo, but someone who's been following this page more closely recently might have a better idea of what it truly is.
 * Anyways, I think "limiting early and mail voting" is a much better example to give than "prosecuting double voting". Most of the recent debate has been about mail voting, and limiting early voting is also something the GOP has pushed heavily and has had a big impact. "Prosecuting double voting", on the other hand, is something that Democrats also support so isn't really a distinguishing feature at all. "Aggressively prosecuting double voting" would be a little better, since as bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez pointed out the GOP supports prosecuting it more forcefully, but even so I'd say early/mail voting is the most obvious example choice alongside the existing purging voter rolls and limiting voting locations. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I think "limiting early and mail voting" is a much better example to give than "prosecuting double voting". Most of the recent debate has been about mail voting, and limiting early voting is also something the GOP has pushed heavily and has had a big impact. "Prosecuting double voting", on the other hand, is something that Democrats also support so isn't really a distinguishing feature at all. "Aggressively prosecuting double voting" would be a little better, since as bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez pointed out the GOP supports prosecuting it more forcefully, but even so I'd say early/mail voting is the most obvious example choice alongside the existing purging voter rolls and limiting voting locations. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the line civil and voting rights organizations often accuse Republicans of enacting restrictions to influence elections in the party's favor doesn't go far enough. Republicans on multiple occasions have explicitly admitted that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of giving them an electoral advantage by making it harder for liberals and people of color to vote. Characterizing that as just an accusation being made by voting rights groups rather than an established truth accepted everywhere except unreliable right-wing media is WP:FALSEBALANCE. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you give me some examples of Republicans on multiple occasions explicitly admitting that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of making it harder for people of color to vote. Please be specific.JMM12345 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
 * This article cites numerous examples. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That article cites exactly zero examples of Republicans explicitly admitting that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of making it harder for people of color to vote. The writer of the article certainly thinks that that is the goal of Republican proposals and even uses terms like "Jim Crow" and "White Supremacy" when talking about what Republicans are doing, but it doesn't cite a single example of Republicans explicitly admitting that their proposals are intended to disenfranchise people of color or will disenfranchise people of color. The couple of times it quotes Republicans, those quotes don't on their face have anything to do with race.JMM12345 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
 * , there's a surprisingly few number of "explicit admissions" in that article. I furthermore don't think that Washington Monthly should be considered acceptable for claims such as this on political articles - their political articles vary between editorially sound and basically opinion/blog pieces that their staff can write and publish. The fact that their links to "sources" are blocked behind revenue generating links is another bad sign. If you can't provide a source that directly states that the party as a whole believes this, instead of just some people who said things vaguely suggesting things, you may wish to not go down that road anymore. While Wikipedia does summarize the major viewpoints of reliable sources, most reliable sources actually intentionally do not say that they are trying to prevent people from voting - at most they talk about the effects of the laws. While some individuals (many?) claim that it's intentional, we do not take opinion and turn it into fact just because reliable sources repeat that (attributed) opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Returning to the specific subject of this talk page section: I have removed the "prosecute double voting" text, which is an obvious red herring; this position does it differentiate them from their chief rivals (obviously, Democrats favor prosecuting voter fraud in the extremely rare cases when it occurs). More importantly, this is not what sources emphasize, nor does this content have consensus here. Neutralitytalk 03:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

White men in the lead.
Since multiple people have objected to this now... sources overwhelmingly cite whiteness as a central component of the modern Republican base. Actually, just from a quick skim of the sources to refresh my memory, whiteness is more predictive of Republican support than gender (and a number of sources comment on this, eg. on how white women increasingly vote like white men in terms of Republican support), so if anything it would make more sense to remove the "men" part than the "white" part, though sources do still emphasize white men as a particular element of the Republican base. We could possibly list whites and men separately (though I think most sources list them together), but I don't see how whiteness can be removed when coverage is so overwhelming as to its centrality to modern American politics and the party's bases. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the compromise wording, it is not terrible but is to a certain extent a move in the wrong direction - it could be reasonably flipped to something like "white people (especially white men)." See eg. . White women frequently vote Republican as well; the Democratic advantage among women is really more among nonwhite women. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For a long while it was "white Americans, men,..." More recently it was switched to "white men," which I'm not really sure is better. Both are fully supported by sources; this is just a matter of reverting the inexperienced/WP:NOTHERE editors who don't care about sourcing and are just trying to remove it since they don't like it. Maybe adding a hidden comment warning would help deter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple: literally all exit polling and public polling in the last decade has shown that men tend to vote more Republican and women more Democratic. This is not debatable, it's not arguable - it's literally the baseline statistical data used by political scientists. To say that only white men are a core GOP constituently goes against reliable sources on the matter when, broadly speaking, it's all men. The same applies to women, except for them it's nonwhite women that are the core liberal constituency, not white women. If we want to emphasize white men in particular, fine, but this is just not a debatable thing in political science. And while we're discussing, it might also be worth adding Cuban Americans as a group for Rs - this is a general constant in most elections. Pew gives a 58-38 advantage for Rs. Politico finds something similar. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * From the sources I have read, the GOP's #1 demographic is white non-college-educated men. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the sources in the article specifically highlight how men in general vote GOP, with a few making slight note within the overall piece about racial breakdowns that reference white men in particular. So the sources you've read don't really matter here unless you can present them showing this as a central point, and what you're talking about wouldn't impact the wording here anyways.
 * The college educated part has bugged me for a while. If you look at the exit polls of the last few (presidential) elections, considering just the undergrad degrees, there hasn't been a staggering difference until you get to the postgraduate level (which was just 15% of the vote last time). For example, in the 2020 election it was 51% (D) vs. 47% (R). To call something that close a demographic is (I think) misleading. Especially considering Mitt Romney won this demographic as recently as 2012. (This is leaving out "some" college education and associate degrees which the GOP has won in many instances.) If it was breaking at something like 65-35......yeah, I'd call that a major difference....but 51-47? That's not a major difference worthy of calling a demographic.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Democrat's strength among more highly educated voters comes out mainly once you control for income. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know.....but in the last election the GOP won incomes from 100-200k and it was a tie over 200k. And in 2016, they won every bracket over 50k. (Same deal in 2012: .)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah now that you mention it, I was looking at the info for the 2004 election and Republicans not only won college educated voters comfortably, but also won all income brackets of 50K and above again too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics! Since the same thing happened in 2012 and the lede section of the article is explicitly referring to the party's "21st century voter base" as a whole rather than "most recent voter base" or something, it's preposterous to act like the 2020 election defines the party's support amongst people of a certain income in the entire 21st century or to act like the 2016 and 2020 elections define the party's support amongst college educated individuals in the entire 21st century. It's gotta be removed, and we should honestly be taking a look at potentially replacing it with "people with higher incomes" instead, since there's a lot more verfiable consistency in people with more money voting Republican. Davefelmer (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am however, more willing to consider Aquillion (talk)'s suggested wording of breaking it down between white americans and men as seperate groups and linking both like that. If that was the original wording for a long time, it makes sense to return to it, and I believe ample sources do cover both groups as core parts of the GOP base, whereas 'white men' in particular is not widely covered in reliable sources and mentioned more in passing amidst larger articles that look at the genders as a whole as the main point, and the equivalent of what would be black women being a core Democratic Party (United States) voting block is absent on the article for that party, so there's no basis or precedent to do it here. Davefelmer (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why would you not, for that matter, include the intersection of all the demographics? The Republican party is popular amongst rural, white, non-college educated Silent Generation men, but it's also popular with all of those subcategories on their own. Take any intersection of any of those groups and you'll find they tend to vote Republican. Why would we just choose the two to group together? Splitting them up, e.g. "White Americans, men...", as it was a few months ago is better. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. I would caution on the 'non-college educated' part though, as I've written on above, since the party primarily doing well with non-college educated individuals as opposed to college grads is a rather new phenomenon, and doesn't define the party's base throughout the entire 21st century as the lede suggests. For instance, Republicans won college educated and college grad voters comfortably while losing non high school graduating voters in 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics and they won college graduates while losing non college grads again in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics. Thus, the statement shouldnt have a mention in the lead at all, as it's entirely a construct of recency bias. If anything, it should be replaced with "people of higher income", since Republicans have won every income bracket of 50K and above in all but two elections in the 21st century and every income bracket of 75K and above in all but one 21st century election. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Does the GOP support "restrictions on immigration" or just on "illegal immigration"?
Should the lead say that the Republican Party supports A. restrictions on "immigration" or that the party solely supports B. restrictions on "illegal immigration"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * A. It would be misleading to readers to say that the Republican Party solely supports restrictions on illegal immigration. In 2018, three-fourths of Republicans in the House and Senate voted to cut legal immigration to the lowest levels since the 1920s. The last Republican president imposed a number of policies against legal immigrants, such as ending legal protections for individuals with TPS, imposing restrictions on refugees and asylum seekers (which includes cutting the refugee cap to the lowest levels in modern US history), and imposing various restrictions on visa holders and other non-citizens.. These are the policy positions that the party advocates for and seeks to implement. I'm not even counting the anti-immigration rhetoric more broadly. Whereas the Republican Party was more supportive of immigrants than Democrats prior to the 1960s, the party became increasingly divided on the issue over time, before becoming a firmly anti-immigration party since Obama's presidency.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A per nominator. The sourcing here is overwhelming. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A per the numerous sources I just added (several more exist), especially the Oxford Handbook of American Political History, which states Contemporary debate is fueled on one side by immigration restrictionists, led by President Donald Trump and other elected republicans, whose rhetorical and policy assults on undocumented Latin American immigrants, Muslim refugees, and family-based immigration energized their conservative base; we should also expand the immigration section with more details on this. Opposition to illegal immigration is one of the several ways the modern Republican party opposes immigration, but it is not the only one - opposition to birthright citizenship, for instance, is now reasonably mainstream within the Republican party, as is opposition to legal refugees and efforts to eg. punish legal immigrants for using welfare ; broader academic sources, like the one above, have noted these things and described them as part of a shift to what is now a broadly anti-immigration platform.  Most sources observe that this shift intensified dramatically under Trump - something our section on immigration should note as well; we should make it clear that it has definitely changed over time, like most party positions do - but they generally describe it as part of a continuous shift towards broad support for immigration restrictions; obviously there are (or were) some more moderate Republicans who were willing to compromise or who framed it solely in terms of illegal immigration, but most coverage since 2016 describes the party as a whole as taking a hardline anti-immigration position, and frames that as part of a larger long-term shift rather than a temporary aberration.  It is entirely incorrect (and not reflective of the sources) to imply that the current Republican party only opposes illegal immigration.  Other sources:  --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on detailing the history and nuance of the party's immigration policies over time in the body. Some of the studies I linked to provide some good info on that, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Option B, and oppose framing - This is a typcial Snog RfC, started with only the choices he wants and intended to try and overwhelm based on his framing. Saying the Republican Party and Republcian platform are broadly anti-immigration - which is what Option A does - is clearly not an accurate reflection of the party. Classifying asylum seekers in the same category as legal immigrants, for example, is problematic. The 2018 proposal Snog loves to cite, for example, does reduce immigration in some areas (elimianting lottery and chain migration) but also increases employer-sponsored immigration (removing the per-country cap!) and would have normalized status for Dreamers. The only true constants of the GOP on immigration policy are opposing illegal immigration and supporting border security. Even with those changes, the US would still have among the most liberal immigration systems in the west - it’s all relative. Arguably supporting a more merit-based system could be included as well, but saying the GOP simply wants immigration restrictions is about as accurate as saying Democrats want open borders. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You oppose framing because Snooganssnoogans started with only the choices he wants? Snooganssnoogans included Option B, which is literally precisely the edit you tried to make to the article that kicked this all off. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Republicans believe in enforcement of immigration law. The problem with "restrictions on immigration" is that it paints with too broad a brush. For a very recent example (from Bush), see . For a slightly-less-recent example (from Romney), see . Bush and Romney are obviously highly prominent Republicans, so the "Restrictions on immigration" wording is inappropriate. "Restrictions on illegal immigration" is not quite correct either. If something is illegal, it is by definition already restricted, at least in name. The consistent difference between Democrats and Republicans is the question of whether or not the restriction should be enforced. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose restrictive immigration policies, otherwise Option A. Both parties support some restrictions on immigration, and neither party is pro-illegal immigration. The proposal above by Adoring nanny is a good start, but it could be interpreted to mean that the Democrats do not support any enforcement of immigration laws, which is certainly not the case. (Perhaps "strict enforcement of immigration law" is a better phrasing.) In my opinion, the key difference between the two major parties is the degree to which they support immigration, so restrictive (as opposed to permissive) immigration policies seems to best convey this difference. RisingStar (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Restrictive immigration policies" sounds alright to me. Agreed with your critique of adoring nanny's proposal—the GOP and the Democrats define themselves in opposition to each other, and supporting enforcement of immigration law is not a distinguishing characteristic. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A because of the strong evidence that, when given the opportunity, Republicans support further restrictions to legal immigration such as increasing restrictions and decreasing the number of refugees allowed. Of the alternatives, I'd support restrictive immigration policies over Option B (which is at least also true) over enforcement of immigration law. Both parties believe in enforcement of immigration law, and claiming that only Republicans do is clearly an implicit POV snipe at Democrats. Loki (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support for Option B I don't think that either one is wrong per se, but I think that both options run into the problem of oversimplification, slightly less so with option b. Republicans across the board mostly support strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, but I think that there is sufficient diversity of opinion within the GOP of whether there should be increased restrictions and if so how as to render option a, while technically applicable for much of the GOP, not the best description for the party as a whole. I do recognize that option b may confuse readers by downplaying those elements in the GOP who do support dramatically increased restrictions on immigration, but I am not really seeing much of a better option.JMM12345 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
 * Option A per Snooganssnoogans and Aquillion. Clearly established as part of party platform. Other options like "restrictive immigration policies" or maybe just leaving it out of the intro would also be fine but Option B I think has some of the same issues to the criticisms made mentioned by Loki and RisingStar about saying the party supports "enforcement". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A - Tremendous amount of reliable sources saying this, and very well established in the party platform. Suggestions that this should be changed to "Republicans believe in enforcement of immigration law" are hilariously partisan and should be laughed out of town. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A per nominator and Aquillion's comments. In a past couple years, this has been a well-sourced political stance of theirs and in my opinion the first option suits much better than the second one. Vacant0 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A. Sources are pretty clear on this. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A As per the above comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Before I vote I'd like to hear some alternative views from the other side of the aisle. But at first glance I would have to say Option A looks pretty good and covers the bases. After all, even if you want to say the GOP opposes mainly illegal immigration.....doesn't restrictions on immigration cover that? (Since immigration laws are always in flux.) As a alternative, (if these two options don't fly) it could also say something like "...the GOP favors more restrictive immigration laws than [whomever]".Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't both parties support restricted immigration? Neither party supports unrestricted immigration. TFD (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not when compared to the status quo. Republicans support more restrictions on immigration than already exist. Democrats support fewer restrictions on immigration than already exist. Loki (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If the status quo is what we are comparing the parties to, then wouldn't it be beneficial to also include the historic context. Immigration was not very restricted during the first 100 or so years of the country. --The owner of all ✌️ 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the real context is that the GOP is generally fine with immigration of white people. It's the others they don't like. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Political Position
The vast majority of state Republican parties are listed as Right-wing so could the main articles also have this as its position? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean like in the infobox? I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, but I'd be curious to hear other opinions; it already lists "Right-wing populism" and " Right-libertarianism" as factions. Perhaps it would be better if we said that the position is "Center-right to Right-wing", so as to cover the diversity of thought within the party.JMM12345 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
 * Republican Party is a catch-all party, read Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Vacant0 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The field was removed after discussion. While there is general agreement about relative position in the spectrum, there is disagreement about absolute position. For example, all agree that the Reps are to the right of the Dems. But there disagree about how far to the left or right other party is or whether we should use the same criteria for the U.S. as for other countries. Since we supply the parties' ideologies, it is unnecessary to tell readers where we think those ideologies are situated in the political spectrum.
 * Also, Vacant0 is right about the big tent nature of U.S. parties, although they have become increasingly polarized along the left-right axis in recent decades.
 * TFD (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

"GQP" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GQP. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually came to this page to explore the “GQP” tag that is extremely prevalent on social media since the assault on the Capitol on 1/6/2021. The effects of Q-Anon on the former establishment GOP is completely missing from the page despite its historic and enduring impact on the party since 2017. An updated GQP section is now overdue.


 * I disagree. Just because a name is used on social media by people who don't like the subject of the article doesn't necessarily mean that we need to redirect it in wikipedia. For example, among some right wing circles on social media, people have negative terms to refer to the Democratic Party, however we would never redirect those to the Democratic Party (United States) because we would recognize that that is a partisan attack rather than a generally accepted nickname.
 * Now, if you think that something is missing from the page, you're free to try to find reliable sources and either suggest what you think should be added on the talk pages or get an account and add it yourself. Either way, that is a bit different than whether this should be a redirect.JMM12345 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

This article needs a section on "structure" more than it needs almost any part of the existing article.
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. If it existed, it would be the part that is most concretely *about the Republican Party*, rather than abstract analysis of or claims about the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party article has a "Structure and Composition" section. The Libertarian Party article has a "Structure and Composition" section. The Green Party has a "Structure and Composition" section.

If you look at European Union parties, the articles are practically *all* about structure and functioning, which is pretty logical. British political parties all have an "Organisation and Structure" section. Merkel's Christian Democrats have an "internal structure" section.

The CPSU and CPC articles are mostly "Organization". So are the world's tiny opposition communist parties.

Basically, this article is by far the biggest fluke of all political party articles on Wikipedia, in completely refusing to say anything about the actual structure, organization and functioning of its subject. If you wanted to answer the questions, "How is the GOP organized? How does it function?" you somehow could not do that with this twelve thousand word article. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it is indeed something missing from the article. If you'd like to write such a section, please do (just please include cited sources, which are essential for a topic this controversial). You can make an edit request here to have it added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)