Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 19

Add Fascism as an ideological position in the the GOP
Allows to include trumpism as a fascist subtype and christo-fascist tendencies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/republican-party-donald-trump-voter-suppression-b1868426.html

Haverda, Myra B., and Jeffrey A. Halley. "Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Adorno’s psychological technique: Content analyses of authoritarian populism." tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 17, no. 2 (2019): 202-220.

Kelley, Colleen. "The Trump presidency: Democratic fatigue or fascism?." Communication Research and Practice (2022): 1-15.

Giroux, Henry A. "The plague of American authoritarianism." 2607:FEA8:591D:E100:A415:9179:9DE0:7C3D (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The Independent article is a commentary/opinion piece. I cannot comment on the two book sources you provide but it goes without saying that calling one of the two major parties in America fascist is a claim that would necessarily require quite many reliable sources to justify. Note that populism, even authoritarian populism, is not necessarily fascism. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To deny the presence of Fascism within the contemporary GOP is really indicative of severe brain rot or intentional cognitive dissonance. The GOP is a party of Fascists and easily fall within many of Umberto Eco's 14 points of fascism (https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)
 * Fascism is a sort of nebulous ideology. It takes root in deeply dissatisfied populations and evolves according to the material conditions it is surrounded by. Those who argue that the GOP is a farcry from the NSDAP are only right in that the GOP are not copying the NSDAP to a tee or mimicking their speeches verbatim. The GOP and the NSDAP do, however, encompass many of the same baseline tendencies. As Francisco Franco, the Fascist dictator of Spain said "...fascism presents, wherever it manifests itself, characteristics which are varied to the extent that countries and national temperaments vary. It is essentially a defensive reaction of the organism, a manifestation of the desire to live, of the desire not to die, which at certain times seizes a whole people. So each people reacts in its own way, according to its conception of life. Our rising, here, has a Spanish meaning! What can it have in common with Hitlerism, which was, above all, a reaction against the state of things created by the defeat, and by the abdication and the despair that followed it?" This quote captures the point I am making. Fascism is a unique ideology that evolves and morphs according to the material conditions in which it was fostered in. Spanish fascism was different from German fascism and rose to power because of different reasons. Just like this unique American fascism that is the GOP is different from all other types of fascism, and rose to power for different reasons. Just because the Fascism that the GOP embodies isn't the exact same as any other kind of fascism is irrelevant. Fascism is not categorized by one party or one type of fascism. Fascism is a reaction, a tendency. What exactly the fascism is reacting to is unique to the place in which the fascism is rising. Comrade Toaster (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a preponderance of reliable political scientists who classify it that way? Because otherwise any connections based on your own interpretation of the definition of fascism amounts to a novel synthesis of ideas.  You need to show that a preponderance of mainstream, reliable, recognized experts in the relevant field do so classify their political positions as such.  -- Jayron 32 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to some of this - see Fascism in the United States and Talk:Donald Trump for more information and sources. I do think the Umberto Eco thing might be original research, but the Henry Giroux is totally legit. Andre🚐 18:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we could include fascism as an ideology and still claim that the article follows NPOV. I do think a very brief treatment of the accusations of fascism in the Trump era would be due. It is a bit strange to Ctrl-F "fascism" and see it included as an accusation by Gingrich made against Democrats. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it your position that it can never be NPOV-compliant to describe an active political party as fascist? No matter how much fascist ideology takes over said party? &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably, if the preponderance of reliable sources and political scientists described it that way, per Jayron32's message above, it would be due. If a preponderance of mainstream, reliable, recognized experts start writing that fascism is taking over the Republican Party, we'd have to follow the sources and include that. Right now I don't think fascism has taken over the party, as there is still a faction of non-MAGA Republicans. Andre🚐 01:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. January 6th and constant lying about the legitimacy of 2020's election are well-documented and easily enough evidence for this. And there are prominent Republican voices (e.g. Matt Walsh) who even self-identify as fascists. GarethPW (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypg3fMFzS8 Anastrophe (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely obvious dog whistle. GarethPW (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose You would need to show that experts had come to the same conclusion, which they don't. There are a lot of precedents in U.S. history that Trump might have drawn on, such as populism and nativism, rather than the writings of Mussolini. TFD (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please specify the precedent for an armed mob storming the Capitol for the purpose of overturning the legally constituted result of a presidential election. Since there are a lot of precedents, maybe even you have 2 or 3 to share. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Although they didn't storm the capitol, the Tilden / Hayes election is the closest comparison. Hayes himself was literally shot at in his home. It is very likely that many people working for Trump were looking heavily at that election for inspiration during their various efforts to overturn the results - especially the fact that it was ultimately decided by party-line votes by the electoral commission, and most crucially by Republican dominance of the Supreme Court. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to a 2016 article in the Washington Post, there had been 475 coup attempts since WW2, of which 236 were successful. Few if any of these coups could be described as fascist. Many of them were instigated or supported by the United States government. You need more than that to prove they are fascists. The fascists in Italy and Germany incidentally came to power not through coups but from the unanimous or near unanimous support of liberal and conservative legislators. TFD (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Political position
I think we should add a political position to the GOP, it’s center-right to far-right + Trumpism, Anti-Trump, American nationalism should be factions Produda (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * These suggestions are all being debated in various threads above; please discuss further there. — Czello 07:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Discussion on political position regardless of sources/ideologies provided have repeatedly failed in the past due to the fact there is no binding platform (this applies to the Democratic Party as well) and controversy over what falls under the listed position. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 18:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. Trumpism isn't actually a faction in the modern sense, it's just the part of the party that supports the leader, which is common to every party. TFD (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Trump goes away and DeSantis or Cotton is the leader, there will still be a faction of hardliners of the party (Greene, Boebert, Hawley, Cruz, Blackburn, to name a few) versus more moderates (like your Collins, Murkowski, Romney, etc). If Bernie Sanders goes away there will still be progressives and democratic socialists. Trumpism is just the name we use to describe right populism or whatever else it may be called. It's a movement, not a man. He's simply the current emblem. Andre🚐 01:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW there's a lot more sources using Trumpism as a term than there are other recent presidents . And just skimming those sources I do think it's fair to say that there's coverage of the fact that Trump leads or created his own ideologically distinct faction within the party in a way that is not true of other presidents (eg. Bush largely led / represented the religious right faction of his party; Obama and Clinton brought together various factions but didn't introduce a new one to Democratic politics.) The last president who realigned his party was probably Reagan, and Reaganism is a term (though I'd argue that having more sources than Trumpism is a function of it having 40 years to accumulate them, and in that case many of those sources refer more to an economic theory than a political faction.) But that does show a more compelling reason why we might want to wait on listing Trumpism, in that depending on what happens in the next two years the faction's name could change, it could reach ascendancy within the party to the point where it's no longer considered a "faction" (as happened with Reagan), or it could fizzle. Honestly I feel a bit skeptical about the whole idea of factions in the infobox, in that they're complicated, subjective things that require a degree of discussion to provide context from the sources. I do think we should discuss Trumpism and Reaganism somewhere in the body, though - it clearly has enough coverage to warrant a sentence or two somewhere. I suppose one could argue that we're already discussing them without using those terms, though. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reaganism (currently a redirect) and Trumpism are analogous and both realigned the party, and reliable sources do use them both extensively. Whereas a "Bushism" was used as a jokey term for a malapropism, and we even have an article on it! I don't believe there was Barackism or Obamism, or an Obama doctrine. Nor does there seem to be much of a Bidenism. Wikipedia doesn't need to enforce a consistency, we follow what the sources say. The sources decided that there is no Bidenism, but perhaps Dark Brandonism? Andre🚐 00:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Everyone repeatedly finds reasons to say no to adding political positions to both the Republican Party and Democratic Party, and not agree to the reasons to add them. Other arguments against adding political positions have included left/right should be left up to individuals to decide on their own, listing Conservatism as an ideology is sufficient because conservatism is always right-wing, or defining political positions is completely pointless and can change from country to country. So, I don't think political positions, in terms of left and right, will ever be added to either party's infobox. Ray522 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not far-right, every party has an extremist wing but that would be an extremely controversial and unsourced allegation. The far-right is still the fringe and therefore not a recognized wing of the party, same as far-left being vague and unnecessary for the Democratic Party infobox. Bill Williams 12:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, the far-right is the dominant faction of the Republican Party, not the fringe. Meanwhile the Democratic Party barely even has anybody within it who could be plausibly described as far-left. We need to stop pretending that the two parties are mirror images of each other. That's false equivalency. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with about 95% of this. Andre🚐 02:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ￼ If it was the dominant faction then it couldn't be described as extreme or on the far right of the political spectrum. Something is only extreme when it deviates from mainstream opinion. 24.53.78.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It only matters how reliable sources describe it. Not logically if it is coherent. Andre🚐 19:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Being the dominant faction within a single political party does not mean the far-right ceases to be extreme and becomes mainstream. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed centre-right to right-wing would be the best to implement should position be included. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I will take i words back, I wouldn’t say center-right or far-right I’d just keep it has right-wing Produda (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion demonstrates why the field was removed in the first place, because everyone has a different conception of positioning along the left-right spectrum. The only agreement is that they are to the right of the Democrats. TFD (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least in the U.S. with regards to the spectrum anyways. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Such things tend to happen when you have a nebulous two-party system where both parties are effectively big tents of the entire left and right. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Working class =/= White working class
A late August 2022 addition to the lead says, "In the modern day, the demographic base skews towards working class voters". But that's not accurate and it's not supported by the citations. RS specifically say that it's "white working class" voters and that the party does not win the overall working class vote (more specifically, the party does not win the non-white working class vote which is approximately 40% of the total working class). This NPR piece looks at the GOP's attempted branding as a "working class" party, noting that the support is primarily a white working class phenomenon and that Biden won a majority of voters earning less than $50,000 year while Trump won a majority of voters who earn over $100,000 a year. The August edit is misleading. Thenightaway (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was sure that that was there before. It's clearly essential, yes; I don't think there are many high-quality sources that support the idea that the Republican base skews towards all working class voters, since the demographics don't bear that out. --Aquillion (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. It should be limited to the white working class; per the sources and election results, there is no GOP lean of working class voters as a whole. RedHotPear (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly ridiculous claim. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The modern Democratic party is the party of the professional class. The Republican party increasingly is in opposition to this class, and is becoming more Hispanic and Black than it was before. 2600:1012:B056:4966:A90A:F600:E7FE:C52E (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. –– FormalDude  (talk)  04:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Typo
Hi there is a typo that you made a mistake of while I googled the GOP, the Gop is in the senate minority not the majority anymore, if you have time please change that, but I perfer you to do that becuase im not a expert on wiki. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack45678 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Add National Conservatism/Paleoconservatism as a faction of the Ideology section.
It's clear since the rise of Trump and the "anti-woke" current in the GOP that there is an ideological stream of national conservatism. I think some examples of National Conservative beliefs in the GOP are social conservatism (pro-life, anti-LGBT, pro-religion, etc.), anti-immigration sentiment, skepticism of NATO and other international institutions, and less of a hard line on fiscal conservatism. I think some examples of prominent Republican office holders and ideologues of this view would be (debatably) Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley, (arguably) Marjorie Taylor Greene, Saagar Enjeti (former Republican), (arguably) Ron Desantis and others.

I'm not too familiar with the wikipedia procedure for proposing changes to protected articles but I think National Conservatism should be added as a faction of the Ideology section on this article. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These aren't really actual wings. There's a substantial amount of overlap with social conservatives/Christian right, and maybe a handful of commentators. It's about as real as Reformicons were. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. TFD (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Trumpism" and/or "Authoritarianism" as an factional ideology, or something to that effect
Many articles have claimed that authoritarianism is an ideology favoured among the hard-right and far-right of the Republican Party. 147 GOP members of Congress voted to overturn the 2020 election, and many of them have espoused explicitly anti-democratic beliefs as well. I feel we see democracy through to rosy a lense in the West to say that there is an "anti-democratic" faction and not be violating NPOV. So how about "authoritarianism" instead? Or Trumpism, too? Here is the section on Trumpism for the page of GOP factions.

From that article, an excerpt.

As of 2021, the dominant faction in the Republican Party consists of Trumpists, supporters of a movement associated with the political base of Donald Trump. A poll conducted in February 2021 indicated that a plurality of Republicans (46%-27%) would leave the Republican Party to join a new party if Trump chose to create it. Rather than adopting a new platform, the Republican Party resolved in 2020 to renew its platform of 2016 and declared, "The Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-First agenda". By late 2017, performative loyalty and demonstrations of devotion to Trump were normalized within the party. Political science research indicates that the "insurgent" Tea Party faction paved the way for Trump and this faction within Congress. While ideological components of the movement are considered fluid and can at times be hard to define or approach from one lens of analysis, Trumpism is widely considered to represent the far-right in the United States and be an extension of the global national-populist and neo-nationalist movement which saw prominence beginning in the 2010s. Trumpism has frequently been considered to be the American realization of right-wing populism by many political scientists while others have viewed it as a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, characterizing it as authoritarian and illiberal. Some historians, including many of those using a new fascism classification, note that there are strong parallels but considerable differences between Trumpism and 20th century European fascism. Trumpism has been considered to be an ideological successor to paleoconservatism as well. Increasingly, vocal support for election denial and voter suppression are near universal traits of Trumpist politicians and Trump himself endorsed many 2022 midterm candidates who held such beliefs. Leading Trump supporters in Congress as of August 2021 include Representatives Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Elise Stefanik, and Senators Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville, who were among 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas and Kristi Noem of South Dakota are also strong supporters and allies of Trump.

Here are some sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/29/truth-about-gop-they-prefer-authoritarianism-democracy/

https://journals.openedition.org/spp/5340

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/6/15/22522504/republicans-authoritarianism-trump-competitive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/22/republican-authoritarianism-is-here-stay/

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gops-free-market-principles-take-authoritarian-turn-rcna23008

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k78znw/the-gops-off-the-rails-march-toward-authoritarianism-has-historians-worried

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-became-authoritarian-party-former-nixon-white-house-lawyer-1676257

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/why-are-democrats-like-biden-still-defending-republican-politicians

Aubernas (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not an ideology. Also, the party was recently in control of the executive and during that time no opposition leaders were arrested, resistance media such as CNN were allowed to continue publishing and dissident intellectuals were allowed to continue teaching. In fact the number of "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay declined and no show trials were held. TFD (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, according to Wikipedia right now, Trumpism is the sum of the "political ideologies, social emotions, [and] style of governance...associated with Donald Trump". Multiple sources I listed have compared this to authoritarianism, for its "set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power". And no, I'm not saying the party is literally authoritarian. Like I said, I'm referring to a major faction, listed on a separate page on this site, who broadly support authoritarianism. Your own choice of phrasing "resistance media such as CNN" "dissident intellectuals" suggest that you are perhaps not wiling to contribute to a Neutral point of view viewpoint. If you are willing to be neutral, however, that's great. Aubernas (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I used that terminology to show how absurd the comparison is. When there is an authoritarian government, its opponents are by definition dissidents. Of course there is an element of truth in it, but you are taking it to extremes. In the late 1700s, the Dems called the Federalists royalists, while the Federalists called them Jacobins. In 1912, the Republicans referred to the Dems as socialists. None of these accusations were justified, although they had an element of truth. It's nothing new. And authoritarianism is not an ideology.
 * I am being constructive. I don't think that articles should mirror partisan rhetoric, wherever it originates.
 * TFD (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the opposition politicians called themselves "the Resistance." TFD (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Trumpism isn't a thing and our article on it is a fucking embarrassment. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A majority of political scientists would disagree with you. –– FormalDude   talk   17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Trumpism specifically. It's surprising to me we don't have it as part of the article already. It's clearly a faction of the Republican Party and our page on it makes that quite clear. Loki (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Last time I peeked, the Democrats had control of the White House, the Senate & the House of Representatives. That wouldn't have been possible, if Trumpism were effective. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support- But many Republicans want Trumpism to be effective, so therefore it's part of their ideology. The workings of the Senate Republicans to nominate hardline conservatives to the Supreme Court, and Josh Hawley saluting the protestors on 1/6 is Trumpism, even if it didn't accomplish all of their goals. It's got nothing to do with Trumpism actually working. Leftwing politicians in Japan still believe in democratic socialism, even if the 1955 system means that the LDP has been in power for almost 70 years. If it's on the page about factions itself already, why wouldn't be in the article? Aubernas (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that Trumpism is an ideology? If it is, what is it beyond support for the leader by people of different ideologies? Can you name any ideological texts? TFD (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You could start with th 2020 GOP Platform. Your arguments so far are straw man.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? That would mean I made misdefined authoritarianism. So there's a brand of authoritarianism that doesn't actually arrest its opponents and rule by decree? And FYI, the 2020 platform merely repeated the 2016 one, despite Trump's objections. TFD (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen you often misdefine or define in terms of adjacency rather than substance. You also tend to appropriate isolated facts out of context, which results, if I may say so, in your confusion on certain issues of American politics. Anyway the platform bit was widely reported:    <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Vox article that you linked to says the 2016 platform was not written by Trump supporters, Kushner wanted drastic changes to it for 2020 and the RNC decided instead to adopt the 2016 platform for 2020. You can read the full resolution here. In fact Biden had far more say over his party's platform in 2020. Are you arguing that because Trump had no say in the 2020 platform that he was authoritarian? TFD (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. You seem to be defining "authoritarian" as "effective" or "successful" authoritarian. By that standard, Mussolini, Saddam, and countless others were not authoritarians. I think you're aware of the well-documented accounts of Trump wanting to shoot citizens, overturn the 2020 election, encourageing his rallygoers to beat up protesters, etc. So I think your problem is simply that your definition makes no sense. Trump is clearly and widely reported to have pursued authoritarian goals and methods. He has not been fully successful to date.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if the circumstances that applied to interwar Europe applied to the U.S. today, would Trump have become a dictator? I think he probably would have. Then again, the European dictators had near unanimous support from conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals, who voted to give them dictatorial powers. So I imagine given the same circumstances, most Democrats would be Fascists too. In fact if the next election is between a Trump and a progressive Democrat, I expect a lot of editors will be working hard to change the tone of this article. Donny Deutsch for example said that given the choice between Trump and Sanders, he would support Trump, and I am sure he speaks for many Democrats, especially the leadership. Does that make him an authoritarian? Where do you draw the line? TFD (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Donny Deutsch? That's easy. Draw the line at ever thinking about Donyy Deutsch. Back to reality, Trump has the support of most Republicans, who failed to convict him in the second impeachment. And although the Taliban was looking forward to that Camp David weenie roast with him in 2020, Trump's model is nothing as smooth as the Continental fascists. More 3rd world.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding authoritarianism as it is far too broad of a term to use. Trumpism is better because it is more specific and thus more accurate, but I'm not sure about adding Trumpism. X-Editor (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support adding Trumpism per OP. Frankly I'm surprised it's not in the article already. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose None of those sources are sufficient for adding "Trumpism" (what ever that is) as a faction of the GOP. Additionally the evidence for "authoritarianism" is suspect and the sort of thing that should only be added with historical hindsight rather vs relying on contemporary sources than may be trying to persuade rather than just inform their readers.  Springee (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Writing "whatever that is" after "Trumpism" shows us that you ignoring the article I linked to just there, and that many others have linked to further up in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when does an ideology requires their supporters to be in power for it to be an ideology? This is a complete non-argument. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia should aim for accuracy MappedTables (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * both, assuming we're talking about the infobox. Neither is fleshed out well enough in the body to even consider it at this stage. I'd favor changes to the body of the article that discuss Trump's effect on the party, including at least a mention of Trumpism. Part of the problem here is that §Trump era is written like a summary of the Trump presidency article and goes into far too much detail about things that have little relevance to the party. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft support on adding Trumpism. Instead of listing it on its own, it could possibly be listed as a sub-point under right-wing populism. Given recent events, though, I'm unsure if moving right-wing populism and possibly Christian right out of factional ideology and place them under conservatism as a main ideology or something of that sort. Oppose adding authoritarianism due to the fact it is too general, and even parties universally considered authoritarian like the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, etc do not have it listed in the infobox, instead discussing it in the article body. <b style="font-family: Tw Cen MT; color: FireBrick">HapHaxion</b> (talk / contribs) 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support either of these. Verbally, Trumpism is the lighter of the two; but they both amount to the same. Anti-immigrant, anti-democracy, and anti women's and LGBT rights rhetoric and effections are historically telling signs of authoritarianism. GarethPW (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. "Authoritarianism" is much too vague and broad – as every politician (and parent) supports it. (I'm in charge!) "Trumpism" is vague too. Mr. Trump has one political philosophy (or "ism") – to be the focus. So including it as a characteristic of the Republican Party is putting a non-encyclopedic importance into the term. – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both. There is a dearth of reliable sourcing supporting each of these. I definitely think that they should be, at minimum, listed as ideological factions of the party in the infobox. Cpotisch (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"restrictions on voting rights"
I added references to the Republicans' "restrictions on voting rights" to the lead wording, but another editor has disputed the specific wording as being non-neutral. I feel this is a bit of a double standard, since we refer to "restrictions on abortion" right before it with no objections. Replacing it with "stricter voting laws" does not truly emphasize the position. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a mobile edit so please excuse any brevity. I have also been concerned with both the volume and neutrality of the content you recently added.  I think you have put assertions in as fact and the sourcing isn't broad enough to give the comments the weight you have given them. Springee (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also citing such things as core examples of things the GOP supports, which is beyond ludicrous. I would encourage to stop with these disruptive, inflammatory edits. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Two issues 1) Specific phrasing and 2) Whether appropriate for the lead. I agree that the Republican party generally has supported greater regulation of the voting process; things like voter ID laws and purging of registration rolls have been key party-wide positions for some time.  I think that restrictions on voting rights is likely to be inflammatory phrasing.  I'm kinda agnostic on whether it does belong in the lead, but I think that if we decide it is, I think the phrasing could be tweaked.  Perhaps something like "greater regulation of voting processes" or even just list the concrete things they support or have tried to enact, like voter ID laws and the like.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now the article uses the wording "stricter voting laws to control electoral fraud", which does get at your idea more. ViperSnake151   Talk  20:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources are clear that Republicans want electoral restrictions, not regulation to prevent electoral fraud; that's overt Republican propaganda. There's virtually no electoral fraud in the US; what Republicans are trying to do, and have done so historically (see Democracy in Chains, historians have written about this for decades), is to limit and restrict electoral participation in the US, most notably by making it difficult for people to vote (the US doesn't have voting holidays, doesn't offer paid time off from work to vote, and voting is generally held in the middle of the work week to make it difficult for most people, combined with recent efforts to restrict mail-in voting).  It's by design that the US has some of the lowest voter turn out out of any democracy.  Republicans don't want the majority of people to vote, because when they do, they vote left, not right.  This isn't even debatable, it's a matter of record. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a political rally, Viriditas. I'd recommend you leave the talking points at home. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's exactly the opposite. The political propaganda we're being spoon-fed here is that the Republican Party does not engage in restrictions on voting rights, when the history of the topic shows otherwise, and the key figures, historians, philosophers, political activists, party members, donors, fundraisers, and politicians have all expressed support for voting restrictions.  You're trying to tell us the sun the shining when it's clearly raining. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the material from the lead as this is not a long time party position and in general. I think the large increase in voter related content is still an issue as this is meant to be a summary of the party that covers a period over 150+ years.  A lot of the newly added content fails IMPARTIAL and too much seems to be echoing just a few sources rather that presenting a broader range of views on the subject.  The last two paragraphs of the renamed "Voting Rights" section seem to be a recent play by play with a strong POV pulled from a few sources.  I think the previous version of that text was better.  It would be better to call the section voting regulations since "rights" works both ways and implies that any tightening of regulations is automatically the restriction/removal of someone's rights.  Springee (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of historical record that Republicans in the US support and pass laws that restrict voting and registration. Saying otherwise is pure propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of record that Republicans support putting more things in place that one must do in order to be able to vote. The issue is in the use of pejorative or emotional language to describe that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is Nixon and Watergate completely missing from the “history section “?
Why is Nixon and Watergate missing completely from history?? This seems like a MAJOR oversight? 2603:8001:B507:7B28:1A1:1DF8:2224:5D23 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Nixon is mentioned, although Watergate isn't. It should be included. TFD (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon is mentioned as a name, but absolutely nothing about his presidency or his strategy is. Not the Southern Strategy, not the beginning of "tough on crime" rhetoric, not winning by huge margins, not the beginnings of the modern primary system... It's not just Watergate we're missing here. Loki (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon won the election by 1968 by a popular vote margin of 0.70%, and the election of 1972 by a popular vote margin of 23.15%. The "huge" vote margin was actually less than some of the election victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren G. Harding. We can compare vote margins in List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Brief discussion of Watergate in the history section would absolutely be due. Anyone should feel free to boldly add it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

International Affiliation
I’m not sure if this was already discussed but why don’t the “Democratic Party (United States)” and “Republican Party (United States)” articles’ infoboxes list their international affiliations? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)