Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 5

Neutrality Dispute Under Modern Political Ideology and Political Positions
Describing the Republican Party's modern political ideology with terms such as Fascism, Homophobia, and Irrationality and the party's fiscal position as Delusional is indisputably a partisan attack on the Republican Party by attempting to paint them with controverial words that incite fear and anger as well as words that simply hurt the party's reputation on a non-political basis.


 * Agreed. Doing that kind of thing hurts wikipedia and it's reputation for neutrality. Please avoid using such violent terms such as Fascism, Homophobia and Irrationality unless you can back it up with, for example, a list of the party's core issues compared to a list of the core issues of Fascist ideology and prove that it matches those issues more closely then other political ideologies like conservatism (And I don't mean American 'whatever the republican party says' conservative, I mean conservative in the European sense, since fascist is a European idea). Irrationality, interestingly, cannot be backed up period. And Homophobia's also a hard one to prove. As is Delusional. So, don't bother with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.148.18 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just requested and indefinite semi-protection for this article because of this type of bias; maybe it would stop or slow down people that choose to incite this. Burningview (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Social and economic ideology (Center-Right?)
Am I the only one surprised by the fact that this article shows that the Republican Party has a center-right ideology both on social and economic issues? If the "neocons" are center-right, who would be the right wingers? Just watch some comments of Sarah Palin about inmigration, sexuality, religion, guns, hunting, etc. and you guys won´t see any other politician so extreme as her. I would change that center-right issue, but I just want to know your opinions.--Natxohm (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Natxohm. By world standards the Democratic party is a center-right party -- they can't even agree on a single payer health care system! (I will accordingly post on that page next.) The Republican Party is more like the far-right parties of Europe. While I am not sure "fascism" is yet a fair description I would certainly classify them as "right-wing populist," another term used to describe parties such as the National Front in France and British National Party.Amyzex (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to suggest adding National Conservatism to the list of ideologies currently influencing Republican policy. My understanding of National Conservatism is that it is a political ideology stressing the importance of "traditional values embedded in the family as the center of social experience." (I paraphrased this from the wikipedia National Conservatism article.) There exists a conflict within conservative political parties between economic conservatives and social conservatives regarding which issues should be at the forefront of political campaigns, and in the current and the most recent national elections it seems as though social issues have been Republicans' primary focus. Even issues such as immigration (both legal and illegal) that may be viewed in economic terms are viewed instead in terms of shared national culture and the preservation of traditional social identities. Furthermore, National Conservatism, as it focuses primarily on social issues, allows for a broad range of economic policies ranging from classic free-market economics to interventionist measures. This broad range of ideas is echoed in current Republican policy, as evidenced by the various opinions of that party's representatives regarding the bailout plan. The more I watch the news, the more I honestly believe that the term "National Conservatism" encompasses the school of thought currently dominant in the Republican Party, and regardless of any personal feelings regarding the term, this article should reflect that in the interests of accuracy and objectivity. --Apjohns54 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah Palin does not represent the entire GOP; she's a bit more conservative than the rest of her party. For right-wing, see the Constitution Party.


 * Also, "national conservatism" implies a support of tariffs and immigration quotas (not just border security). This does not describe a very large portion of the GOP. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah Palin is in fact quite moderate: Her stance towards marihuana is quite liberal, and as Alaska governor she vetoed legislation that would ban any benefits to same-sex couples. In the 2006 gubernatorial race, she was endorsed by many high-ranking Libertarian Party members. EmergentOrder (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that Sarah Palin is moderate (even Fox news has not said such a thing) is nearly as peculiar as the idea that the Republican Party is Center-Right. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but there can be no suggestion that either Palin or her party is moderate in any way. 67.68.19.120 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's no way the Republican Party can be consdered center-right on social issues. They're firmly to the right, no center about it, socially. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The two mainstream US political parties are too broad to have firmly pinned ideologies. It is not unreasonable to say that the Republican Party is in general and on average center-right, just as it's not unreasonable to say that the Democrats are center-left. Some Republicans are not center-right; some Democrats are not center-left, but in general the terms are fair characterizations of the parties as wholes. I could just as easily make the argument that the Republican Party is centrist as I could that they are right or even far-right, as apposed to center-right. Center-right is the best choice for this article. 97.77.52.112 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This would have been true 20 years ago. There can be no doubt of the Republican Party's new stance any more.  It is a very right wing party. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As compared to what? To make that call is POV. Soxwon (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe consensus should be written after Political position, seeing as how everyone seems to disagree. Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This all seems a bit silly. Are we really discussing if the republican party is center or center right? After the 2008 elections, it seems painfully obvious that they are nothing but a conservative party. Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Chris Shays, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords and Susan Collins have all been called RINOs, defeated in primaries or forced to switch parties. Snowe even said in a NY Times op-ed that being a moderate in the GOP is like being on survivor and trying to stay on the island; she said its like they don't want you there. The GOP is a very right wing party, look at how its members in congress vote on On the Issues. While there are numerous Democratic moderates and even conservative ones, there are about 10 GOP moderates in Congress now. Look at it's national leaders, all far right conservatives. And about their diversity mentioned in the article; someone please explain that to me with a poll. Also, how is the "Republican coalition" is "diverse". Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele make up just about all of their diversity and they might as well be old white guys. Their coalition isn't diverse; find me one nationally elected republican who supports same-sex marriage or abortion rights. People here say this article's neutrality is in jeopardy, well...it is. Its far too biased towards the GOP in ignoring the reality on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhawk64 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Classifying it as right-wing is not up to your interpretation. Even still, your sweeping generalizations fail to impress, can't by your logic the Democratic party be called left-wing for having representatives such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, John Edwards? Besides, simply snapping a picture of the Republicans while they're down and saying that the conservative representation is what the republicans are isn't accurate. Soxwon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GOP
The article states that GOP stands for "Grand Old Pary". This is a very very common mistake. As per the GOP website, GOP originally stood for "Gallant Old Party". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.93.44 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mormons
In the ideology section, it states "Evangelicals are not the only religious conservative faction in the Party, though: there are also the Mormons, who emphasize traditional family values"

This strikes me as a Mormon slight, as many Mormons are evangelical. Protestants and Catholics are not the only evangelicals.


 * The term 'Evangelical' is used in political and religious analysis to refer to a particular self-identified group of conservative protestant American churches. It is not to say that no other sect or ideological group evangelizes, no more than the term 'Baptist' means no other sect or denomination baptizes. This usage is rather common and understood.--Primal Chaos (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you're mistaking the difference between evangelism and evangelicalism. Evangelism is the act of spreading the "good news", while evangelicalism is a theological trend in, primarily, Protestant denominations. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Free market
The Republicans for the past 30 years have supported a high national debt, high government spending, and supply-side economics as opposed to a laissez-faire free market. If "economic conservatism" means reduced government spending and meddling (including meddling by handing out pro-business subsidies) in the economy then this article should't say that GOP's fiscal policy is "economic conservatism." SteveSims (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise a good question, what should the article say about Republican Party stances when they say one thing and do another?Readin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From a non-POV standpoint, the article should describe both what the party says (platform as well as statements by leading members) and what it does (how most Republicans vote as well as how leaders vote). Probably the best neutral language is to leave out "the party supports ..." and replace it with "the party platform says ..." and "this and that leader say ...." SkyDot (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, they cut spending and balanced the budget after they took Congress in 1994 (Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America), so it's not quite accurate to claim they have "supported a high national debt, high government spending". Even now in 2008, federal debt as a percentage of GDP is down to 38%, below every single year throughout the Nineties and way below the 49% in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled Congress. EmergentOrder (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So the Republican Congress in the 90's gets credit for balancing the budget? But now this huge deficit is all Obama's fault? Interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.10.250.80 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan
Refers to Bush's policy towards some dictatorships; dunno whether it is particularly urgent to change as the gist of the statement still stands.. but there have been significant changes recently; maybe a couple of words to indicate this? heh.. just thought I'd mention it.. 86.160.211.0 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) RJ UK

Is this a joke?
"They support the idea of individuals being economically responsible for their own actions and decisions. They favor a free-market, policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism."

How can a party that supports mercantalism, managed trade, business subsidies, regulations, fiat money, deficit spending, welfare (social and corporate), etc. possibly be considered economically liberal? Josh (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The spin doctors say so. This is a weakness of wikipedia, where whoever edits last wins. SkyDot (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the Bush Administration does not represent the entire Republican Party. In fact one of the major reasons Bush has grown unpopular with Republicans is because of the things you mentioned above. I wouldn't consider Bush a fiscal conservative at all, just a big government spending drunken monkey hiding behind the name "compassionate conservative", ruining the party with his unconservative policies. His administration's economic habits do not represent the entire party's.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you have the GOP's stated positions on one hand (i.e. the lip service to free markets and economic liberalism) and then on the other, you have actual policy, which turns out to be the opposite. I think this distinction can be reflected in the article, and something like the above captures the gist of this gap between what is stated and actual policy (and reasons why the Bush administration has become unpopular with free-market advocates in the GOP). Twalls (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bush wasn't the first big spender. Nixon started the trend when he removed the last vestiges of the gold standard to pay for the war in Vietnam(he decreased the inflation adjusted debt thereby but Ford saw a roughly 100b/yr increase in debt), but the first really big spender was Reagan(adjusting for inflation, adding 200-300b to the debt each year in office). George H. W. Bush continued the trend with virtually the same rate of increase in debt. Clinton reduced the increase in debt to a much lower level(adjusting for inflation the debt was reduced in his final year). George W. Bush then kept right up with even greater additions to the debt(around 400-500b in debt every year). Blaming the fiscal irresponsibility on Bush Jr. is just a marketing tactic. 199.60.239.35 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This actually completely wrong. This idea is not a Democrat/Republican compare and contrast. This is a Conservative/Liberal/Neo-Conservative/Libertarian compare and contrast. The Republican party as a whole, and by as a whole I mean the Dwight Eisenhower Republican party, is Conservative. You have Neo-Conservatives that call themselves conservatives but are more liberal than moderate Democrats. Some Republicans, like Ron Paul, are Libertarians, which is what this part of the article refers to. The Republican party as a whole does not believe in economic self-responsibility. They also don't believe in small, state's-rights government. Why? Most Republicans are pro-life. They made that choice for those that are supposed to be "self-responsible." Not only that, they practice "Reganomics" or "Trickle-Down" economics. This leaves no room for self-responsibility when the bourgeoisie that receives the most benefit from trickle-down makes all the economic decisions and controls the economic climate and future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.202.98 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Republican I find it interesting that most of the comments seem to be from non-Republicans. Just to be clear, currently the definition of "Republican", as it is accepted by the general population, reflects the ideals of the "Southern" Republicans. Ask someone on the street to describe a Republican and they will most likely describe a rich, white, church-goer who works for a large corporation and would like nothing lore than to over-turn Roe v. Wade. This is largely due to the current administration and completely unfair. By the way, many of us are in agreement that Mr. Bush is a complete bozo (although it may have taken us a while to get there). I would like to address Economic Liberalism, which refers to, in its most basic sense, the ability to acheive a financial goal and then have dominion over those finances. Yes, I am sure that there are many "wealthy" Republicans (as there are Democrats). However, the number of working class party members is far greater, and these people, myself included, understand that, in most cases, working toward a financial goal often leads to "wealth". Economic Liberalism is simply the belief in one's right to succeed without a yoke of caveats attached to the paths to, and fruits of, their success. What the Democrats seem to want to acheive with their economic policies, is to penalize those who have acheived these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While vocal and certainly present, I find this particular brand of Objectivist Libertarian thought to have little or no influence on Republican policy decisions, and am hard pressed to find a time when they created party policy.--Primal Chaos (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The tax cuts of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush nod in this direction as one motivation for their passing, if not the only. TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In practice, Reagan and both Bushs increased the inflation adjusted federal budget at a rate no democrat in history ever met. In this context, lowering taxes isn't liberal or conservative -- it's simply irresponsible pandering. 199.60.239.35 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In reality, the President does not control the purse strings of the United States government. That would be Congress. Yes, the Executive Branch does have some discretionary spending (I say "discretionary" as a comparison, when in fact it's more than most of us combined will make in our lifetimes), but it's Congress that passes spending bills and writes monetary policy. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question worth answering...
I have always thought of this question. What is up with the mascots for the political parties? Like, how did political parties base their parties on animals? Anyway, just a question to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupethemonkeyboy (talk • contribs)

The DNC is a donkey because Jacksonian Democrats were called stubborn as asses. The GOP is an elephant because they never forgot about the War of 1812 or something like that. Elephants never forget anything. What I'd like to know is why the Republicn Page is locked and the Democrat Page isn't. Some immature little quasi-socialist Democrats on here, or what? Chenzo23 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard that they got their mascots from the political jokes and cartoons that the press was printing. I think its pretty funny that they would take up the animals as their mascvots when the animals were ment to make fun of the 2 partys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.52.69 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Defanging attempts at insults by adopting them as a point of pride is a very American thing to do. "Yankee Doodle" started out as an insulting term to make fun of American hicks.  We adopted it and sang a patriotic song - the very song that was supposed to make fun of us - about Yankee Doodle.  Then we wrote new patriotic songs about Yankee Doodle.  Another famous example is the homosexual community deciding to stop treating "queer" as an insult and start using it themselves.  Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads did a similar thing.  Another example, though less successful in my opinion, was the name adopted by the "Know Nothing" party.  But in general it is a very effective strategy.  How can you offend someone who takes pride in your attempts to be offend him? Readin (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Why is Dr. Ron Paul nowhere mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.188.149 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because Paul is barely upholds the principles of the Republican Party. He is very liberal compared to true Republicans. Guanako512 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarian," but not remotely "liberal." The man describes himself as "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion;" supported DOMA and criticized a Supreme Court ruling overturning anti-sodomy laws in Texas; delivered a long speech about Christmas, how the Democrats wanted to destroy it, and how the founding fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of a state church but supported a "robustly Christian nation." (An idea disproven, by the way, by the fact that the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If the founding fathers had meant "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national church," they'd have said that instead).

He may seem like a classical liberal because of his positions on economic matters, but on social issues even he doesn't dare criticize the religious right's dominance of the Party. His only substantive difference with them is on foreign policy. Otherwise, he's a Republican through and through, who only sounds different because he emphasizes different parts of the Republican message. The reason he isn't mentioned isn't because he's a liberal, it's because he's so insignificant in party politics that he simply doesn't rate mentioning. 147.9.201.154 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What type of "liberal" do you mean? To me, he seems as conservative as you might say Barry Goldwater. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely the point. Barry Goldwater was not a conservative; he was the last major person in either political party to adhere to classical liberalism, i.e. the belief in small government all around and self-determination for people on an individual basis - in economic matters and in social matters.  Goldwater was strongly pro-choice and strongly pro-gay rights, going so far as to state "Everybody knows you don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight."  He also made a name for himself in the 1980s fiercely opposing the religious right and repeatedly warning against religious institutions intruding into government.
 * Ron Paul has been nothing of the sort. He's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military; and quite the opposite of opposing religion in politics, he is also delighted to use it as a wedge issue when convenient (as the rambling speech about a fictional "liberal attack on Christmas" demonstrates).  If you can imagine Goldwater doing any of that crap, you're on drugs.  On domestic policy, Ron Paul is indeed a Republican and a "conservative" in the modern sense - on economics, small government to no government at all, on social issues, big government guided by conservative religious ideology.  It's a difference in emphasis, but not in substance. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Someone needs to add an l to the "nationa debt" In this line: "Yet, libertarians are increasingly dissatisfied with the party's social policy and support for corporate welfare and nationa debt," under the "Future trends" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.168.88 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Social Conservatism
The Republican Party is the more socially conservative "(from an American Christian point of view)" - social conservatism isn't limited to Christianity. You'll find social conservatives who believe in modesty, restraint, etc, etc, in pretty much every culture on the planet.

Is there a point of view in which a "social conservative" from some view OTHER culture or faith than that of an American Christian would differ in their definition of what is socially conservative...? Would a socially conservative Hindu believe in, say, casual sex? Or would a socially conservative Islamist condone his children experimenting with marijuana in college? Social conservatism is not the purview of Christians, per se, although the faith and the philosophy do have a lot in common...

Just a thought.


 * I see your point. I have removed the parenthetical as unnecessary. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of social conservatism in America is a hardcore antagonism towards other religions. Catholics, Jews and Mormons are tolerated (though not well in many cases), but Muslims, Hindus, eastern spritualist religions, all of these faiths that have an insignificant number of voters and contributors are mercilessly targeted as un-American.  So the "from an American Christian point of view" thing does make sense IMO. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One, hi and welcome to Wikipedia, in order to make strong statements like that, you are going to need to have some good sources. Soxwon (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern Conservatives
Shouldn't it be mentioned in the ideology section that southern conservatives are historically for free trade, the free market,small government, and are traditionally fiscal conservatives. e.g. some of the causes of the American Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.231.252 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because the south was historically for the democratic party all the way until the 60's. It only recently became largely conservative. See: Solid South. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your kidding right? The Solid South was one of the most  Conservative portions of the country.
 * Look at that article he gave you. But keep in mind that the Republican party was more liberal prior to that, and the Democratic party was more conservative. Latics (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental policies
''A considerable percentage ... and doubt scientific studies that demonstrate the impact human activity has on climate change, instead ...'' Someone please show a reference to any of these "scientific studies that demonstrate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.233.253 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I completely disagree with this assertion. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, has gone on record in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, and some of the strongest climate change legislation at the state level has come from Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger. Even the Bush EPA has slowly but surely been moving in this direction recently. I don't think it is anywhere near a "considerable" percentage anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.146.14 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox?
I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Democrat version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox? For example if we were to add that category, George W. Bush would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when John McCain's name would be there instead. Tell me your suggestions. --Shaunnol (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Race
The sentence reading "The majority of black Americans switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, however, when the New Deal offered them governmental support for civil rights" is misleading. The Democratic Party was ambivalent about civil rights through the 1950s. Historians and political scientists agree that economic policy, not civil rights, spurred blacks to begin voting Democratic during the New Deal. As Nancy Weiss' notes in the introduction to her Farewell to the Party of Lincoln, "It was Franklin Roosevelt's ability to provide jobs, not his embrace of civil rights, that made him a hero to black Americans." Lynnmo (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy in the History Section
I reverted the edit that said this:


 * In the 21st century the Republican Party is defined by social conservatism, an aggressive foreign policy attempting to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy, a more powerful executive branch, tax cuts regardless of the national debt, and deregulation and subsidization of industry.

For the first sentence, it is grammatically assumed that they are "attempting" to fight global terrorism (since that's what a platform is), so that word is unnecessary. And I suppose that you wouldn't be fond of saying, on the Democratic Party's page, that "the Democratic party wants to increase spending regardless of the national debt"; neither party seems very considered with the national debt, as with most parties in the world (see: Japan), so I don't see why that should be in the article. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree mostly. The latter I removed as unnecessary because it casts a negative point of view on the stance (the reader should make that decision) without actually making note of anything. I think something should be changed about the foreign policy stance, but attempting doesn't seem like the right way to do it. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to add that the party was founded in a schoolhouse in Ripon, WI in 1854, not in Jackson, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouimet (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

John McCain
I believe John McCain's specific policies are mentioned too often for an article about thte Republican Party. It seems the article has got "caught up" in the recent election exceitement. What John McCain believes is relevant on his page, but not here. TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one become a member of the Republican Party?
I read in this article that the Republican Party currently has 55 million registered members. I was surprized by that high number. In my country (the Netherlands), 45-70% of eligble voters vote, many of these are proclaimed adherents of one party or another. But relatively few of them are a member of a party. To become a member, you have to apply for membership and pay your membership dues. In return, you get to vote the members of the board, and have a say at who will be put forward as candidates in elections. Mostly people that are more than average interested in politics become members.

That has nothing to do with your right to vote. Voting costs you no money, and little time (one election in 4 years for every level of government).

So, I have two questions, that I would like to see answered in this article: Johan Lont (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does become a member of the Republican Party (or another party)?
 * How can the high number of party members be explained?


 * The article gets it wrong when it states that the GOP has 17 million less registered members. This should be changed to 17 million less registered voters, which would align with what is actually stated in the source for the fact. I do not have rights to edit the article, so I would call out for someone else to do so.
 * Kongstad (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Johan, when you register to vote in the US, you can declare a party affiliation, if your chosen party is organized in your state. I think the initial 55 million number reflects the total number of registered Republicans, not members who make the effort to send in money to the Republican National Committee or their state party. The article is now phrased correctly, Kongstad. Thanks for your question, Johan, it's a good one. Twalls (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate minority
Technically, the Republicans do not hold a minority of seats. The current Senate is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. This is not holding a minority of seats. However, Senate rules mandate that Independents must caucus with either Democrats or Republicans. Since the two Independents have chosen to caucus with the Democrats they have a majority for administrative purposes. It cannot however be said in accuracy that the Democrats have the majority of seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.38.253 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on what you say, it is technically correct to say that the Republicans hold a minority of seats. In fact, it would technically be correct to state that the Republicans and the Democrats each hold a minority of seats.
 * I agree however, that saying "the Republicans hold a minority of seats" suggests that the other party holds the majority, and a little more information would be welcome. However, it is difficult to change the sentence such as to make it informative and concise and easy to read at the same time. Perhaps the following text would be a good alternative:
 * Republicans currently fill a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, hold a minority of state governorships, and control a minority of state legislatures. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a majority in the United States Senate.
 * What do you think? (Note: I will not follow this discussion, because of other activities) Johan Lont (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In this same vein, I made this edit a few days ago. Perhaps similar wording can be incorporated here. seresin ( ¡? )  22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a case of judicial activism
'most republicans'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.95.19 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most Constitutional Originalists believe Roe v. Wade is judicial activism, which are typically a subset of conservatives, which are typically a subset of Republicans. But you're right, that's a bit of a loose sentence. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same thing when it says "Most Republicans are skeptical of global warming." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad? I'd really love to see Posner or Bork or one of these originalists show me where corporate personhood is in the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets do a anti-Stealth Socialism section!
Pres. W Bush, John McCain, and Sara Palin are against stealth socialism. There are many issues where the stealth socialism appears. Barack Obama doing the redistribution of wealth via the rich getting poorer. Federal health care very Canadian in nature and they're socialist. Barack Obama is a stealth socialist in that he's a far left emulating moderate democrat, because of his IQ lvl allows him too. The reason why socialism won't work is Australia is #1 GDP and Hong Kong is the richest city in China. Afghanistan doesn't need as many troops as Pakistan and Iraq, because the war is already being largely won. Barack has the most ear marks between the two candidates. His father was a part of the Kenya socialist union and his connection with terrorist Professor Bill Ayers which teaches socialism. He's lying about reducing taxes, when overall hes raising them and it's only good for democrat negative ads. I believe Barack doesn't like nuclear energy, because he doesn't want to fund Yucca Mountain waste storage. The Congress having the 2nd highest corporate taxes on earth and the highest is Ireland and they're Labor party. Acorn is socialist in that it only does voter fraud on perpose. It has like 50 felons in the organization when the FBI investigated. Democrat party doing race baiting to hide their superiors (Nancy Polisy, Barack Obama, Harry Raid stealth socialism. Renegadeviking13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the subject of the article, i.e. the Republican Party? Is "anti-Stealth Socialism" part of the official party platform? I've never heard of the term before. If you believe this issue has relevance with respect to the 2008 presidential elections, and can come up with something that is not original research, has a neutral point of view, and can be supported with verifiable and reliable sources, you might want to take it up in one of the candidate articles.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Primal Chaos (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is neutral. Brazil, Europe, and Canada have a socialist system and smart people know if it. It's a concept of doing things, and republicans like me think that market socialism is completely alien concept, because we've been capitalist for 200 years. Why is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh screaming socialism. This is not original research.

Stealth Socialism Resources  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1K4whIv4M0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALTTCC6DcYU seanhannityfox.blogspot.com/2008/05/socialist-usa-media-cover-up-stoopid.html  forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=977471 www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtfrpFK6iPY www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100108/content/01125106.html  http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48T5Y020080930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3742/Default.aspx blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/06/gingrich-warns-fellow-republicans-of-possible-disaster/ forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=975051 (photo of Obama with socialist leader) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/palin_14 (to avoid a Great Depression II) www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4 (video saying using socialism to avoid a Great Depression II)  http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MCVDIQOB (temporary)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=C42IOFX1 (temporary) http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8F11DCB6 (temporary)<P> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W186190W (temporary)<P> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KWHAURIT (temporary)<P> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QND6C5CA (temporary)<P> http://www.uploading.com/files/3a8m8c92/Beck_Arguing_with_Idiots.rar<P> http://hamstershare.com/dload/3cabe8d634826d1b5d8a251585f4932f<P> Renegadeviking15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, Wikipedia does not even have a article about Stealth socialism, and despite of all the YouTube videos and other resources you listed, I am not convinced that it is a valid concept to describe political realities.
 * On a side note, many countries have been undemocratic for 200 years, and democracy is a completely alien concept in those countries. That, by itself, does not prove that democracy is a bad concept for those countries (nor does it prove that it is a good concept). But that too, is of no relevance to the subject of this article.
 * I had rather you could give an answer to the question I posed above: "How does one become a member of the Republican Party?", which nobody seems to be able or willing to answer. Johan Lont (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you can type in "Barack Obama Socialist" into google and find some fascinating facts or even type it into Google Video. We're mirroring the UK and their Labor Party vs. Conservative general elections. Labor party doubles as a liberal politics party to balance the political spectrum. Stealth socialism key is The Democrat Party want to use Stealth Labor Party Politics until after the election when we'll hear how much more socialist the democrat party is. That's past the election though.

Barack denying his redistribution of the wealth is socialist ideology is one stealth tactic to stay competitive in the 2008 election.

Stealth socialism is hidden in the word 'nationalization'. Both words mean the same thing. The nationalization of health care is directly cloning Canada's, but a stealth socialism politician wants to use the word 'nationalization' as a "stealth word" instead to win the election knowing damn well the public is against the word socialism. You can sweet talk the American people into it with the words like nationalization. Redistribution of the wealth from the rich to the middle class is considered socialist. Much like how China has no corporate taxes for poorer people in China. In the US, Barack's plan of having no taxes on people earning less then 28,000 a year including illegal aliens is emulating China. The fact that Bill Clinton wasn't as opposed to the military as Barack Obama is says socialism. Not using the most highly advanced military in the world is pretty damn weird for a moderate democrat, but not unusual for a stealth socialist politician. Don't you find that between November 2007 - October 2008, that Barack Obama lies more than John McCain on many topics in that he quote "may not take military option off the table", his "tax cut comments" have double meaning [in that he spends more than McCain, close to a Trillion dollars in new spending],

To answer your question on how to become a republican; the congressman absolutely must support Reaganomics and are against The Third Way politics. Being pro-military is highly recommended, but you can avoid it like Ron Paul has seceeded. Due to Ron's higher IQ, he can avoid being impeached much like Barack Obama can avoid obvious Stealth Socialism detection. Republicans against the military or Iraqi war is highly weird. Finally, all Republicans have faith in capitalism w/o Treasurer funding large banks long term and right now it's a 3 year deal. Republicans strongly oppose a post-three year US treasury stake in US financial companies. Republicans are against UN politics, because UN politics don't get things done as quickly, because Russia and China always oppose many ideologies in G8 summits. Renegadeviking2:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, if you're going to suggest something like "stealth socialism" as a reasonable topic for debate in an atmosphere where objectivity is valued, you might want to come up with sources in support of your claims that are a little more reliable than people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh.--Apjohns54 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I got Newt Grinwich and Rudy Giuliani saying that stuff. I have Rudy on Meet The Press and Newt at his website. I'll find a Youutbe video quick. There is lots of references. Here is a 7 hr Obama biography and it mentions socialism many times. #1 New York Times Best seller done by Dr. Jarmony Corsei himself. He's a part of the Constitutional Party, but it's also right-wing and doesn't mention Constitutional Party at all in his audio. 61 MB download. <P>

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NCIW2DB7<P> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K2W3KO1Y<P> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ECBEV7HQ<P>

Renegadeviking2:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that mainstream politicians are a lot better than pundits as sources, but you have to keep in mind that both Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich are Republican politicians, and would thus have an easily-identified ideological bias. It's a common theme in political discourse in this country that people speaking from one side of the spectrum will condemn those on the other side as being in possession of political positions more radical than they actually are. It's true whether somebody is on the left or right; some on the right are quick to denounce measures put forth by left-leaning Democrats as "Socialist", and some on the left have attempted to characterize the measures of Republican administrations as "Fascist" (This has been especially true during the Bush years). I'd still hold off on constructing such a section until a purely objective account can be obtained, maybe look into the characterizations put out by some non-partisan think tanks? I've read a lot of Marx, and I've studied a lot of the historical examples of Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism, and in my personal opinion, Barack Obama is nowhere near being a socialist- much of his platform seems similar to FDR's New Deal, which met with a lot of opposition from leftists because they felt like he was rescuing capitalism, which many now agree he in fact did.--Apjohns54 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d125d9dbM2U Hehe. I was right all along. Renegadeviking10:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If by right you mean that Palin doesn't have a clue about what socialism is. Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Australian capitalism or Hong Kong capitalism. Of course she knows socialism is...Washington DC is the closest thing to socialist city. We've been experimenting with capitalism in D.C. and GOP knows it doesn't work at all (except for the coffee shops) You can't have DC voting, because employees all are educated with liberal education and it the registered voters can't be 95% democrat. I always imagined the GOP becoming a [| liberal party] [1. We're turning into Oz of America anyways.    That's my 2 cents.

Renegadeviking10:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln and the Republican Party
The statement in the History section that the Republican Party "rejected" Lincoln in the 1864 election and instead nominated John Fremont seems to be erroneous. Most Republicans, along with some Northern Democrats, backed Lincoln in forming the National Union Party. If you look at the list of | RNC chairmen for 1864-1868, you will see that this includes the chairs of the National Union party. Therefore the Republican Party would seem to consider the National Union Party to be contiguous with itself. Furthermore, those Republicans that split with Lincoln did NOT continue under the Republican Party moniker, but formed a "Radical Democracy Party". It was this party that nominated Fremont in 1864. Fremont himself stopped running in September 1864, after reaching a political deal with Lincoln. Therefore, this shadowy "Republican Party" that rejected Lincoln for the 1864 election in effect did not exist. I would urge that a correction be made. Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Made the correction. Konchevnik81 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthropogenic
the word anthropogenic which appears in the article should be linked to the corresponding wikipedia article Astupidog (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party removing my Socialism section
The democrats are removing my true information, because they're socialist. This has got to stop. Please keep them from removing my true information.

Saved information here

''On October 20, Sara Palin/McCain campaign officially called the Obama campaign socialist with their redistrobution of wealth/nationalized healthcare. . This is a response of Joe The Plumber asking a simple question and getting pinned down by the press who wants socialism apparently. One of the earliest published books mentioning socialism used by a major party in recent times was The Obama Nation. Market Capitalism is very dangerious according to Sara Palin and John McCain. It's not really capitalism at all, but there isn't any other term for it at the moment. Maybe Democrats are trying to copy Australian economy. President Bush hosting International summit to do prevent socialist-capitalism hybrid economy in 2009 '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're still wrong. Second of all, just because the Republican party or individual Republican politicians say it doesn't make it an objective truth. Third, I highly doubt you're going to find anyone as susceptible to purely conservative punditry as you that will back up your outrageous claims. I have explained to you the actual ideological equivalent to Obama's platform, and you're still wasting everyone's time with misinformation and completely ridiculous claims. The one who needs to stop is you. If you actually understood a single bit of what socialism really is, you wouldn't be classifying a pro-capitalist, American-mainstream political party as "socialist." Your sources are wrong, your thinking is wrong, you are wrong. I honestly have no idea how else to say it. If you waste peoples' time, your submissions will continue to be deleted. Come up with something verifiable with objective sources (NOT the Republican Party itself, or conservative commentators), and you'll have better luck. Anybody else want to contribute here?
 * On a side note, if you're going to make an addition to an article, I would suggest you use at least something CLOSE to proper grammar to do so. Thanks!--Apjohns54 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suffice to say including such inexact and awkward wording does not help the article or add any useful information to it. Renegadeviking contributions are not expressed in a measured or coherent way and amount to pure polemics. People tend to get caught up in the news of the day and insist on including their take or POV here. There is also the perceived persecution ("Democratic Party removing my Socialism section"), which sometimes adds to certain users' urgency to add material to an article.


 * Many people have many different ideas of what socialism is; some would say a 3% increase in top tax rates amounts to socialism, or perhaps any welfare, health or voucher program; others would say any instance of a large and inefficient state bureaucracy; some would point to forced collectivization and mass starvation under 20th century communism as prime examples of socialism in practice. Others would still name all of these, or in fact any usurpation of individual rights by a collective or government. Many economists cite government spending as percentage of GDP as a measure of how socialist a country is. And there is any one of several theoretical definitions of socialism.


 * I do not, but one could say Obama's platform is socialistic, or tends that way; but then again one could arguably make the same charge of John McCain, who seems comfortable with the status quo (the bailout of financial markets, as well as his campaign promise of government purchase of private mortgages). Twalls (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in on this. I should have mentioned that my classifying Obama's positions as non-socialist stem from the traditionally accepted theoretical definition rather than historical examples- public ownership of the vast majority of the means of production, coupled with a wide variety of extensive social welfare programs and comparatively higher rates of progressive taxation than are commonplace in American political-economic policy. When I argued against the "socialist" classification of Obama's platform it was this purely theoretical definition I had in mind and had not considered the various subjective interpretations, so thank you for bringing that up.
 * I still feel that per the commonly accepted academic definition of socialism, Barack Obama nowhere near fits the profile. Some aspects of his policy can be construed as social-democratic (at least by influence, if not practice), but even they are few and far between. It's pretty widely acknowledged that the United States, rather than being a purely free-market system, is instead a mixed economy, which allows for a limited amount of state intervention. Like Communism, there is no example, past or present, of pure reconciliation of the system's implementation with its original intentions in free-market capitalism. Therefore, in our mixed system, the label "socialist" has become a mere pejorative in American political discourse, rather than a label to denote an actually-implemented form of government, or the advocacy thereof.
 * It's my central premise that Obama's platform is not socialistic due to the distinct lack of support for broad-spectrum nationalization. While he supports the partial nationalizations of aspects of the financial sector, most mainstream politicians from both parties are more or less in line with his view. His support for a single-payer universal health care system cannot be viewed as nationalization, as he hasn't to my knowledge advocated the elimination or nationalization of existing health care corporations. If he advocated such measures, thus making the government the sole provider of health care, than the term nationalization would be far more accurate. As far as I know, his advocacy of nationalization is isolated to the financial sector.
 * Without the advocacy of broad-spectrum nationalization, he cannot be anywhere near an actual socialist. While extensive welfare programs are a characteristic of socialist systems, the absence of predominantly publicly-owned industry eliminates the validity of this label. Barack Obama is no doubt a supporter of New Deal programs and of the welfare state, but these alone cannot conclusively classify him as a socialist, or even a mainstream social democrat.--Apjohns54 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wow. Three days go past and I get some democrats talking on the GOP site! How quant. I want to say that your messiah/genius is fucked up! Lieing and stealth is his career. What I mean is when McCain says redisrotution of wealth; that's socialism/labuor party. Now, I know when this is like public domain; you guys can bullshit me all you want. The fact remains, Obama is Labour Party or Democrat socialist of America. Socialism is a dirty word, but hells bells, he's one of them so let the s words fly. You're crazy weirdo wikipedians. Bill screams commumist than socialism...priceless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rR2OwaY1c No doubt, stealth is Obama. Stealth Socialist with a British or Australian agenda that is. PS. I hate your communist Fairness Doctorine too. That's so you can put socialists on our republican radio stations, the last place on earth for conservative opinion. You're no better than Josphoh Stalin! What makes us conservatives think you're insane is you won't even admit Obama party is Labour Party right here right now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3tCO4aKntA Renegadeviking
 * RV, I think you're confused about what Wikipedia is. This is the discussion page for the article on the Republican Party. It's not a "GOP site" where Republicans hang out and talk to each other about how horrible Obama is. It's where Wikipedia editors, regardless of their personal political opinions, discuss how to improve the Republican Party article. Obama is pretty irrelevant to that (and progressive taxation, at rates we had in the 1990s, is not socialism regardless of how many times you say it). Also, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before you get yourself into trouble. —KCinDC (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry having Obama a most far left socialist politician in the senate doesn't calculate to your parson politics that is supposed to be neutral to people with IQ of 70! Socialism doesn't wrok on American capitalism, because look at what happened already? For all I know you could be European!

Check out the why McCain wants nuclear. For nuclear revival to work, you must vote GOP, because one of the primary concerns for nuclear power is where to store the waste. Thatr17;d be Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada. Completion date: 2020. Yucca will hold waste for the next 100 years, because it is the largest government project of all time. Barack Obama refuses to fund Yucca Mountain and wants to shut it down, because he is a socialist with an agenda. Sorry, but itr17;s true that energy wattage will go up 50% by 2030, and nuclear power plants which account for 20% of the nations energy will be retired and he need more nuclear power plants just to tread water here (replace the ones that exist).

I just caught the first half of CNBCr17;s Nuclear Option, and it mentioned that the South Texas nuclear site wants to double in size and is one of largest two nuclear reactor site. There has been plans to expand it to twice itr17;s size so another 27 megawatts which is about 2 million homes. . There are 20 cities who want to be the first to build a nuclear power plant in 30 yrs or face blackouts. Most of our plants have been in operation for 30 yrs and have a full life of only 60 yrs with technology being developed to bring them in operation longer. Wer17;ll need increase in nuclear power, because power demands grow. Nuclear absolutely needs to be a part of the equation. McCain is the only presidential candidate to empraise nuclear power in this country. The workload for electricity is growing dramatically in the Southeast. This has generated a lot of interest in nuclear power in the US. One nuclear power plant built means the elimination of 11 million tons of CO2 over a coal plant. Nuclear power plants would be to the equalization of $15 a barrel of gas compared to $120 a gas barrel would normally cost. 96% of the spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into nuclear energy, and the 4% is nuclear waste.

Why is nuclear good? Well, gas plants omit CO2 and prices are incredibly high, coal has all the issues of fossil fuel appliance costs associated with itself, wind and solar are certainly a part of the equation, but can not support sustained power generation. We need a nuclear Renaissance just to stay at 20% nuclear in the United States. It generations lots of income for schools and government in small towns.

So we need nuclear energy so that is a good reason to vote John McCain, the only man who can build new power plants for us. Democrats are so slow at it, that wer17;ll have blackouts. And remember now, we have technology (invented by France) to reuse 96% of the spent nuclear fuel.

PS I added socialism comment to the main article

(All the above from CNBC's Nuclear Option airing earlier today! Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC).


 * If you want to suggest how to improve this article (what talk pages are for) on the US Republican Party, you can do so. If you feel an important aspect of the current GOP platform is being ignored in this article, such as nuclear energy, you may say so. However, your comments, unwillingness to engage in actual dialogue, and expletives and insults, particularly the one that was just removed, are just disruptive. Accusing the "Democratic Party" of removing such edits reveals a temperament that's not ready for prime-time editing. That edit to the main article about "Democratic Party socialism" was not removed for any reason having to do with the Democratic Party. It was removed because it was simply a poor edit and out of place in an encyclopedia article. Just to make an analogy, it's like going to an article on the Target store chain and writing "For more on Wal-Mart's dirty bathrooms, please check out the talk page" Twalls (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Leaked audio that where Barack Obama actually admits he is a socialist/labour party politician. Boohoo. I guess I'm still right. Renegadeviking —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Partial Government Ownership of the financial industry?
There's a portion in the introduction of the article that mentions that the republican party supports partial government ownership of the financial industry. While that is necessarily true (because of what happened in the past six weeks), is that appropriate in an introduction? Also, do they support it like they support the other major parts of the GOP? Because I think Congress had to sort of support it.

I'm curious if we're talking about this or not.... 74.68.158.239 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bush administration, Bush appointees, and the Congressional leadership of both Democrats and Republicans supported it; however, several individual members voted against it, and the official 2008 platform includes a plank clearly opposed to any such transfers from taxpayers to financial institutions:


 * "We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."


 * Clearly, party platforms often diverge from actual policies parties pursue; it's wholly appropriate to note this in this article, properly cited, of course. Twalls (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it is appropriate to not in the article, but I too question whether it should be in the introduction. It is to narrowly focused for the broad strokes of the intro. -Neitherday (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Education
The graphs about which party has more four-year degrees is misleading. It shows of democrats/republicans, what percent have degrees when what really should be shown is of people with degrees, what percent vote democrat/republican. If anyone has the latter graph please post! Sidewinderaim9x (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's something fishy about the source of those graphs and the statistics therein. It's a book which claims Republicans are better educated, harder working, healthier, more politically informed, more intelligent, more scientifically minded, and the list goes on. Pretty much the only thing it claims Democrats are better at is having promiscuous sex and taking drugs. Most of the text is available from Google books. Peasaep (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The education section is definitely dodgy. Although the evidence is anecdotal, my experience is that most professors, esp. those in the sciences and liberal arts, are Democrats. If Republicans were the most educated they would also be rampant on university campuses.

History
The Republican Party started with a longer official name. That's what I am looking for. If someone knows it, you might include that in the history section. Thanks.

There is an inconsistency in this article. In the introductory paragraph, someone says that the Republican party was founded in Jackson, MI and in the section on the history of the party it is said to be Ripon, WI. According to the GOP's own history narrative the first (informal) meeting was in Ripon (in other words, they created the party there) and the first official meeting of the new party was in Jackson, MI. I have edited this, but someone may want to clean up my edit. Jdsmke (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Democratic-Repulicans? Soxwon (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Teapot Dome scandal threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924." The structure of this sentence is misleading. VP's historically had little authority during this time period and mentioning Coolidge seems in this sentence just seems odd. Some citation or sourcing (reforming of the sentence) would be beneficial regarding public opinion at the time, keeping in mind that it was the secretary of the interior who was historically the culprit. I support Harding being mentioned and the "threatened to hurt the party" portion. Can anyone find a good source for this though? --Akane00 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

democrat/democratic
The Republicans were defeated at the polls by the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Lglenn21 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else pointed That out! Thank you Lglenn21. Matt2h (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New President
The first paragraph still has George W. Bush as the current president of the United States Chemaleon (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)chemaleon
 * That would be because George W. Bush is the current president of the United States. Barack Obama is the president-elect (although constitutionally not even that until the electoral college votes) and GWB is still the president. After noon on January 20, 2009, the article should be changed. Which, by the way, you can do. seresin ( ¡? )  00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nation's first Religious Party
It has become clear that the Republican Party in its current form is our nation's first thoroughly religious party. It is the National Christian Party or the National Evangelical Party. Its policy positions assume (not only ignorance or anti-intellectualism, but) an adherence to protestant or evangelical Christianity. It is no longer possible to be a consistent atheist Republican or Muslim Republican. The party has become intellectually populist and inherently religious, and nowhere has that been more clearly enshrined than in the figures of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.Matt2h (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From the 2008 Republican Party platform;
 * "Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed."
 * Regardless of their electoral campaigns and the way they're designed to bring fundamentalist voters crawling out of the woodwork, the party does not officially endorse any religion, denomination or church. A lot of Republican ideology comes from evangelical beliefs?  True.  But a lot of it also came from a psychotic lowlife named Ayn Rand, who as you may see was rabidly antireligious.  A lot of GOP foreign policy comes from Zionism, by definition not a Christian ideology.  The modern Republican revival began with Barry Goldwater, who was deeply Christian and just as deeply supported the separation of church and state and opposed the religious right.  The list goes on.
 * It's not accurate to say that the Republicans are the National Evangelical Party. Like all political parties, the GOP is an alliance between different groups whose interests overlap enough for them to vote the same way.  Christian fundamentalists are just one of these interests, a very vocal one but not the dominant one. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's clear that the Republican Party has become a religious party then why is theoconservatism not listed as a part of its ideology? Surely we can agree that the religious right is the base of the party just as much as liberals and progressives are the base of the Democratic Party. It seems logical that theoconservatism would be mentioned well before such a minority group as the libertarians. Since this article is protected, I'd like to have a justifiable reason why theoconservatism and the influence of the religious right is not more heavily explored seeing as how numerous polls and statisticians agree that they make up the largest portion of the party. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Party box controversy
My change for adding neoconservatism to the ideology was reverted, as was my removal of the fiscal conservatism box. Well, you really can't call the Republicans fiscal conservatives anymore, what with their support of trillions in bail-outs and deficits. Also, in the past, they never held center-left beliefs: please read the article on what center-left means and explain to me how the Republicans in the 20th and 19th centuries were anywhere close to that. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTHESIS, back up what you have said with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for the party being center-left in the past, when even a quick skimming of the article would indicate that the GOP was nothing close to that. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care, you had no reason to keep taking out Fiscal conservatism. Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What caused the reversal in the ideas of the Republican party?
The Republican party was founded by people who opposed slavery and were for keeping the Union together, while the Democrats were the ones creating the Confederate States of America. Now days the Republicans proudly fly their rebel flags while the Democrats are the ones who are sympathetic to the history of slavery. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have the wrong idea, both parties were and still are all about getting the vote no matter what they have to do or say (/cynicism). However, that aside, the Radical Republicans were for abolition more for the vote than anything else. The Democrats lost the South after the Civil Rights Act by LBJ among other things. I'm probably oversimplyfing things quite a bit and if anyone else knows the subject better feel free to correct me. Soxwon (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both parties' ideology changed after the Civil War. The Republicans, who had just been born and weren't known for much besides abolitionism, evolved over time into the party of big business (there were other interests too, but they were increasingly dominated by that one as time went by).  The Democrats had been broken by the Civil War and had no ideology to speak of; they basically became a catch-all for voters who for whatever reason didn't like the GOP.
 * In the South, those voters were the people who'd just lost the Civil War (i.e. white people); in the North, they were inner-city immigrants who started arriving in the late nineteenth century (mostly Catholics and Jews, definitely not WASPs). These people became the two wings of the Democratic Party; in the North, the Democrats were the protectors of minorities against the established ethnic order, whereas in the South, they were the opposite.  That's where the dichotomous outlook of the Democratic Party on civil rights originally came from.
 * After the New Deal however, the Northern wing became increasingly dominant, mostly due to FDR's welfare programs which expanded the Democratic coalition to include not only white Northern workers but also blacks, who until then had voted Republican (or not at all). The party also started giving a greater role to Catholic and Jewish intellectuals, helping to further break down the "ethnic order" in the North; the logical next step was inclusion for blacks.  Cue Harry Truman desegregating the military, John F. Kennedy pushing for civil rights, and Lyndon Johnson forcing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through Congress.
 * In the meantime, the Great Depression had turned the Republicans into the party with no ideology (the small-government faith they stood for was shattered by the Depression, and never really came back); therefore they became the catch-all party, as the Democrats had been before, picking up whatever voters had grievances with the liberal-run political order. Starting in the seventies, the biggest such group was white Southerners, who were angry with the Dems not only over civil rights but also other issues like the anti-military movement, the secularization of society and others things that persist to this day.  The Republicans simply adapted their ideology to fit their new base and the rest, as they say, is history. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Republicans have always been a party of Eastern wealth and were opposed to the power of slave-owners rather than slavery. In order to get elected they have always appealed to ordinary people, whether workers and farmers in the the North-East (who were anti-slavery) or later small town people in the South (who resented the Civil Rights Act). But while they have been responsive to the views of their supporters, they have never ceded power to them. Note that there is still tension between the party establishment and the "grassroots". Similarly the UK Conservative Party followed a path from Tory Socialism to neoliberalism, while remaining the party of the establishment. Civil Rights was the catalyst for the realignment between Democratic and Republican supporters in the South. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Deuces. Shorter and more perceptive than mine.
 * Out of curiosity, who did the "Eastern Wealth" support before the GOP? Did the Republicans flow out of the Whigs and Federalists, or were these two just completely different parties that were crushed and never came back?  I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much about pre-Civil War America as after. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The predecessors were the Federalists (1792-1816), National Republicans (1825-1833) and Whigs (1833-1856), (all dates approximate) which all ultimately failed because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened. There is a continuity of leadership and membership among these parties. Between the decline of the Federalists and the establishment of the National Republicans, they briefly found a home with the Democrats. Each new party would generally be more broadly based than the predecessor. The Federalists can be traced to various pre-revolutionary "court" parties that supported British government. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Moderate Senators
I edited that because Olympia Snowe is a moderate New England Republican, (along with fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Judd Gregg). Lincoln Chaffe was really not the last moderate Republican in the Senate. Sorry I wasn't signed in when I edited it.Rs09985 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the numbers of Senate seats that Republicans hold
I don't know if this is caused by my browser or if it's actually wrong, but looking at the infobox, the numbers of seats in the House is displayed by some kind of blue-and-red bar (red from Republican), while seats of the senate lack that bar. I'm not good with tables & I can't reinstate it, so someone else please do it, unless of course it's my browser's fault. --96.232.58.180 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed in . I don't know the details of how works but I compared to Democratic Party (United States) and found that adding a space at the end of a line fixed it. Maybe the problem was that a timeline image was not stored correctly somewhere, and many other tiny changes could have fixed it too by generating a new timeline image, but that's just speculation. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Future trends section - crystal ball?
Aside from being pretty obviously outdated, is anyone else concerned that this section seems to possibly fall under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? The section doesn't seem to revolve around third party analysis but rather around the attempts of partisan commentators to rationalize an optimistic view in their favor. It seems to be attempting to 'crystal ball' the future of the GOP. I would support removal or a heavy rework of this section to actually comprehensively summarize the extensive third party discussion of the future of the GOP that is presently occurring. I personally favor deletion as the latter strikes of news and not encyclopedia. Thoughts?Locke9k (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking the same thing while reading it. It should probably be eliminated, and that goes for the article on the Democratic Party as well if future predictions are included.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

explain the end of the solid south.
Added 3 sentences from the History of Republican Party to explain that after the breakdown of conservative coalition the solid south became republican. The change of the south from democrat to republican is arguably the most important political factor in the last 50 years. And explains how the republicans reached a majority in the senate and house. It is clearly more important than the fact that republicans supported protestant prohibitionists in the 1870s. Nitpyck (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more Democrat History the way it is written. I'll see what I can do.Soxwon (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The South was Democratic (with the exception of the civil war and reconstruction) for the entire history of political parties in the US until the shift from the solid south to the Republican south in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the 1970s the Republican Party has the southern states as its main bastion. This shift should be mentioned. Rather than deleting rephrase. Just "In the 60s and 70s there was a seachange and the Republican party became the majority party in the southern states." would do". Nitpyck (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon of the "solid south" is much simpler than the way it is described here, and is so well known to most Americans that it hardly needs an explanation. However, I will provide an explanation for the benefit of our European cousins, who understandably have a less avid interest in the history of the USA, and for that reason might not be familiar:


 * During Reconstruction the Republican Party was in favor of equal rights for African-American people, including former slaves. Those equal rights were enforced on the Southern (formerly Confederate) states by military occupation.  For that reason white racists were anti-Republican, and were therefore driven into the arms of the Democratic Party.  (Even though Democrats at that time were not necessarily opposed to equal rights, they were not ideologically in favor of equal rights as the Republicans were.)  Since white racists dominated politics in the South after African-American voting rights were curtailed at the end of Reconstruction -- roughly 1877 -- the South was "solidly" aligned with the Democratic party, since it was the only practical vehicle for opposing the Republican Party.  This situation persisted until the middle of the Twentieth Century as a matter of tradition.  Those in favor of equal rights tended to be Republican because the Republican Party was regarded as the "party of Lincoln."


 * However, the "solid south" of the Democratic Party started to break up when Democratic President Harry S Truman issued Executive Order 9981 integrating the armed forces. The so-called Dixiecrats broke off from the national Democratic party and ran Strom Thurmond as a segregationist candidate for President in 1948.


 * When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted by a Democratic Congress in response to the urging of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, the disenchantment of white racists with the Democratic Party was complete. From that time to the present, white racists have been firmly opposed to the Democratic Party, which means that they have overwhelmingly been supporters of the Republican Party, since it is the only practical vehicle for opposing the Democratic Party.  (Even though present-day Republicans are not necessarily opposed to equal rights, they are not ideologically in favor of equal rights as the Democrats are.)


 * Although white racists no longer have an absolute stranglehold on politics in the South, as they did from (roughly) 1880 to 1960, they still control the outcome of most Southern elections, especially in regard to Presidential politics. Additionally, white racists have a substantial influence on many elections outside the South.  In the Twenty-First century, the white racist vote remains the cornerstone of Republican electoral success, whenever and wherever that success occurs, although the other factions cited in the article also contribute. Paul (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that explanation is extremely, well, black and white. You take no consideration for cultural climate or for society. For instance, it wasn't "equal rights" that the Radical Republicans sought, or at least not the only reason. They also had a lot of votes to gain by disenfranchising white voters and giving blacks the vote among other reasons. The Republicans had been the party of the Union and the Democrats the party of the Confederacy (hence the phrase "waving the bloody shirt), so naturally southerners clung to their former way of life (no, not just slavery) and voted Democrat. The South was devastated after the Civil War, totally and utterly destroyed. How would you expect the Southerners who fought for their 'country' to react when the party they fought against began to order edicts and then took away their vote (all the while giving it to ppl you considered inferior and ppl that the Republicans considered somewhat inferior)? I could continue in this fashion for the rest of the little "summary" but you get the point. I'm in no way excusing the behavior, nor am I saying any of the violence and racism of the South is acceptable. I am, however, saying that to simply preach 'evil whites, want to take away civil rights, evil evil' is really rather childish. Soxwon (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Soxwon, please note that I did not use the word "evil" in my summary, nor did I use similar words. In a political discussion, it would be ridiculous to imply that white people are evil as a group -- for one thing, white people are a majority in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party -- and I made no such implication.  Furthermore, I never stated or implied that the Radical Republicans' motivations in the late 19th century were pure -- motivations are essentially never pure in politics, and certainly not in this case.  The Radical Republicans certainly backed equal rights for black people in Reconstruction, for whatever good and bad reasons.  Yes, I quite agree that it is understandable -- even inevitable -- that white southerners would be anti-Republican after their defeat in the Civil War, with its widespread destruction and humiliation.  As for the turnaround in the 1960s, a host of observers at that time (including both the Democratic president Lyndon Johnson and the Republican president Richard Nixon) acknowledged that the Democratic Party had lost the South for the next several decades by pushing through the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965.  That is not to say that the Republican Party of today is an inherently racist party, merely that it is electorally dependent on white racist votes.  These facts are obvious, and both sides acknowledge them.


 * Really, Soxwon, I don't think you and I disagree in any substantial way. Not all whites are racists.  Even white racists are rarely "evil" -- ignorant, often; fearful, often; angry, perhaps; evil, rarely.  Please reread what I have written before you accuse me of preaching "evil whites," etc. -- I am simply describing what happened, not vilifying or whitewashing anyone's motives.  Excuse me for pointing out the obvious -- I wish the other contributors here would quit ignoring the obvious.Paul (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "white racists" is loaded and should be used lightly (and if you have seen the lynchings, the acts, then you'll know goes above and beyond ignorance). Secondly, during your entire characterization, the only reasoning you gave for the south being against Republicans was racism, and then went on to say that the south was solidly democrat because it was against the republican party, hence the implication of racism being the driving force. Soxwon (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course some racists are more extreme than others. When you cite "lynchings," you have cited the ultimate extreme manifestation of white racism.  A great many racists who were not extreme enough to approve of lynchings were nonetheless strong segregationists.  A great many racists who were not extreme enough to approve of statutory segregation nonetheless approved of informal segregation and/or racial discrimination via "gentlemen's agreements."  And a great many racists today will disavow all the abuses of the past but will nonetheless contend that discrimination is a thing of the past, that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be allowed to expire because there is no longer any movement to disenfranchise black people, that there is no need for any type of Affirmative Action because blacks already enjoy preferential treatment as compared to whites, or whatever delusion du jour they may favor.


 * Of course racism -- be it subtle or extreme -- was the driving force behind the Democratic "solid south" of roughly 1877-1947. Of course racism is the driving force behind the Republican domination of Southern politics today.  Of course the civil rights acts of the 1960s effectuated this reversal.  It is obvious.  Everyone knows this.  Lyndon Johnson knew it, and said so.  Richard Nixon knew it, and said so, as did many others.  You know it too, Soxwon.  Pardon me for restating the obvious, but as for you, please do not disregard or obfuscate the obvious. Paul (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the characterizations of the Republican control of the south being only racism. To claim so is an insult to many southerners. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is a vast and dishonest oversimplification of the dramatic shift that took place in American politics in the post-war era. Issues of importance to southerners like gun-control and abortion, which were never issues at all before, began to gain political importance at the end of the 1960s and especially in the beginning of the 1970s. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First official meeting
How is it that the first official meeting was held in Jackson, MI and Madison WI? Simultaneously? This doesn't seem to make sense, and the reference cited for the Madison entry doesn't clearly support the claim. Agathman (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version is not very accurate, and much of what was added (origin of the term and the part about Wisconsin for first official meeting) is directly challenged by the other sources. I'll return it to the older version. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am from Wisconsin, so am not entirely unbiased, but I do know that the RNC formally endorsed the history that the party was first established in Wisconsin. They did so at their national convention in the early 1880s when the principle players were still alive. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still the position of the RNC. See below:

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.
 * [RNC About Us] - Capitalismojo (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?
Should there not be criticism of the party and its policies? It would provide a more balanced article I believe because it seems to be full of haigography. Liberalcynic (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticism's should placed in the appropriate sections, not in one section of the article. Soxwon (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole article is criticism, because it's biased. This is article is basically "The Republican Party according to Democrats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.226.154 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The GOP is not Centrist from a Global POV
Wikipedia is a Global encyclopedia. The American political spectrum is very oriented towards the Right-Wing, and using the same tags for the Republican Party and the Conservative Party in the UK is highly misleading considering these parties are nothing alike. If anything, the British Conservatives are like the Democratic Party. In any case, from a global POV the Republican Party is Center-Right; Right and this is especially true considering the mass exodus of Liberal Republicans/Moderate Republicans since the 1980's and beyond.--Saffron831 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the Republicans rose to power from the 80s on with the help of the moderates as evidenced by these sources: . As for America being more right-wing, that's debatable. There are plenty of right-wing governments througout Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc. Even in Europe the right has a voice such as mentioned by Marcel Lubbers, Peer Scheepers, and Merove Gijsberts stated in "Extreme Right-Wing Voting in Europe." Not to mention political victories by such parties such as the National Alliance in Italy, and even to some extent Berlusconi. Soxwon (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think left and right vary by country, Saffron. It is relative, and it would probably be inadvisable to use a "global" perspective on this issue.  If done, most Democrats in the United States are rabid right wingers by European standards.  Let me illustrate:  Proposition 8 was passed in California by a clear majority of Blacks and Larinos, yet they voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the election.  Hardly liberal by European standards on such a social issue, n'est pas?   --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first person here. Center-right is a gross misrepresentation of the Republican Party. There is an accepted spectrum of left-right wing politics, and the Republican Party is right wing on all of these spectrums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.163.62 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Self Identification
I have recently added several polls from RS showing that the republican party self identification is significantly older than the now outdated registration figure given in the intro. Soxwon has reverted this addition, citing his personal opinion that polls are just snapshots and therefor apparently should not be included in the article. First, if you believe that, I would encourage you to find RS to that effect. Second, at least one of the two polls shows a long term level of low to mid 20% self identification, demonstrating a long-term level, not a "snapshot". I have thus reinstated the material. Feel free to take a look at the link to verify this fact. I'd be happy to have a discussion on the new material, and if you can supply some RS stating that self-identification polls are worthless, or if you can find some differing polls from RS, it might be worth reevaluating inclusion. Otherwise it is hard for me to see any NPOV reason to exclude them. Locke9k (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, those polls are snapshots, as polls from the 2008 election showed self-identification up to 27%, and overall 21-22 was the lowest on the poll, hence the "snapshot" comment and why I objected. The polls you provided showed it stayed consistently at around 26-29 percent for most of the time periods given, and with a plus or minus range of 3, that can indeed be roughly a third of the electorate. Soxwon (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply not comfortable with "roughly a third of the electorate, which is 33.33%, when as you say this poll for example shows 21%-29% over the last 17 months. Furthermore, this material is much more up to date than the 1/3 figure.  I don't think it is appropriate to look back at very old data in assessing the current state of the party.  I'd be comfortable having the range for the last year (which would be 21-26 percent), and saying so in the statement.  How about something like  "polls over the last year have shown that 21 - 26% of Americans self-identify as republicans."  I agree that something like that would give a better overall picture than simply giving the latest month.  I'll implement that wording for now in the hopes that you will agree that it is improved; obviously feel free to edit it and continue discussion here. Locke9k (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the way you edited it, it also sounded like the Republican Party had been passed as the second strongest party. Soxwon (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was certainly not my intent, so thanks for catching it. Locke9k (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

opposition to aristocracy and corruption?
While "opposition to aristocracy and corruption" may or may not be values of the Republican values (trying to avoid a political discussion), I fail to see how the name "Republican Party" echoes those values any more than the names "Federalist Party," or "Democratic Party," or even "Socialist" party. It would make more sense to explain the importance of these values in the early party, rather than say that the party's name reflects those values, which seems in some ways like an empty statement (at least without an explaination). I can't edit this page and therfore can't add an explanation.

the above by Babelbo (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

THEREPUBLICAN
[Therepublican.info] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Howard (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Realism and neo-realism
Hi, I disagree with the article's following statement, as I deem it factually inaccurate:


 * "Today, the Republican Party supports unilateralism in issues of national security, believing in the ability and right of the United States to act without external or international support in its own self-interest. In general, Republican defense and international thinking is heavily influenced by the theories of neorealism and realism, characterizing the conflicts between nations as great struggles between faceless forces of international structure, as opposed to the result of individual leaders, their ideas, and their actions. The realist school's influence shows in Reagan's Evil Empire stance on the Soviet Union and George W. Bush's Axis of evil."

This paragraph is self-contradictory. Realism and neo-realism both emphasize in their philosophical foundations that a nation's establishment should deal with adversaries as they are, instead of trying to transform everybody else in their own image. Whereas many realists tended to agree with Cold War leader's handling of containment and deterrence, most present-day realists (most famously Walt, Mearsheimer and Waltz) opposed the Iraq War for precisely the same reasons, as they claimed that Iraq was pretty much contained and no threat to the world's balance of power in 2003. However, neither party's foreign policy prescriptions can be cleanly, neatly and purely identified with realism or liberalism. A more precise statement would summarize the different currents concerning foreign policy, and that neoconservatism, a more activist form of liberalism and a rejuvenation of Wilsonianism, gained support within the Republican Party at the end of the 1990s. Neither should the party's long tradition of isolationism, though currently not as important, be neglected. --Kriegslüsterner (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"founded by abolitionists"
The intro says (without a source, or without it backed up by a source elsewhere in the article, as far as I can tell) that the Republican Party was "founded by abolitionists". While it was certainly founded by people opposed to slavery, my understanding is that they were not at all considered abolitionists. Self-declared abolitionists were considered extremists and never wielded any political power in the 1800s. There was a big difference between the ultra-radical Abolitionist movement and the mainstream Anti-Slavery movement, the latter of which the GOP embraced. I think the definitive source to back this up is Eric Foner's book "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men". here is just one of zillions of examples within the book where it shows anti-slavery Republicans not identifying as Abolitionists. I'd change this but anonymous editors cannot edit this article right now.

Basically, I'd like to have the wording:


 * "Founded by abolitionists in 1854,"

changed to:


 * "Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854,"

My version is supported by sources cited in the article, the current version isn't. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have investigated this as much as I can, and I think that you are right. It is not referenced; it is, later in the body, referenced as "anti-slavery expansion activists". Therefore I changed it. Thanks. ✅  Chzz  ►  00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was quickly reverted by Soxwon with the comment "if you'd bothered to look in the history, you'd have seen the reference", but despite that, the language about abolitionism was added with no comment, much less a reference. Referring someone to "the history" is a weak argument anyway... there are thousands of edits to this article. I "bothered" to look in the history and found nothing but a specific lack of a reference. Also note that my version was in the article for years, as well it should have been. This inaccurate "founded by abolitionists" wording is what's new. But if there's some magic source that debunks everything I've read by recent historians, Soxwon can point it out and prove me wrong... just claiming it's "in the history" isn't enough. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I meant the history section, the last word must have gotten cut off. Here is the reference I was referring to: The Origins of the Republican Party by William Gienapp. I'll look for the exact wording. Soxwon (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the history section, as currently written, also supports that the Republican party was not founded by abolitionists, but by people in favor of "free soil, free labor, free land and free men" which is not a position very accurately described as simply "founded by abolitionists". --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. What I was referring to was the idea that the first thing to hold the party together was anti-slavery. However, I would not disagree with the change. Soxwon (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I believe the thesis of Foner's book even was just that (that they said a lot of other things early on, but the main reason the party came to exist was anti-slavery/free labor). I unfortunately can't make the change, being a lowly IP who just happened by this article randomly. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-done. (I don't think that we have an icon for that!). Cheers, both, esp. Soxwon for explaining; I've reinstated the edit, as, as far as I can make out, it is a valid critique. Thank you all. Be careful - a civil and mutual understanding - you might start a trend :-)  Chzz  ►  03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Lowly IP; please see Why create an account? -   Chzz  ►  03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imprecise assertion
"Polls over the last year have found that twenty-one to twenty-six percent of Americans self-identify as Republicans."

This is an imprecise assertion in several respects: 1) what polls (with what authority); 2) when is "last year"; 3) what does it matter how persons "self-identify"? konetidy (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll used was cited in three sources and is 3 months old. It would be good to possibly find a more recent one. Soxwon (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson, Michigan
Does the Republican Party really belong in the Jackson, Michigan category, just on the grounds that the party's first convention was held there? Just after other people's views on this. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Categorization, categories are to be for "defining characteristics." The Republican Party is not a defining characteristic of Jackson, Michigan, and neither is Jackson, Michigan a defining characteristic of the Republican Party. So, I will remove that category.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Add reference to Republicans for Environmental Protection formed in 1995.  350.org
Add reference to Republicans for Environmental Protection formed in 1995. 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.10.191 (talk)

Democratic party article?
It is safe to say that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the two most influential political parties in the US today. As such, their articles should be homogeneous in that they should both have the same sections, with the information presented for each respective party. --Vreddy92 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On what policy do you base this? Soxwon (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are changing -- time to update the page -- misrepresents conservative ranks in US
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group. See,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx


 * Conservatism is not the same as the Republican Party. That belongs in the Conservatism in the United States article; because a new poll also says that only twenty percent of Americans identify as "Republicans" A8UDI talk  13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been a Republican for my entire voting life. I hardly recognize our party. Why are you not supporting Doug Hoffman? He stands for everything as a Republican we believe in. If this party continues to head down this path of destruction there will not longer be a Republican party, you will be obsorbed into the Democratic Party and it will be Independents standing against you and I will be Independent. Nancy


 * First, I'm a Democrat. Second, this isn't a forum about what's right/wrong how one should be or shouldn't be; this is about an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for more info. Thanks! A8UDI talk  02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Official Color Red?
I remember back in the 1970's, 80's and even the early 90's. All the political maps I have seen were blue for Republicans and red for Democrats. Why has the media(?) changed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.41.34 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because during one particular election some stations showed the Republicans in red and the Dems in blue, and some guy wrote an article about the huge swaths of red on the map. It was rather unfortunate and confusing. I associate red with socialism, Democrats, and anti-Americanism. I associate blue with conservatives and America, and Republicans. It always confuses me when I hear "red state" and the speaker means the Republicans as I expect just the opposite.

It is not the official color. I'm pretty sure neither party has an official color.Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2000 election was when the colors "switched". Some believe the GOP became associated with red (the color of "power") when the change in power of Senate came about, giving Dems the "old [British Empire] power" color (Dems controlled Senate for decades before the '90s GOP revolution).  Of course, it's all speculation.  It could've simply been one intern in a TV network control room in NYC who decided it for the remainder of time... we may never know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.183.239 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither party has an official color. Every time I hear people talk about red and blue states, they associate red with republican and blue with democrat. I honestly think the whole "official color" part should be taken out as neither party has stated an official color. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was one intern in a TV network control room. According to the Red states and blue states article, "On election night that year there was no coordinated effort in the media to code Democratic states blue and Republican states red; the association gradually emerged." Proud Ho (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think an intern would even have the decision-making power to decide the color assignments. I'd imagine the color assignments being a decision between the anchorman and the higher ups in the graphics department. Proud Ho (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Up until 2000, there was a lot of variation, but in general, the in-power party was portrayed with blue and the out-of-power party was portrayed with red. So when Clinton was President (1996, 2000 elections), the GOP challenger (Dole, Bush 2) was red on all of the maps and the Democrat candidate (Clinton, Gore) was blue.  In 1984, 1988, and 1992, the Republicans were the incumbent party (Reagan and Bush I) and so the Republican side was blue and the Democrat side was red.  But after 2000 when red states and blue states got so much attention, the media just stuck with that designation. --B (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one seems to agree on what the former colour allocation scheme was with some saying the colours alternated between incumbent and challenger every four years. And different media outlets used different colours, so past references to "Lake Reagan" or the Fords yelling "Go blue!" may not be indicative of universal usage. However since 2000 focused attention on maps of political divides the colour scheme froze on the ones used. I think the Democrats now use a slogan like "turn it blue" for some of their campaigns but don't know if any Republican campaign actually talks about turning a blue state red. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite all this talk, the current color associations remain in usage in society and media. Pundits and politicians use the jargon as well as blogs, magazines, television shows and regular people. However, it should not be labeled as "official" and then right next to it have in parenthesis as "(unofficial)," its simply pointless and needlessly contradictory. It should be labeled "associated color" instead perhaps. Until the time where it becomes an anachronism to use, I believe the color associations should remain in place. Also, take a look at their website and tell me what color is used the most. Answer: red.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism
I noticed that under ideologies there is no mention of libertarianism. I have always known the Party to have a Libertarian wing. (Ron Paul for example). I personally think that Libertarianism should be added, what do you guys think?

Dunnsworth (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, it's really a separate party. Libertarians tend to vote Republican because the libertarian party has no realistic chance of winning any elections. So basically, there are many libertarians that come into the Republican party because they prefer it to the Democratic party. I guess this could be mentioned, but I don't think libertarianism should be taken as part of the Republican party.

I've added the term "classical liberalism", which in my view is quite accurate. I wouldn't mind adding "libertarianism" too - think of policy issues such as free trade, low taxes, strict constructionism, support for second amendment rights, school choice, the right to work, social security privatisation, private health savings accounts, and so forth. The Republican Liberty Caucus is still an important force. Maybe the term "libertarian conservatism" would describe it even better: Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal can certainly be described as libertarian conservatives, and the GOP is still an implicit coalition of libertarian conservatives and social conservatives, which many refer to as "fusionism". EmergentOrder (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either classical liberal or libertarian conservative would be correct. "Free trade, low taxes, strict constructionism, support for second amendment rights, school choice, the right to work, social security privatisation, private health savings accounts, and so forth" are all policies that conservatives also share.Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think libertarianism should be added because, while the points people have made are valid in the areas where conservatives and libertarians agree, there are numerous points where they diverge such as: marriage privatization(Basically same-sex marriage), an end to the war on drugs and legalization of anywhere from several to all drugs, pro-choice, pro-assisted suicide, non-interventionism. These positions are entirely antithetical to the Republican Party. I believe classical liberalism or perhaps right-libertarianism maybe be appropriate, but not solely "libertarianism."--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article in dispute
See this edit as one example of POV-pushing. The national debt had stabilized by the year 2000, but since then, under Republican control, the national debt has exploded. Cheney's quote is "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections.  Our due is another big tax cut." How can one conclude anything but that in the 21st century, the Republican Party favors increasing the national debt (which is nothing but an accumulated sum of all years' national deficits) in favor of tax cuts? --Art Smart (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One might conclude that. However, the article cannot. Another reliable source must conclude it; to do so ourselves would be original research and synthesis of sources. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No synthesis involved. Facts are facts.  According to Treasury Department, the national debt as of 01/22/2001 was $5,728,195,796,181.57.  As of 07/31/2008, it was $9,585,479,639,200.33.  That's a 67% increase in the 7.5 years of Republican budget control.  I propose adding the treasurydirect.gov reference to my previous edit.  Does that work?  --Art Smart (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that the national debt has risen 67% during the 7.5 years of Republican control, of course. Saying anything else is not supported directly by the source. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. That works for me.  --Art Smart (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What you added is not factually accurate, much less neutral. The way you added it makes the nonsensical claim that one of the definitions of the Republican party is a 67% increase in the national debt. That is not correct. The fact can be added somewhere else in the article; section 2.2 seems the most apropos, although it would probably need a bit more information about the general trend of increased national debt. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party, at least so far in the 21st century, is defined by tax cuts and preemptive wars regardless of their impacts upon the national debt. That's all I was trying to say until you wanted it reduced to a 67% increase in the national debt so far this century.  Please clarify your point.  Thanks.  --Art Smart (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither party cares about the national debt. You can see this by virtue of the Democrats having a majority in both houses yet the deficit is still increasing. This doesn't belong here, but Politics of the United States. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Without 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats are stymied by the Republicans. Several Democratic attempts at dealing with war funding failed due to Republicans winning cloture votes in the Senate.  And what about the Cheney quote?  He's the one who has pulled Republican puppet strings all these years, from Bush on down.  You won't find a Democratic leader who says "deficits don't matter."  --Art Smart (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the Republican's fault that they won't the babysit the Democrats when they're fiscally irresponsible? Both parties are responsible for the deficit. Clinton increased the debt, Pelosi passed unbalanced budgets. Either put it on both pages or neither. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Always assuming good faith, I'm confident you honestly believe what you are saying. Please back it up with neutral reliable sources, and edit the articles accordingly.  If I or others find fault with the neutrality and/or reliability of your sources, we'll take appropriate action.  Thanks.  --Art Smart (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of Clinton but actually Lightspectra, Clinton decreased the national debt, do some research.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this so please be kind, but if you are going to discuss the size of the national debt over time shouldn’t it be measured in the terms of percentage of GDP, or another measure that translates more accurately over time. --Cferguson62 (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also new, but... this discussion really needs to make clear what the term control means. I could argue that Republicans in control of congress balanced the deficit in the 90's. Since Democrats have gotten control of congress in this century, the deficit has grown at a faster rate than before. I'm just playing devil's advocate, but each individual trying to claim a party has complete control over government when they don't is being intellectually dishonest. -- matt

Center verses Center-Right
The fact that, in the historical past, the Republicans had a large centrist wing and implemented centrist policies at times is pretty clear. The bald statement that it used to be solely and exclusively "center-left" is silly. Similarly, even though there is a strong center-right (Giuliani, Thompson) and right-wing (Hunter, Tancredo) current in dominance in the Republican Party there is still a centrist wing and a centrist current still present.

Thus: 'Center, Center-right' would be the best way to describe it. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Future trends sections has no sense. can somebody delete it? A realiagnment to favour the GOP is just impossible.Eros of Fire (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what the section is about. It's about what types of people will constitute the GOP in the future (with is an open question with no easy answer). 24.32.204.89 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither party in the global spectrum is more than center-(something). Even Tancredo (on the right) and Pelosi (left) would be centrists in many other democratic countries, not to mention the marginally democratic. The furthest right the American republicans could be is 'center right' without being US centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.139.77 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that would be according to whom? Soxwon (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you never lived outside the USA... Arnsy (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you base your conclusion of the Republican party's positioning on? Soxwon (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, I would say the Republicans our more Centrist than Democrats at present, as most "friendly" nation are in control by IDU member parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.212.89 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly be serious? The Republican party more centrist than the Democrats? In most countries its pretty centrist to support a government-run healthcare system and large welfare system and yet the Democratic platform calls for neither and the Republicans are against these things to the point of decrying fascism and communism and demonizing people using religious connotations. People amaze me....--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The solution to this problem is pretty simple. Get some reliable sources to support things. Our opinions don't count for anything and a lot of this material presently smacks of opinion or original research.

A few updates to certain polls...new section needed for separation
Specifically, the pie chart in the Voter Base section. If you do the math, it shows 43% of people registered Democrat in 2004. While I will not question the accuracy of that chart, a recent poll shows that self-labeled Democrats is at 37.5%, while 32.1% claim Republican, instead of 32.1%. The biggest difference is Independents, which jumped from 25% to 30%. Updates are needed. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek Article
2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek ArticleNewsweek Article as per Republican activist Grover Norquist.

2012 Republican presidential nomination Newsweek ArticleNewsweek Article: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/tags/Absurdly+Premature+2012+Watch/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.68.163 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Laissez-Faire? Since when?
Considering all the crap that the Republicans have done in the name of "saving the economy," can we really leave laissez-faire on there? Regardless of what they say, we should judge based on their actions, not on their words. In other words, I suggest we remove it for lack of evidence that it still applies. Disagreement? J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  03:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your POV is clear.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * POV? What POV? I'm merely pointing out that the Republicans (namely Bush, whom I voted for twice) have interfered in the markets numerous times in the last couple of years, and advocated even more interference. I'm not saying this in a, "Oh, I can really make those Republicans look bad if I remove laissez-faire from their article on Wikipedia!" What I'm saying is, given their recent track record, I wonder if the laissez-faire tag is still applicable. (Oh, and thanks for trying to paint me in the POV light. Like that's not something that disagreeing people do regularly.) By the way, what happened to no personal attacks? Instead of making some sort of coherent argument (like Soxwon did), you immediately attack me? You might want to read all the rules before you go tossing them around. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, they are by and large more free market than their opponents (they are usually the ones associated with smaller government). Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it matter if they say they are more of something than their opponents? Based on what I've seen recently, they are all for the opposite of laissez-faire when they are in power, but when the Liberal/Progressive big spenders grab the power, suddenly they are not only opposed, but offended that someone would think of interfering with the markets! Of course they are opposed to something that the Democrats are wanting to do. Hell, even some of the Democrats were against TARP and the first stimulus (by that, I mean the one back in '08, where people got checks). Again, what I'm saying is that things change, and the Republicans are no longer laissez-faire about the markets. Small government and free markets are not mutually inclusive. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Based on what I've seen recently"
 * That's the problem, recent can change in the blink of an eye. You need something more longstanding other than what has happened in the past few months. Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can agree with that. While I am not convinced of them being laissez-faire, I can see your point. I'll leave it alone for now. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Trends
Alright, I was hopeful that the section could become some sort of long term vision for the party done by academic scholars. However, in its present form the entire damn thing is nothing but partisan bickering over the prospects of the party that are updated as the situation changes. That's not the job of an encyclopedia and is a clear violation of WP:BALL and WP:NOTNEWS to some degree. Soxwon (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides on the issue, but you need to revert and discuss, not revert and revert. If you have a problem with the section, then please ask for consensus here. Last I checked, your account doesn't have some special privalage of "Final Say" on what goes in and out of an article. Please wait for consensus before deleting an entire section, especially one that has been in the article for a while.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Soxwon. The section is a violation of policy, and should be removed (or, in this case, it should stay removed). J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed this section to "Trends" and have removed the prognostication as best I could. It can hopefully do a lot better as a section describing present trends as documented in reliable sources. Locke9k (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Questioning the statement "sanctity of the American Constitution"
The United States Constitution is defended by many groups in piecemeal fashion. The American Civil Liberties Union is known for defending particular rights, while the National Rife Association is known for defending another set of rights. There are also constitutional issues that remain unresolved, notably the legality of abortion. It is baseless to claim that the Republican Party has a monopoly on the enterprise of defending the "sanctity of the American Constitution" when a variety of interest groups exist all along the political spectrum that defend particular principles or even particular interpretations. With this in mind, I am removing the statement "sanctity of the American Constitution" from the article.Sjrsimac (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this statement should be removed given that no source is provided for the claim. It is dubious for the reasons stated by Sjrsimac, and smacks of opinion and original research.Locke9k (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's nice to restore sanity. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Centre right?
When did this party become centre-right? When did the Democrats become Centre-left? Someone should state that the American public define them as a centre-party, while Europe defines the Republican and Democratic parties as right wing. --TIAYN (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Republican Party is American, the article is US-centric and is correct in stating that the GOP is center-right in the American political spectrum, while the Democratic Party is center-left. It's true that both parties are further right on social and fiscal policies than European parties, but relative to each other, the Republicans are to the right of the Democrats and vice versa. In the 19th century, to a certain extent, the parties' ideologies were reversed; Democrats were pro-state's-rights and strongly socially conservative, while Republicans were abolitionists and progressive. In short, the election of FDR in 1932 is seen as the most prominent realigning election, but up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed there were a significant contingent of conservative Democratic politicians, primarily in the South. Ever since Nixon's Southern strategy, the Republicans have been solidly conservative, socially and fiscally. See realigning election: United States, particularly realigning election: Possible modern realigning elections in the United States for more information. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

End "center right/center left" discussion!
STOP! This "discussion" has gone on too long and NO ONE has clarified or concluded anything about either party's alignment. Obviously there is no consensus. But it seems silly to have an article about a political party and not describe it's alignment. My view is remove the "discuss" tags and leave it as is. Foreignshore (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

ADD: The name calling and trash talk here is unacceptable (see the first entry, for example: the "flying monkey circus" ... etc.)  This is an encyclopedia. There are other places to sling insults like this. LEAVE IT OFF WIKIPEDIA or I will remove it myself. Foreignshore (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

Deleonism and/or Leninism Democratic Party: Call Democratic Party either!
Why not post my previous sections. I wrote all of this information in the deleted wikipedia posts. I believe that Barack Obama if he's not a communist, than he is a Deleonist or if he is a communist he is a Leninist. If you read the Socialist Labor Party webpage, he is clearly following the socialist tactics. Andy Stern, from Service Employees International Union visited the White House 22+ times is a Deleonist, because he stated that he is Marxist. 

Can we call the Democratic Party Deleonist now. Obama's healthcare plan is setup to fail, that's Leninist isn't it? the capitalist private insurance is being redistributed of wealth with the large underfunded (compared to what it once was) and expanded medicare and that'll fail, because it's a Marxist ideology. So it's like an enviable public option which happens with men who believe in marxism. They want things to fail. He wants Cap and no Trade in green politics. The green party believes in social democracy. That's a marxist philosophy the Democrats have. Green Party believing in social democracy would point the Democratic Party to a Deleonism. Communist Party USA supports the Obama administration. 
 * When did social democracy become communism? --TIAYN (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Deleonism isn't communist, yet it is social democracy with Marxism. That's it in an eggshell. The EPA director Lisa Jackson did say if US power distributer (corporations) do not allow Cap and Trade, there will be Cap and no trade (translation: Marxism)  Even more simple, nuclear power could only help Americans with electricity costs; but Marxists don't like capitalism anyway and it should be clear to you that building new nuclear power plants is out of the question.   As far as China having nuclear power plants, Shanghai and other cities really does has smog problems so precisely why they don't care about nuclear power plants which will clean the air considerably. When the President says he was around Marxist people; you should take his word for it.

Another thing to note is China and India, one communist and the other socialist, have put capitalism characteristics into their economies, and now these countries have what resembles a middle class. Those people are more Leninist than Deleonists, but if you don't want "GO THERE" than Marxism-Deleonism is a way out or at least a work-around. Another thing is about everybody having nationalized healthcare in other countries available to everyone and why it's so cheap is: Reason A: more doctors with better educations. Reason B: More Doctors period. Reason C: American Doctors get paid $24,000 annually while Indian doctors are $1,800 USD. Here are some quotes that states Obama is a Marxist ''Obama stated that a mentor to him in Hawaii was Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card carrying member of the old Communist Party USA. He writes in his book that when he was 'confused', he would seek out communist rallies with Marxist speakers. While at Columbia, he meet Bill Ayers, who was a prominent Communist, and befriended Edward Said, who was the President of Columbia's Communist Party. The Obama campaign has hired many former communists, and the ones that have been exposed have been fired or quit. For example, Obama's Muslim outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi. Obama's health care, tax, welfare, spending, and foreign relations policies have all started at highly communist points. During the primary, and now final campaigns, he has tempered his policies to address all criticisms, but 'off camera' moments have revealed that Obama still very much intends to carry through with his original, highly socialist and communist plans. Anita Dunn is a A Self-Admitted Marxist and is the official press cordinator of the marxist White House. She likes Mao Zedong Thought and Mother Teresa Van Jones like Hugo Chavas who is a Marxist.''

A way out of communism is Deleonism if you wanna add it under ideologies to Democratic Party page. Renegadeviking



Centre-right
What criteria are we using to describe the Republicans as centre-right? They're the most right-wing major party in the western world - not exactly Sweden's Moderate Party (who are also described on Wikipedia as being "centre-right", implying the words simply means you're not a fascist) or the old Progresive Conservative Party from Canada - and advocate social positions, for example, that would be flatly rejected by the electorate of any W. European/N. American country (not) the United States. That they've taken "centrist" positions in the past doesn't alter this fact: taking said positions is typically a precondition of ruling over a large populace democratically, and the Republicans are nonetheless fueled ideologically, if not always pragmatically, by a strand of radical individualism particular to the United States. The flying monkey circus of the GOP are far right, no one with their sanity would class the GOP's efforts to ban abortion undermine science as centre right.

In any case, if the Republicans are to be defined as centre-right, we should obviously seize using these descriptors altogether, since that automically places David Cameron on the communist-left or something and thusly invalidates the entire process of forming definitions based on gauging the international climate.
 * This has been discussed many times before. What justification have you for calling it the most right-wing major party in the world? Is it more right-wing than The People of Freedom or the National Alliance of Italy? What about the popularity of the right-wing populist movements? And what of the Alliance for the Future of Austria and Freedom Party of Austria in Austria; the National Front (France) of France; the Progress Party (Norway) of Norway; the Vlaams Belang of Belgium; the Dutch Party for Freedom; or the German National Democratic Party of Germany? And that's just in Europe. Perhaps you should review your sources before making such statements. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those parties have less than 20% of any legislative branch of their country's respective governments. They are not exactly major parties.99.34.51.12 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic party is center-right overall. Overall, the Republican party is between mainstream conservative and the far right. Anyone who lives in any country outside the USA understands this. The political compass is a good source that has been referenced by many people. It is certainly a reference this conversation can build off of: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008. --Surcer (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Politicalcompass.org is merely one guy's opinion. It is not an "org" despite paying the extra dollar on the domain. This should not be cited in wikipeida as a neutral source nor be the basis a conversation can build off of.  Please research your sources more carefully. Chudogg (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon you're just kidding, the National Front has never been in exercise, and of course the BZO is often seen as far-right. The main right-wing party in France is the UMP. Wich (it surely bother me to tell this) is on the left of your Republican Party, but surely right-wing. To tell Republican Party is "Center Right" is outrageously POV. I totally agree with Surcer, in every Europe the Republican Party is seen as close to far-right. Arnsy (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not for the lfe of me understand how this party is listed as centre-right. The democratic party is centre-right. If you look at the positions of this party, this is the most conservative party in North America, and as someone said earlier, anyone outside the US would realize that. JCole416 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of the books referenced by this article describe the Republican Party as politically right-wing, The Right Nation and Turning Right in the Sixties. I have edited the article to appropriately reflect these sources.Sjrsimac (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not delete the term "center-right" from the article. There are elements of the Republican Party that could be classified as center right, and that should be acknowledged in the introduction. In the same vein, there are members of the Republican Party who have expressed more right-wing views. In similar fashion to the Democratic Party of the United States, the two principal political parties must "cover more ground" when only two parties are present.Sjrsimac (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I do not have access to your books, the second seems to be about the change from the traditionally more liberal republican party to the more conservative party that we see today. I will try and get a hold of these books and see what they have to say. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable. In the meantime, I recommend that the labels of "center-right" and "right" be listed in the article as disputed terms.
 * That is fine, I usually insist that the terms should be used in the long run and not based on short-term shifts like the recent months (though with the wins in New Jersey and Virginia even that argument is starting to lose steam). Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with this conversation is that "right" is a relative term. Let's take a quote from our very own wikipedia article on right-wing, shall we?


 * "In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right generally imply support for preserving traditional social orders with hierarchal or private control of wealth."


 * With this definition, there is vanishingly little about the Republican party that can't be described as "right wing". For an organization to be center-right, they would have to be center of someone else who is even more enthusiastic about that perspective.


 * You definitely can't call the Republican party "the most right-wing party in the free world" simply because the world is constantly spawning far-right nutcase parties that want to push an extremist agenda. Usually, however, they stay small and non-influential. It may just be that countries where the far-right parties would flourish wind up with oligarchies or theocracies instead of a party system. Certainly the neo-con movement was an attempt to push the US towards (but not necessarily into) oligarchy.


 * If you take the Republican party as a matter of individual members or positiions, the party spans from extreme right to center left. It's a continuum, not a location, and it's relative. Certainly the leadership of the Republican party is center-right compared to Rush Limbaugh, but I don't think we can call Rush a reasonable perspective to view Republicans from. From a populist perspective, the entire government is right wing (Democrats, too, by action if not words) because they have an extremely difficult time staying out of the pockets of the corporate interests.


 * The truth of the matter is that, for Americans and much of Europe, the American Republican Party is the poster child of right wing politics. They are the most influential of right wing organizations, and are the yard stick by which other right wing organizations are measured. They are, in fact, the Essence of Rightness. It's very difficult to claim that the Republicans are slightly center of themselves. Robert Rapplean (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is the problem with claiming that the Republican Party is swerving right. The Party itself is NOT swinging anywhere but to the left (as a general direction, not as a current position). The party base, however, isn't swinging back, they just aren't going to put up with the lies and corruption anymore. And, I hate to say this, but that is not an ideological shift, that is people trying to hold their representatives accountable for what they are doing, as opposed to what they said they were gonna do, and the platform they ran on. The problem that conservatives have with "moderates" is, for the most part, they all ran on a "conservative" platform. Claimed to only support conservative ideals and such. Then, they went to Congress and did whatever they damn well pleased. That's not the Party being intolerant of moderates, that's the Party being intolerant of liars. As for the Democratic Party, the Party itself is not shifting, however, I would like to see someone try to prove to me that the leadership of the Party (i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.) has not shifted dramatically in the last few years. If you could build that case, then you should go to law school and you could make millions. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be explained how they have shifted. But that is really not germane to the topic at hand. I think the Republican party's ideology should be listed as center-right and right-wing. Take a look at the party's representation in the Senate. You have two moderates (the Maine senators), several moderate conservatives (Murkowski, Voinovoch, Lugar, Hutchinson, Graham, McCain, LeMieux, Gregg) and the remaining 30 hard-core conservatives. In the House there are around 40 members of the Mainstreet Partnership, a group thats relatively moderate on social issues and conservative on economic ones, and the Republican Study Committee which comprises 100 hard-core conservatives. So it seems more than fair to have the party be labeled as center-right and right, despite the numbers being tilted fairly heavily in the direction of just the right wing of the party. For my other reasons for why this party should be labeled right as well as center-right see the below section on "center-right?" because I feel it unnecessary to repeat myself.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"center right" ?
I recommend rewording this to read "In the U.S. political spectrum, the party's platform is considered more conservative than the other major US political party, the Democratic Party." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there is some contention about the GOP being "center right" with regards to the social and fiscal policy. IMHO, the party has banked pretty far right; I'm pretty sure there are reliable sources that indicate such, but I haven't any to cite right now. I suggest we do some digging to see what sources say, and go from there. I further suggest we should keep the contested tags in place until this is squared away. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a continued discussion of this above. This should be based on a larger picture rather than snapshots (For instance, I would argue that your position is incorrect with the election of moderates in the recent elections). Soxwon (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the frame of reference has a significant impact. I have my own opinions on the appropriate of a "center" label with regards to the GOP, however the real issue is what reliable sources say.  I didn't see or read the discussion above, but I'll go back and check it out.  However, it sounds like the real issues surround how to define the social/fiscal category.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice discussion. I believe that whatever we decide, we should share with the Democratic Party Page. Many editors have a long standing consensus that they are a "Center-Left" party. It is unfair to have the Democrats labelled center left and the Republicans labeled as "right wing." Perhaps a statement to the effect of "To the right of the political spectrum" would be more appropriate. Boromir123 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not unfair if it's consistent with what the bulk of reliable sources say. From what I keep reading, in a variety of sources, Centrist Republicans seem to be very much marginalized within the party.--Father Goose (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with your statement, Father Goose. Within the party, centrists/moderates/progressives are not being marginalized, but lauded. Case in point, Dede Scozzafava, John McCain, etc. Outside the party, meaning the base, is where the bulk of the backlash is coming from. Case in point, again, Dede Scozzafava and Doug Hoffman. The party leaders (meaning people that are actually in a position of power inside the party, i.e., Steele, McConnel, Boehner, not Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are not in the habit of marginalizing one of their own for centrist/moderate/progressive actions and ideas, but the supporters of said party do have that habit. The distinction is small, but very important. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. The party has been reduced to its base in its representation. There have been dozens if not hundreds of news articles pointing to the shift to the right of the party. Just this month party insiders have been distributing a memo inside the National Committee with 10 points that all Party candidates should agree to or not receive support. The examples you mentioned, John McCain and Dede Scozzafava, McCain made an obviously rightward shift during the campaign to appeal to the base while maintaining the maverick rhetoric. Scozzafava on the other hand kept her positions and was essentially forced out of the campaign because party insiders(everyone but the party leaders in elected positions), Party backers and donors, the Party base, and former and current elected politicians all supported Hoffman. In my state Sen. Graham has been censured by several county party chairs for even TALKING to John Kerry about climate change legislation and Graham is no moderate. Arlen Specter was forced from the party because of a challenge from the right and Lincoln Chafee was weakened because of one. There was talk in the party of censuring or threatening to retain committee posts for the two moderate Maine senators if they voted with the Democrats on healthcare. Olympia Snowe herself said of being a moderate in the party "you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe." Charlie Crist,Bob Bennet of Utah and John McCain are all being seriously challenged from the right in primaries as well and none of them are even moderates. Roy Blunt and Rob Portman are also being challenged from the right. Carly Fiorina and Mike Castle (moderates) are all also being challenged from the right and Mark Kirk of Illinois has positioned himself away from his moderate record. I believe its more than safe to say that centrists ARE being marginalizing moderates. The Republican National Committee is supporting the people it thinks most likely to win a general election while its elected officials, base, supporters, donors, activists and others are supporting the hard-right candidates. All of the people I've mentioned save for the two senators from Maine are not moderate but could be considered moderate conservatives. I think its safe to say the only liberal or progressive Republicans are in heavily blue areas like the northeast and even then are only locally elected and are few and far between. Republican centrists are a dying breed, if not already dead.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to go with Sparrowhawk64 on this one -- there are plenty of sources that indicate the hard right turn taken by the GOP in the last 8 years. With regards to the "it isn't fair" comment above -- Wikipedia isn't a tit-for-tat battleground in which the two parties are direct foils (a false dichotomy).  It is certainly conceivable (and, IMHO, factual) that one party is slightly left of center whilst the other is far to the right; I find it worrisome when we become more concerned with political "fair"ness than with just stating what reliable sources state about a subject.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Republicans moved further to the center under Bush. Whether it was the massive growth of the federal government, deficit spending, soft stance on illegal immigration, bailouts of companies that were too big to fail, etc. Parties typically follow it's leaders, that's why the Democrats have taken a "hard left turn." When you look at Pelosi, Reid, and Obama's policies and voting records, you'll realize they're some of the biggest liberals in America, two of them may be full-blown leftists. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bush may have moderated his economic policies to get elected under "compassionate conservatism" or could just be attributed to poor economic and fiscal decisions; and being from a border state has a softer stance on immigration. He, like Obama, moderated since he represented the whole of the country but the rest of the party remained staunchly conservative during his terms. On the matter of Pelosi she may be on the left, but she represents San Francisco; that however doesn't mean she can get whatever she wants through (i.e. single-payer and same-sex marriage). These arguments are beside the point, we're talking about the current state of the party and there is sufficient evidence to support a relatively fast, hard and recent rightward shift. I'm curious about this supposed "hard left turn" as most news articles of late have been about how difficult it is for the Democratic leadership to keep its members together on even its most basic platform policies such as abortion (see Stupak Amendment). The Democrats aren't "hard left" seeing as how they don't even support single-payer health coverage like center-right parties in every other developed country. I hate to tell you but the federal government grew tremendously under Reagan as well and people regard him as THE great Republican. The point is, the Democrats are center and center-left and the Republicans are center-right and right-wing, such is the nature of American politics.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is the problem with claiming that the Republican Party is swerving right. The Party itself is NOT swinging anywhere but to the left (as a general direction, not as a current position). The party base, however, isn't swinging back, they just aren't going to put up with the lies and corruption anymore. And, I hate to say this, but that is not an ideological shift, that is people trying to hold their representatives accountable for what they are doing, as opposed to what they said they were gonna do, and the platform they ran on. The problem that conservatives have with "moderates" is, for the most part, they all ran on a "conservative" platform. Claimed to only support conservative ideals and such. Then, they went to Congress and did whatever they damn well pleased. That's not the Party being intolerant of moderates, that's the Party being intolerant of liars. As for the Democratic Party, the Party itself is not shifting, however, I would like to see someone try to prove to me that the leadership of the Party (i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.) has not shifted dramatically in the last few years. If you could build that case, then you should go to law school and you could make millions. What? McCain is not a moderate? Which McCain are you talking about? Even the liberal pundits call him a moderate. As for Blunt (specifically, since I'm from his district), he is not exactly a moderate, but he does do a lot of earmarks. For instance, there are four YMCA's in this area that are called the "Roy Blunt YMCA of [insert area name here]." And he runs on an anti-big spending platform. That's why he has opposition, because he's a liar, and someone wants him out of a position where his lies hurt other people. That is not an ideological shift, unless you consider a dislike of a lying employee an ideological difference between some groups and others. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the claims I made were disputed. Even supposed "moderates" like McCain are being challenged (During the campaign he reversed all his moderate decisions like immigration reform, gay adoption, etc so please explain to me how hes a moderate. Actually don't, all of this is beside the point.) in what seems to be a grassroots shift in the GOP to the right. I could also site the tea party protests as a hard move to the right. All you have to do is look at some of the pictures taken of those rallies and see that lots of the rallies (although not all conservatives or Republicans) are bordering on lunacy and racism. This groundswell has and will push the party further to the right. This is reactionary politics in its finest. I understand that people want to hold their officials to what they elected them for and thats all well and good but its simply ignoring reality to state anything than the obvious fact that the party has shifted right in response to the landslide of last year. The party reorganized itself after a similarly huge loss in 1964 and after their numerous losses to FDR. By the way liberal pundits said McCain was a moderate before the general election. You're right on one thing, Obama has shifted, he moved to the center in the primary and general election (e.g. anti-marriage equality, anti-single payer). Conservatives are embracing the derogatory term of "right-wingers" and politicians are throwing around their credibility as "true conservatives." Another reason to cite the rightward shift is the huge surge in viewership of FOX News and its programs. Barry Goldwater said in 1987 that the Republican Party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks," I'd hate to know what he'd say now.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you sound like an angry liberal, so I won't push you too hard on what you said. However, I will push you on one thing because it was the most ignorant part of your statement: "All you have to do is look at some of the pictures taken of those rallies and see that lots of the rallies (although not all conservatives or Republicans) are bordering on lunacy and racism." You must know how easy it is to manipulate a picture (I'm not talking about Photoshop, although that wouldn't surprise me), to make the context appear to be something that it is not. And, I hate to break this to you, but I looked at hundreds of pictures, simply because I could not fathom the reason why people would hold up racist signs, and then I had a realization: Despite what deep-thinkers like Janeane Garfalo think, it is not racist to disagree with a black man. It is not racist to dislike a man's stances and policies, simply because he is black. Is there some racists in the tea party crowd? Undoubtedly. I saw a few, and I talked to a few. However, they were in the extreme minority, and the three that I talked to at the tea party I went to left early (probably on the realization that we didn't care what color Obama was, just disagreed with his policy decisions). Am I going to pretend that there aren't people inside the Republican establishment that are racist? Absolutely not. However, for people, such as yourself, to assert that a crowd is racist simply because of the signs that some hold up, or the color of the man they disagree with, is not only ignorant, but out of line. And I hate to say this, but last year was not a landslide. The final score was 53-46 on the percentage side. The electoral side was simply well-played political maneuvering by Obama and his campaign. (I despise the electoral college, by the way. And yes, that includes Bush's victory over Gore in 2000.) And while Obama ran as a centrist, he left that behind as soon as the election was over. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said the majority of the rallies were racist, you're twisting my words, I said lots were bordering on racism. And I sincerely believe you could go to any rally that happened across the country and find people with racist signs and I'm sure they are in the minority in most cases. I entirely agree that people can disagree with him and not be racist. My point was that these rallies show an at least partially grassroots motivated surge to the right in the Republican Party. There is, however, no need to devolve to personal attacks in calling me an angry liberal and ignorant. Also, I meant landslide in context of the majorities of state legislatures, governorships, senate seats, and house seats the Democrats won. This entire debate is immaterial and really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I was using the rallies as an example of the rightward shift of the party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I never said that you said a majority of rallies were racist. I said that there are things that are not racism, assuming those were the "borderline racist" things you were describing. Second, I'm not disagreeing that there is a grassroots surge pushing the party to the right. However, I am disputing the basis of your statement, that the starting point for the party is "center-right." I realize that some politicos are too ground in theory to understand this, but the Republicans have been sitting somewhere between center/center-left for the last, oh...at least twelve years. And, of course, now I'm going to get a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong, and evil for even thinking something like that, but I don't really care. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can see where you are coming from in saying that the party is center-left because of government spending increases and increasing the size of government but, using that logic, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Nixon, and Ford all increased government spending, national debt, and the size of the federal government and would be center-left. The last three Republicans, and, in fact Clinton and Carter, deregulated the financial industry among others. Its social policy however, has continually shifted right ever since the Nixon-Goldwater-Ford era, who all supported abortion rights and the ERA (except Goldwater). This is due to the rise of the religious right, which in recent years has become basically one in the same with the economic right. I would say the party was at one time centrist based, all the way from Roosevelt to Ford and had a strong centrist/center-left wing. This however is no more as the only true moderates left in the party are a handful of people from deeply blue states with negligible influence. The Rockefeller wing has largely vanished from the party. Go to Gallups website and look at their polls to see that 73% of Republicans are either very conservative or just conservative, whereas 40% of Democrats are liberal, 38% are moderate, and 22% are conservative.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that our disagreement is one of definitions. When I say "Republican Party," I mean the actual elected members of the Party, as well as the people employed by, and the leadership of, the Party itself. I'm not talking about the base. I will admit that the base is waking up and SHOUTING their move to the right, however, I don't see the official Party members and leadership being quite so obvious about it. The members are moving to the right, however, if you don't immediately assume a "center-right" starting point (which is not where they started from), you can see that that does not mean that the party is entering the fringe of the right-wing area. As for Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, Nixon and Ford expanding the government, I only disagree on Reagan. All the others I agree with you on. Yes, Reagan raised spending, but he did it in the military and national defense areas, not in welfare, and social programs, which is decidedly not a liberal/progressive agenda item. All the others...actually, I disagree with you on Clinton, as well. Realistically, Clinton and the Republican Congress (I say that because Congress controls the purse strings, not the President) severely reduced spending. But yes, the Bush duo, Nixon and Ford all allowed Congress to dramatically increase spending and the size of government. So, maybe I was wrong about the last 12 years...maybe it was off-and-on for the last 40 years. J  DIGGITY  SPEAKS  17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider the people who vote for the politicians just as much, if not more so, the Republican Party. Anyway, on Reagan, all I can do is urge you to do some in depth research, possibly read "Tear Down This Myth." I have been told these pages are not a "link depository" so I'll refrain from posting numerous ones. I would however also argue that Republican officials have shifted right (I already made mention of the "purity" memo inside the RNC) and there are of course other examples, such as the entirely polarized current congress where one Republican voted for health reform, or Joe Wilsons outburst, or numerous elected officials refusing to state whether or not our President is legally the President. And on the matter of Clinton, many in progressive circles and blogs blame Clinton for not reversing Reagan's deregulations and even removing more regulations.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we try to maintain focus on the page itself, which needs considerable work. As far as the right/center right question goes, all that matters is what is stated in reliable sources. Our work should focus on finding such sources and describing them accurately. Locke9k (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Its dubious to even claim they're right-wing or centre-right, as they have how many million members? Most Americans are either Republicans or Democrats so unless we're boxing the entire population of America who support the Republicans into centre right or right-wing we're making a bad mistake.

What about the traditional small gov't, pro-liberty, constitutionalist core of the Republicans, admittedly very small, that congregates around Ron Paul- they're arguably right on economic issues and left on social issues (non interventionism). Although Ron Paul is perhaps not the best example of this (due to his creationist stance and thinly veiled anti-abortion stance) he is the most prominent.

Then there's big gov't conservatives- Mike Huckabee comes to mind.

Dudley25 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Perspective
I am a political science major and I think this discussion/debate on the party affiliation in the United States revolves around something that has not been mentioned. The politcal parties in general of the United States are very "weak" in that anyone can just proclaim themselves a Democrat or Republican. Since it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you call yourself at least one of these, this leads to both parties changing frequently and holding many many ideologies and views. Put simply, I think the Republican party ranges from "centre-right" all the way to "right-wing" just as the Democratic party ranges from "centre-left" to "left-wing". Both parties basically encompass almost the entire range of the American political spectrum. The reason it is so hard to call either party a single thing is because Americans are essentially forced to pick a side whether they agree with the majority of the party or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Policies
Environmental policies Some Republicans are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming and question scientific studies on the impact of human activity on climate change, instead asserting that global warming is part of "natural" cyclical phenomenon, or caused by a number of other alternative theories.

Why is this allowed to remain without any cit. The word SOME means how many Republicans???

Does the Dem. page refer to Slavery as SOME DEM. where in favor of slavery.

Or

About SOME of the DEM where against the civil rights movement. There where DEM. that where but the word SOME is to vague to include. Dtmckay (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are indeed some Republicans skeptical of global warming. The issue is just getting a succinct source.  As for slavery, that analogy doesn't work because that was a long time ago, while some Republicans disbelieving in global warming are current. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I hold a elected office in government and I am a Dem. and I am skepical of global warming so should the Dem. Page also include the same statement. Dtmckay (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most Democrats are not skeptical of global warming. Most Republicans are.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Ian. I believe that climate change is real, however the idea of "anthropogenic global warming" sounds ludicrous to me. While I am not a Republican (nor am I attached to any party), I routinely vote Republican because I tend to agree with them on most issues, so I fall under the same "classification." And you would probably find quite a few Republicans and right-leaners that are the same way (as well as Democrats, as evidenced by Dtmckay above). J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  07:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my orginal objection that statements that use "some" instead of hard data are really just opinion based agruements. To often people just put down popular opinions instead of facts. I realize elimating popular beliefs completly from Wikip would be hard but we should delete them when we find them. Dtmckay (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The political spectrum classification is fine as-is.
Anyone who has taken even the most basic political science course knows that the Republican party is center-right and the democrat party is center left. This is just a typical attack by people who wish to label people who disagree with them as something "evil". Wikipedia isn't the place for such trolling.

The article is fine as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.103.123 (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A social democracy is center-left, and Marxism is far left. The Obama administration is far left. Three states are bankrupted, gee I think he hates capitalism. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 18:34:38 (UTC), 9 January 2010 Whose the dumbass who thinks he is another Kevin Rudd. Australia doesn't carry nearly as much national debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 18:37:34 (UTC), 9 January 2010

Once again mindless demagoguery from the right-wing about how Obama is "far left" Jesus Christ give the crap a break or back up your statements.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Republican Party Roots
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Far-Right
First of all, be nice, everyone. This is wikipedia, not a political forum. Please don't try arging your opinions here. Obama is a centre-right conservative on the political spectrum, not a "socialist." But what I think is of note, is that on the political spectrum, the Republican Party is far-right. They are not the Nazis, but they are very far to the right. I think that "far-right" should be added to the article. I added it one time with a reference but it was deleted. The same thing originally happened when I put "Socialist Factions" on the Democrats until I explained it using. sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC).


 * In terms of the United States, the Republican party is Center Right and the Democratic Party is Center left. In terms of some countries in Europe, The Republican party IS far Right, and the Democratic party is Center Right. But this is a US Political party, and therefore we should follow the US scale for political alignments. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that some of the Republican party is center-right, while some is far right. Trying to judge the whole based on the visible minority is not really accurate. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and the political spectrum should be based on the spectrum used in advanced countries (ie with access to the internet). That being said I think Right-wing should be added to political position. I do not think the party is "far right" because far right is more or less fascism and I don't think they're that far to the right.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From what perspective??
Both US political parties are centrist from a world perspective, with the Republican party leaning slightly right, and the Democrats leaning slightly left. This is why the parties are referred to as conservative and ''liberal', respectively, within the US. I think it is safe to say that the Republican Party is center-right, like the UK Conservatives--probably the closest international comparison to the Republicans. Just because the GOP might be far right of YOU doesn't mean it is far right enough to be classified as "Right". Again, please compare to the UK Conservatives... This should not be disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.104.201 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The British Conservative Party is far more moderate than the Republican Party, they support single-payer health care system and don't even mention abortion in their policies or actively campaign against it like the Republicans do, support some LGBT Rights and don't use LGBT people as boogy men to scare out votes, and actually believe that climate change is happening and is heavily influenced by humans, and by and large leave religion out of their policies. There is no comparison between the two parties. The Conservatives are center-right and the Republicans are center-right to right-wing.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reiterate.
The GOP is a member of the International Democrat Union, and most political parties in the IDU are identified as "Centre-Right". The GOP should be labeled "Center-Right". I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.104.201 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again most parties in the IDU especially the European ones favor single-payer healthcare. Republicans? No. Other European centre-right parties favor abortion, Republicans? No. They're right-wing.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not europe. Why would we let euros define our language and political parties. The US republicain party or the US Democrat party is an animal all to theirselves. Whether the RP is center right or far right is just persons perspective and not a fact that can be proven. In this country, each party contains a little and a lot of far right far left center right and center left. Just look at the demos they got the blue dogs, i.e. Repubs and the RP has the tea baggers i.e. far right. Either party cannot be defined by your or euro labels. Dtmckay (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links
editsemiprotected

Link reference 27 (re: welfare programs success) is dead.

Should read:

... "which was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, and which limited eligibility for welfare, successfully leading to many former welfare recipients finding jobs. "
 * ❌ as requested - used Wayback instead.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Alternative links found.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   331° 47' 30" NET   22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt to reach a consensus on the position of the GOP along the political spectrum
I have sensed a growing lack of consensus with regards to the position of the GOP on the political spectrum. I think it is vital that we line up each of the positions of the GOP and assess where on the spectrum that position places the GOP. After we have collected enough positions, we can make a judgement of where on the spectrum the GOP falls.

Sjrsimac (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The original edit summery for the above comment speaks volumes: "I added a table to help us synthesize our conversation about the position of the GOP."
 * Isn't the "prime directive" of Wikipedia supposed to be reliable sources, not synthesis? At the risk of being labeled a heretic, I'd suggest that in the absence of a preponderance of neutral reliable sources supporting a particular 'directional' labels for the U.S. political parties, perhaps we're better off writing about demonstrable positions on specific issues and avoiding the labels entirely. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with FatHappy. In light of this new reasoning, I recommend that the "political positions" section of the infobox be removed.Sjrsimac (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, This issue has been debated several times and has always come back to center-right. Soxwon (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a well-known opponent of editorial labeling; the intent of Wikipedia is to present the views of the neutral reliable sources, not what the consensus of what Wikipedia editors believe what label is best applied. Given that there seems to be no consensus amongst the sources, it's more prudent to deal with specific issues rather than a disputed, unclear, or otherwise subjective label.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Abolitionism
PLEASE! Someone introduce the word 'ABOLITIONIST' to the beginning of the article describing the Republican party's origin!! The party was founded by FREE-SOIL, FREE-LABOR ABOLITIONISTS in 1854, predominantly on Christian idealisms against enslavement!! Expansionist perspectives were universal across the political spectrum of the day, both Right and Left - Westward expansion was NOT the exclusive domain of the founders of the GOP! This needs to be clarified in the article!

jlewis 3-18-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.31.202 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Republicans and tea party movement
Does "[tea party movement]" have "Libertarian conservatism" tendency? Can we say it's Libertarian movement? Does "Republican Party" shifts towards Libertarianism?-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford was never elected president contrary to what the article states. He became president after Nixon resigned and he lost his attempt at election in 1976. Quote from the history section: "The second half of the 20th century saw election of several Republican presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.49.39 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverted the erroneous change. Thanks; I thought that had already been fixed. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger?
The infobox states the Republican Party resulted as a merger between the Whig Party, the Know Nothing Party, and the Free Soil Party. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it was a merger. It is to my understanding that those parties collapsed and their followers shifted to the GOP. 76.29.110.161 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Belong
Bill Clinton's refusal to sign Kyoto Protocol has nothing to do with Republican party. It can go on Democrat Party page.

Liberal failure to create popular talk radio shows can go on Democrat Party page. Absolutely nothing to do with Republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.215.87 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Official colors"
There are no official colors for the Republican Party. If there is a space under "Official colors", then it should state that. To include red as an unofficial color, the label would need to be changed. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

About ideology
The head about RP's ideology is quite complete, but it doesn't add far-right, please someone adds it.


 * which is the far right--Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are middle of the GOP road these days. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because it may be the middle of the road for the GOP doesn't really make it 'middle of the road' on the entire political spectrum 174.114.231.69 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Far-right" may be going too far, but "Right-Wing" seems like a fitting lable. A party that is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-capital punishment + reactionary views on a bunch of other social issues doesn't fit as "Centre-Right", especially not in an international perspective. -- Darthdyas (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow
I had no idea the Republican party was responsible for abolishing slavery and giving blacks the right to vote. While the party played an integral part, I'm sure, I think this may be a bit of an overstatement: "The Republican Party abolished slavery under Abraham Lincoln, defeated the Slave Power, and gave blacks the vote during Reconstruction in the late 1860s." Is it alright if I just tweak the wording a bit, so it is like "The Republican party played a role in abolishing slavery under Abraham Lincoln, defeated slave power, etc, etc"? This isn't sourced though...and I'm sure there is a larger reason behind Blacks voting for Democrats than simply "they offered them welfare". I'm not a really good editor though, I don't know the policies, this is just something I saw 174.114.231.69 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't an overstatement, because the Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party. After the Civil War the major political parties were the Republicans and the Democrats, and most of the Democrats came from the South, hence the reason why the Republicans implicated the constitutional amendments and such to give the newly freed former slaves more rights. Southern politicians would never have gone along with it. The parties didn't start having the ideologies we identify them with today until the early 20th century. Of course, there were other, smaller political parties at the time, but the ones really pushing forward on these issues were the Republicans. The politics during this era is a major topic in US history courses, but we went into much bigger detail on these in my college classes. Those are my sources for the information. :) 96.253.119.151 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Do pending changes ever disappear? The current one in this article should obviously not be accepted, but there doesn't seem to be an option to send it into the ether - does it show up forever as pending? john k (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Voter Base Information
Much of it is either somewhat incorrect, outdated, or quite often totally off.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.167.104 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism
Someone should add to the article that, although they initially opposed slavery, Republicans in more modern times (especially ones from the South) have opposed civil rights legislation. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not neutral nor sourced. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s generally did support civil rights legislation. However, after 1964, a significant element of the Republican Party consisted of white southerners (and northerners) who were upset with the results of Civil Rights legislation, and in particular, "busing," affirmative action, and changes in immigration policy after 1965. 69.171.160.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

Anti-intellectualism
This user is not acting in good faith: per these edits

Add to the article.

Anti-intellectualism has been common among conservatives. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Logo
As the Democrats have unveiled a new logo, I decided to visit the Republican's website to see what their's is. I am now going to add it to this page, and move the Elephant logo to the history section. Fry1989 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The posted logo is in error. The Republican Party (USA) has NOT changed it's official logo and the proof in that can be confirmed by going to the national party website, (RNC) and looking in their "store" section. The traditional red, white, and blue, elephant is still the party logo which has now been described by this Wiki article as a defunct old logo. The previous editor has mistakenly simply taken the image, which is simply their (GOP) site header, off the RNC website and assumed it is now the new logo. Not so. The traditional logo is evident on any number of GOP websites and is available in many examples in the "store" section of the national website. {user: thecuddlemoose  3 Oct 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecuddlemoose (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Illinois/Chicago
"The Midwest has been roughly balanced since 1854, with Illinois becoming more Democratic and liberal because of the city of Chicago"

I cannot make heads or tails of this. If the discussion is since the start of the Republican party, Illinois has usually gone with the winner in presidential elections.

Recently Illinois has started to trend heavily "Blue" because of changes in the voting habits in Chicago's _Suburbs_ The city of Chicago, has long been a Democratic bastion, that's not a change.

Compare results for Goldwater to Bush in Suburban Cook County and DuPage counties, you will see steep declines for Republicans. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.95.80 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party?
Surely deserves a mention, a general move to the right and a number of significant primary victory against moderate incumbents.--Matthewdavies (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt the introduction needs to have such a focus on recent events, instead of history. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, the intro is very skewed and does not summarize the article. It needs a complete rewrite.   Will Beback    talk    10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Tea Party statement and a rather debatable one at that doesn't belong in the introduction i was referring to its inclusion in the history section. --Matthewdavies (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove third paragraph
The republican party is has been a major us party for 150 years. The lead is currently dominated by recent electoral results. It seems like there would be much more significant things to put there and this is really detail that should be in the body of the article not the lead. I believe it should be removed or significantly shortened. Please respond meitme (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the intro should be re-written to reflect the overall contents of the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ccoutu, 6 November 2010
Please remove the following text: "The party is most often associated with hate, as it hates minorities and the poor." It is inappropriate/vandalism.

Ccoutu (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating Info box to reflect midterms
This is an encyclopedic article. Please remember that it is for the benefit of readers who are not specialists, and are not the editors of the page. They don't have to connect the dots from stories in the article to understand what the info box means. It's a list of the current seats held during the current session, not an announcement of the roster of next session. That's what the prose is for. A placeholder noting the effect of the midterms has already been placed in the lead to inform readers of the changes. When the -elects take their seats, the info box will be updated. — Digiphi (  Talk  ) 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

State Legislature results
Does anyone know how many seats they hold in the State Houses and State Senates after the 2010 elections? If someone could add that in, that would be great! Thank you. Politics2012 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Missing parts and questioned neutrality
Shouldn't there be a criticism or controversy section in the article? And this article could surely show a wider view of the republican's stances on issues in the table of contents. The appearance between the GOP and Democratic Party articles seems quite imbalanced, and therefore, nonneutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelociraptorBlade (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede
Lycurgas made a good suggestion to the lead, which gives a broader perspective to the article: ''The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the current version of the two party system, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats. '' Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the current American political scene, there isn't and hasn't for a long time been any spectrum, whence my reference to the Fifth Party System. Instead there's a narrow polarization between hard right, the current position of the GOP, and soft right, the current position of the Democrat party. That text put the matter of fact straight and provided click thru to the historical truth that these parties trade polarities over time. The GOP was at its inception the left wing of American politics and during the time that Capitalism was a progressive force, so was it, which is why the Fourth Party System a period of the dominance of the pre Regan/Goldwater Republican Party, the party of TR and Lincoln, is also commonly known as the American Progressive Era. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I very highly doubt that, say, the British National Party would welcome a black chairperson, or bring in proudly Jewish members as key party officials, and so on. Or that Jean Marie Le Pen would want to associate with openly gay or lesbian political activists in his inner circle.
 * So we can dispense with the incredibly stale talking points about "far right", can we? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think its necessary to include the reference about the fifth party system, its misleading to simply say that the republicans were historically "the left party" and the democrats "the right party" the two parties were much more diverse then they are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdavies (talk • contribs) 11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice how "at its inception" morphed into "historically". Yes, it's that lost diversity that "spectrum" puts inaccurately in the present tense. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your POV-pushing is not welcome here, please go somewhere else. Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the authority to issue such a miserable directive? Lycurgus (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically i think the lead needs to be expanded to give a brief overview of the history of the party which should include the changing positions over time. Also I said historically because the progressive era began forty years after the "inception" of the Republican party --Matthewdavies (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the Republican party can only be considered left at its inception (actually before the civil war, at which point the left-right dichotomy breaks down with a slave-owner insurrection, a rebellion from the right), and certainly wasn't during the Progressive Era, although it was then progressive and the Democrat Party still contained the most right wing elements. But in that time (the Progressive Era) there was also a genuine left (i.e. a full spectrum) as that was also the only time when America had a strong Socialist party. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just leave the lead plain and unassuming and keep the major changes of history in their section? — Digiphi (  Talk  ) 00:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your blase assertion that a "genuine left" can only be found in the Socialist party is something that you have the right to believe, but you have no right to push your POV that the Democratic party is not "genuine" on Wikipedia. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW this article only concerns the GOP, about which we're talking 1855 onward to the present. Anything outside that parameter isn't for this article. - Digiphi (  Talk  ) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, so it's gone from "conservative" to "center right" since this thread started! That's a hopeful sign that the whole structure is cracking. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC) It's pretty obvious that the dominant ideology of Reganomics since the 1980's has moved the Democratic Party to the center and the Republicans to the right-wing. We are being idealistic to assume that the Democrats and Republicans remain in a never changing 'centre-right'/'centre-left' paradigm. --Drdak (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Grand Old Party
I think the article could use a sentence or two on where the term "Grand Old Party" came from. Currently, the article merely mentions G.O.P. is traditional nickname. Since, the nickname is in the lead-in to the article, and many other places, I think the history of the nickname is relevant to mention. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't stand on the sidelines
Make a difference! Lionel (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See also addition
I realize that the Republican National Committee is mentioned in the article text, but it seems like it makes sense to add this to the See also section.CloseEyeOnDC (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jrgene, 11 March 2011
Under George H. W. Bush, Attack on Panama

Paragraph starts with the wrong date stated as: In 1998 when in reality it was 10 years before: In 1988.

See Invasion of Panama

--Jrgene (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jrgene (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅: Already fixed by Fat&Happy. –CWenger (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I was sure I marked that; must have skipped clicking [Save]. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 6 April 2011
The section detailing when blacks switched to the Democratic Party has severely racist connotations, and is historically inaccurate. Blacks began switching to the Democratic Party under FDR, but not in huge numbers. When Truman (1948) desegregated the armed forces, a large majority switched. By implying that they only switched for jobs and money during the New Deal implies that they were lazy, government leeches. In reality, they began supporting Democrats when it was obvious that the Democratic Party was the best bet for civil rights. This page has updated sources, rather than some history text written in 1978. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html

Wikipedia is not the place for politically motivated untruths/half-truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gender part of the article
This should be improved upon or deleted, just a piece of it :

In the 2010 midterms, the "gender gap" was reduced with women supporting GOP and Democratic candidates equally 49% to 49%.[63][64]

There's a lot more information out there than that. First off, midterm elections are highly atypical and have a very different demographic than regular elections. Just putting that out there without more data is inaccurate. There should be more hard numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.192.248 (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 28 March 2011
Please make a separate catagory for 'Abortion / Life'. There is one sentence under 'marriage' regarding the abortion issue, but it is a separate issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

--MiriamSingsLoud (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)This has been fixed

Symbols of the GOP
I noticed a section that said the following:

In the early 20th century, the usual symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana, New York,[13][dead link] and West Virginia[14][dead link] ballots."

I wanted to add that in KY the GOP symbol is a log cabin. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that we cant have every state listed like that as its likely there is a new symbol for each. So I would like to propose creating a stub article on the variety of political party symbols. --Navi555 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.16.175.110, 9 July 2011
Was Wisconsin the birthplace of the Republican Party? The name was first publicly applied to the movement in a June 1854 editorial by New York editor Horace Greeley, who said it would "fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." Local meetings were held throughout the North in 1854 and 1855. The first national convention of the new party was only held in Pittsburgh on February 22, 1856. Whether one accepts Wisconsin's claim depends largely on what one means by the words "birthplace" and "party." Modern reference books, while acknowledging the ambiguity, usually cite Ripon as the birthplace of the organized movement to form the party. If not born in Ripon, the party was at least conceived there.

76.16.175.110 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Suggest this be added to the introductory section. First convention may have been in Michigan in '56, but simple calendar comparisons shows first meeting in Ripon WI pre-dates other meetings in northern states.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Right now the article says that the first convention was in July 1854. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The logo
What happened to the new logo? The red one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.211.79 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support using the elephant logo, as it's much better known than the red logo. --hydrox (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, elephant logo is better. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree, and I've been trying to change the logo back to the official elephant logo of the party. The red GOP logo that continues to be placed on the page is only a web header, and not the official logo. The well-known elephant logo appears on all party merchandise, and is a component of other party logos, like the RNC logo. The red web header is not part of any merchandise, and does not represent the party. It is important to people looking up our party that they see an accurate representation of it, which includes having the correct logo on the page. Trailblazer2011 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Elephant logo is not the official one to my knowledge; the Red one, however, is. We use official logos here.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it a policy/guideline of Wikipedia to use official logos? If not I think we would be better off using the most recognizable logo, which is the elephant one. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's not official, it is pretty much consensus - because determining the 'most recognizable' is impossible to figure out. We use official logos here, as it is the most encyclopedic.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I argue we should use the logo used most often in reliable sources. Can you point to a policy or guideline supporting your position? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The page for the guideline focuses on the copyright aspect; however, how is it encyclopedic to use an outdated logo? The point of this article is not to appeal to the masses. Can you find policy supporting your position?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The elephant logo seems to be used to on the RNC site as a symbol of the Republican Party. The red logo seems to refer to the gop.com website. Eg. standard GOP T-Shirt, "GOP.com" T-Shirt. But this is only my reading. I have searched for and failed to find the Republican Party official visual guideline anywhere on the Internet, which I find very strange, because in my jurisdiction most parties these days have a visual stylebook (colors, symbols, fonts) that they have acquired from a professional advertising agency. I think there must exist such stylebook for the Republican Party, but I haven't been able to find it. This guide would answer exactly questions like this, that which insignia, colors eg. the party uses in its visual communication to the public. --hydrox (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The policies WP:COMMONNAME versus WP:OFFICIALNAME are in the same spirit, although obviously they are talking about article titles instead of logos. I have no problem with using the official logo as long as it is routinely used and easily recognizable, which I'm not sure the red one is. I would argue the logo at Democratic Party (United States) is borderline useless, as I'm a political junkie and have never seen it before. Anyway, since there is no formal guidance on this I guess we should just go with consensus. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would argue there IS a guidance on logo usage (albeit not codified)! The traditional elephant logo is a component of ALL state parties and GOP-affiliated organizations (even the RNC). It also appears on all party merchandise. This is the best indication of that this logo should be used as the "official" one, as it is used just as any other official logo would be used. All GOP-related orgs view the well-known elephant as the current official party logo.
 * Since when does a website banner count as the logo of an organization? Take GM, for example. The banner used on its website is different from the company's logo, and yet we have not edited GM's article replacing its logo with the website banner, have we? Also, how is this logo "outdated"? Do you think the RNC, all 50 state organizations, and 99.99% of everything done by the party are "outdated"? Let me contrast this with the DNC's new logo: the new Democratic Party logo is in fact the official logo of that party. It's also the logo of the DNC, and appears on new party merchandise. The red GOP.com banner, however, does not share the traits of the new Democratic Party logo. The traditional elephant, however, does, as it appears on all official logos and merchandise.Trailblazer2011 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because something is part of a logo does not mean it needs to be used; do we just use a Wii, GameBoy, DS, or NES (Nintendo's most recognizable consoles) to represent Nintendo as opposed to their actual logo? Of course not.
 * And the red one is official based on ALL the sources I have read. This is about the NATIONAL Republican Party, not the states, DC, or merchandise. I have no doubt this logo belongs on this page somewhere (perhaps the 'name and symbols' section), but it does not belong in the infobox.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  21:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe an RfC makes sense here. I can see both sides. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What sources did you use to reach that conclusion? Just wondering if you could tell us what sources you found. Trailblazer2011 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No new comments in a week. No one has presented any verifiable sources for the use of the red logo? --hydrox (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got a question regarding the stars used in the Republican logo. Before G W Bush came on the scene they were upright (one point at the top). How come these are now inverted. Symbolically, the upright star is used for many things, but mostly good. But the inverted pentagram is historically a very nagative thing. I guess my question is, if it's not really that important, why change it? If it is symbolically important, why choose such a nagative symbol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.67.55 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet another unsourced assertion.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The "red logo" that is currently featured in the infobox appears to be just a GOP website item and not a change of the party's actual logo. If the logo really had been changed to the red one, isn't it conceivable that there would have been some news coverage about the new party symbol? The NHL rebranded its logo in 2005 and that was covered. Simply, no source exists that the Republican Party's official symbol is anything other than the elephant design that has been synonymous with the GOP for ages. I support using the elephant in the infobox -- the real "official logo." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will side with Toa on this one. We do use official logos on Wikipedia. Although one might be referring to the entire Republican Party, this article is about the national party. The Democratic Party article uses that organization's official logo and not the donkey (even though state parties have their own logo).--Drdak (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which logo should be used in the infobox at Republican Party (United States)?
Should the traditional elephant logo (File:Republicanlogo.svg) or the new GOP.com logo (File:GOP Logo1.svg) be used in the infobox? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support traditional elephant logo because virtually all reliable sources use it. In the interest of recognizability, we should use the most common logo in prominent locations such as the infobox (just like we use WP:COMMONNAMEs for article titles, even though we could use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs and handle everything with redirects). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the GOP.com logo is even the official party logo, as I can't find any news stories about it, and it doesn't appear to be used outside of GOP.com. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support traditional elephant logo. First of all, to be nitpicky, the Republican National Committee is only one part of the Republican Party; they don't have dominion over the state and local parties. Secondly, do we know it's even the official logo of the party/national committee and not just a logo for the website? The party isn't even officially called GOP, I don't think. hare j 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, leaning traditional (Here via FRS, so I'm coming to this discussion without benefit of any previous discussions on the point.) I don't have a particularly strong opinion here, but I do think there's a stronger argument to be made for the traditional logo, largely based on recognizability. To the extent that the subject of the article is the GOP, not just the recent GOP, if the traditional symbol has been used (as I believe it has) for a good deal longer, it's simply more relevant to the article.
 * I'd also suggest that the same argument I've just made could be made for the article on the Democratic Party, which appears to pick the a circle-D logo I'd never actually seen before rather than a donkey -- a symbol that I personally expect would be more uniformly recognizable. --joe deckertalk to me 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, there is substantially more evidence that the circle-D logo is the official Democratic Party logo, so I wouldn't presume for the results of this RfC to apply there. That should probably be a separate discussion. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 03:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough reasoning, I agree. --joe deckertalk to me 06:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GOP Logo - We don't use 'common' logos, we use official ones. The so-called 'elephant logo' is not official and is not used on GOP-run websites - the red one is. No sources have been presented to prove either is official, so we need to assume the newer one is the best choice.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support traditional - as Toa points out, no sources have been presented to prove either is official, so I believe that we should go with the one that is most recognized by outsiders until reliable sources indicate that the red GOP logo is indeed the new logo of the party. Spalds (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support traditional elephant logo: I'm pleased to see an RfC started about this issue. My reasoning for supporting the "elephant" logo is what I had said two days ago in the discussion four sections up: "The 'red logo' that is currently featured in the infobox appears to be just a GOP website item and not a change of the party's actual logo. If the logo really had been changed to the red one, isn't it conceivable that there would have been some news coverage about the new party symbol? The NHL rebranded its logo in 2005 and that was covered. Simply, no source exists that the Republican Party's official symbol is anything other than the elephant design that has been synonymous with the GOP for ages. I support using the elephant in the infobox -- the real 'official logo.'" I'd like to also add that in October I added a tag to the image caption claim that the elephant logo was the party's "previous" logo, with the tag being removed days later without discussion. I hadn't been involved in the debate over which logo to use again until I posted my opinion two days ago, though I've still long felt that something was amiss about using the "red logo." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support traditional logo: the red logo appears to just be a stylized version of their logo used on the header of their website. The elephant logo is still used everywhere else. Check out that same website's [merch section]. Everything they sell still has the traditional logo. I'd like to see evidence that other sources use the red logo. Websites are made by website designers and sometimes a website uses a logo that is not the official logo of that organization for the website, such an innovation shouldn't be given undue weight. We often use whatever is most common on wikipedia, like when deciding on a title, but with organization logos I think accuracy is more important. If we have some evidence that this is the official logo for the GOP now then we should use the new one, until then, the old one will do fine. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am closing this RfC as consensus has been reached. Most of the comments reflect the lack of evidence for the red GOP logo being official rather than it being less commonly used, so I won't attempt a similar change at Democratic Party (United States). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Sources for Name "Republican Party"
The article asserts without qualification in the "History" section that the party took it's name from the Springfield, Mass. newspaper The Republican. This contradicts the more convincing -- and equally unequivocal -- attribution in the "Name and Symbols" section to publisher/activist Horace Greeley. Reconciliation needed. Dwarren01 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Conflicting sources for guidance. Rostz (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Registered Democrats and Republicans
The article says the Democrats had 72 million registered voters and the Republicans had 55 million Republicans and cites a column by Al Neuharth, which was not even a news article. He might have been correct, but he didn't cite a source. In contrast, a 2008 AP story says "Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press." See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/politics/main4422449.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4422449 Is there a more definitive source for the number of registered Democrats and Republicans than the Al Neuharth column? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When the article gets unlocked, I plan to make the same changes I made to the Democratic Party article: remove the poorly-sourced and out-of-date Neuharth citation chart as well as the 2004 lede statstics, and replace with 2010 Gallup polling. (See also the Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States) discussion.) Rostz (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the "Family status" section
I think the following piece of information is worth adding to the Family status section in Republican Party (United States): ''GSS surveys of more than 11,000 Republicans and Democrats conducted between 1996 and 2006 came to the result that the differences in fertility rates are not statistically significant between these parties, with the average Republican having 1.91 children and the average Democrat having 1.94 children. ''However, there is a significant difference in fertility rates between the two related groups conservatives and liberals, with conservatives reproducing at much higher rate than liberals. ''

I can't add it myself, however, because of the current edit protection. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower
Someone please include a picture of President Dwight Eisenhower. He is ranked highly among the presidents and would make a great example of a Republican president along with the other three already shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.25.20 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison
This article is not comparable to the Democratic Party section. Having an entire section devoted to national defense and military spending over the last century calls the neutrality of this article into question. For neutrality sake, I would like to see an overhaul that makes the article comparable to the Democratic Party article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesmith10 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox should use the labels "State Lower House Seats" and "State Upper House Seats", rather than "State Lower Houses" and "State Upper Houses". There are only 99 houses, not thousands. Designate (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed - an admin should come and add this right now.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

'center-right party'
This article refers to the republican party as center right. I propose that the party be presented as a right wing party. Redface1 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain why. In the context of US politics, it is very much center-right, and centrists make up a decent fraction. Also, keep in mind, right-wing parties such as the British National Party are very much Kenyesian, while the GOP is very much neo-liberal in terms of economic theory.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the republican economic policy can be seen as more left wing than the BNP's economic policy. As even thought the BNP is a far right party it is not its economics that give it this place in the political spectrum but its views on immigration. And in the context of UK economic policy the fact that they use Keynesian economics is not right wing at all seeing that the economic policy of the main three political parties is mainly kenysian in practice. Therefore, the fact that the republican party is seen broadly to seek to decrease the role of the government, apart from the stimulus =), makes it a right wing policy compared with the more Keynesian democrats.

Also If we take the social policy of the Republican party and its opposition to gay marriage, Abortion and a socialised medicine are very right wing compared to other so called center right parties around the world. I know this is supposed to be in the context of American politics but It does not state that in the article and people from all over the world view the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redface1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are comparing conflicting parties in conflicting systems, but ignoring mine. Not an accusation, just a fact.


 * However, in the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority (civil unions are supported, generally, but it is usually either full marriage or nothing), a majority now opposes abortion, and a majority (I believe) opposes socialized medicine - so on those particular views, the GOP is very mainstream in the United States, particularly when compared to the Democrats, who support these things. Keep in mind, libertarians and moderates make up a significant portion of the GOP voter base and caucus.


 * Once again, also, right-wing politics generally support either protectionism or Kenyesian economics - the GOP is fiscally conservative, and pro free-trade. If anything, the Democrats have more in common with the far-right in terms of economics.


 * Also, compared to the Constitution Party (the largest right-wing party in the United States), the GOP looks very much centre-right.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Constitution Party isn't so much right-wing as far-right. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's flat-out false. A majority favor both gay marriage and abortion rights in America. Those are both examples of how the Republican Party is socially right-wing. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far "socialized medicine", the polls indicate that as the universal health care bill Congress was crafting got more conservative, it lost support. Polls show anywhere from a bare majority to a massive two-thirds supermajority favoring the public option. It wasn't until Republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats got that removed from the bill with their filibuster threats that the bill started polling at less than 50% support. Thus, majority of Americans seem to want health care that's more "socialized" than what we actually ended up with. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By any context the Repubican is a right-wing party whatever way you put it. I actually laughed when I saw "centre-right party". That's ridiculous, I'd imagine real republicans would be offended at being told they are anywhere near the centre. It's daft that people actually argue that they're centre right. Mspence835 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Center-right' means 'right of center', not 'center of the right'. The term itself is used to describe parties with views ranging from the center to the right, excluding far right/right wing stances. The term fits quite accurately, given the large numbers of Centrist/Libertarian GOPers in Congress, as well as the GOP's lack of adherence to right-wing enconomic theory. The modern GOP fits comfortably on the center-right, and is most certainly not right wing.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On social issues at the very least, the GOP is very much a right-wing party, and should be labeled as such. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't, because it isn't - being right-wing disqualifies a party from being center-right, which is what the sources identify the GOP as.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What "sources"? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The American electorate, in general, is much more centre-centre-right than people believe. For example, a Gallup Poll in 2009 found that 40% of the electorate self-identified as "Conservative", while 35% identified as "Moderate", and a slim 21% called themselves the dreaded "Liberal" word (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx). The Republican Party, Gallup found, was made up of 73% Conservatives, 24% Moderates, and a tiny 3% Liberals. The Democratic Party, on the other hand (being more centre) was made up of 38% Liberals, 40% Moderates, and a still significant 22% Conservatives.

Also, Libertarians are not "centrist" in any way shape or form. They endorse far-right economic policies (as in no government regulation, and almost no government at all except for police) and centrist social policies (they do not support the Civil Rights Act, for instance). Libertarians are right-wing, if not a little to the radical side.

Guys, it's painfully obvious that the Republican Party is much less diverse than its centre-left counterpart, especially in the demographics of ideology, religion, and race. The less diversified Republican Party believes in pretty much the same thing while Democrats have more diverse opinions (seeing as how "Liberals" are outnumbered in what people would assume is a party dominated by them). Please respond to this with some well researched documentation. It's no fun going back and forth saying "It is centre-right" "no it's right-wing!". I would like to see some research (like what I posted) to back up the idea that the Republican Party is just as centrist as its counterpart.--Drdak (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ...And if you look at it by position, the American people support liberal positions quite often. Poll data can be manipulated many ways - but this poll, to my knowledge, never defined those positions. What is one to assume the people who answered meant?


 * Also, Libertarians don't support a 'far right' economic theory - far-right and right-wing economic policies generally revolve around protectionism and government control of business (ie. Fascism, Nazism, etc.), not free market, free trade policies like the GOP. If you want a real example of a right-wing party, see the Constitution Party (United States) - protectionist fiscal agenda, strictly right-wing social agenda.


 * In addition, you appear to identify the 'center-right' as 'the right of the center' - it means 'right of center', or ideologies that go to the right of the center without being right-wing/far right. The GOP has been identified by the sources as center-right, meaning it cannot be either right-wing or far-right.


 * Well, regardless of what people call it, there's a noticeable difference in the constituencies of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I don't know if I would call it full right-wing, but it sure is much more polarized than the largely Moderate-composed Democrats. --Drdak (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why the infobox has separate entries for fiscal and social ideology of the party. Fiscally the center-right label is still accurate (so far), socially the Republican Party is very much right-wing. And proud of it. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Self-identification is irrelevant. Lots of people call themselves "conservative", "liberal" or "moderate" when the actual issues they support or oppose tell a different story. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Self-identification is not really irrelevant. People know what it means. Besides where do you see notable factions within the RP? The Democrats have the Progressive Caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, and even the centrist New Democrats. The Republicans have smaller factions (GOProud is a notable one) and are much more united in their opinions (less ideological diversity).--Drdak (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're looking at this from an American standpoint. By American politics the Republican is centre-right. But by international observers and academics the Republican Party is a Right-Wing party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foozy101 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that even by American standards the GOP is no longer center-right. It's been moving steadily further to the right for several decades now. 71.228.175.229 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Foozy101 - Read the center-right article - the GOP fits quite comfortably on the center right, even on a global scale. @Drdak - Look up the Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Liberty Caucus - both have good representation in Congress and lead towards centrism and libertarian conservatism, respectively.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes but they are small factions that are comparably dwarfed by the Tea Party and other Right-Wing factions. Libertarianism should also not be confused with centrism, as well.--Drdak (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would propose just dropping the left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, etc titles from the article altogether. Where a person or party sits on the political spectrum is relative. What is liberal to one person or country may be conservative to another. Dropping titles like these and simply addressing the platforms would make the article a lot more balanced and allow the reader to decide whether something is liberal or conservative, not to mention easing the political tension on the board. --Navi555 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From a global perspective, the GOP is definitely right-wing, with the dominant sector of the Democrats being centre-right (in many aspects, they're to the right of the Tories in Britain)--Phagopsych (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all sources indicate them as center-right, and their policies are to the left of right-wing parties, even in Britain. This dead horse has been beaten far too many times.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you cannot agree with other editors, I suggest we try getting some more opinions. However, labelling the Republican Party centre-right, when this is not the most common view, is POV. --Phagopsych (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's hardly 'common view', and even then, consensus cannot violate sources, which describe the GOP as center-right.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that a fringe view or sources –a la John M. O'Hara– should be given undue weight, certainly nothing more than a footnote. --Phagopsych (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What "sources"? You keep saying that "sources" identify the Republicans as center-right, without identifying them. Could it be because they're unreliable fringe sources? It's quite obvious that at least on social issues, the GOP is not only right-wing, it's approaching far-right territory. 71.228.175.229 (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We cannot preserve WP:V if the only sources being used are the ones that confirm the belief that the GOP is only centre-right. Perhaps the label "Right to Centre-Right" is the most accurate, as the Tea Party demonstrates the rather extreme and large portion of the GOP right-wing nowadays.--Drdak (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * May I ask, is this just a matter of whether we are judging the party based on a national or global political scale? Or do people think the Republican Party is right even in the context of U.S. politics? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly have no clue, because any and all 'sources' they present (almost all of them saying the vague 'right', which can mean either right-wing or center-right and is used just as often by Democrats to stick on Republicans as Republicans stick the label 'left' on the Democrats) are from national sources, not international ones. I do not think they qualify as 'right-wing' (or whatever they want to call it) by any standard, national or international. The term 'center-right' is broad and inclusive, and is necessarily inclusive of all right-leaning stances (ie. right-leaning moderates, conservatives, libertarians, populist conservatives. etc.). In fact, this own website defines it as 'a political term commonly used to describe or denote individuals, political parties, or organizations (such as think tanks) whose views stretch from the centre to the right on the left-right spectrum, excluding far right stances'. So, by definition, the term 'center-right' is representative of these so-called 'right-wing' elements in the GOP, as well as the moderates and libertarians. Basically, the addition of a 'right-wing' tab is not only inaccurate, it is unneeded and incorrect, as 'center-right' already covers it. Just to be safe, though, I'll quote the whole 'Ideology' section of said page:

"A definition of the term "centre-right" is necessarily broad and approximate because political terms have varying meanings in different countries. Parties of the centre-right generally support democratic capitalism, the market economy, limited forms of government regulation, private property rights, and opposition to socialism and communism. Such definitions generally include political parties that base their ideology and policies upon conservatism and economic liberalism. Parties that subscribe to social liberalism are often associated with the centre-left whereas those on the right of the liberal movement are often defined as conservative liberals or liberal conservatives. Centre-right parties often ground themselves in social conservative and traditionalist values and civic or liberal nationalism; as such, most predominantly Christian states possess a competitive centre-right Christian democratic party, while centre-right parties in predominantly Islamic countries may claim to uphold traditional Islamic values (as with the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and so on."

 Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While this issue is too political and polarized to ever be decided by full consensus, it's pretty clear that the overall views on this talk page are dominantly for reclassifying the party as "right," particularly among signed comments. To be fair, there is some support for "far-right" and for "center-right," particularly from one especially vocal user. But classifying the party as "right" represents a compromise between all viewpoints. I am therefore altering the page to read "right." If you support "far-right" or "center-right," please feel free to continue the discussion, but please let's not start an edit war on a page this important.Rppeabody (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Center-right is the best descriptor. And I see nothing approaching consensus to change the article. At best this discussion is leaning "no consensus." – Lionel (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lionelt, no consensus. In fact, I'm the only one who has presented evidence to support his claim, so any and all arguments otherwise are borderine original research. Not only is 'right' not consensus, it is very inaccurate.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No you are not. You cited the IDU, which is highly biased towards itself (it wouldn't label itself 'right' but rather 'centre-right'). I cited Gallup, OnTheIssues.org, and some other pieces that were tossed out during the undoing. The only way to decide what makes the party "right" or "centre-right" is to compare their stances on the issues with that of the general public's opinion. Polls have been done on this before so we won't have any original research.--Drdak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly sources describing this particular thing are hard to find, but I don't think yours are sufficient. The first two are about the Republican Party's "shift right", which does not necessarily mean it went from center-right to right, it could be just different degrees of center-right. Regardless, I'm still not sure if people are talking in U.S. or international political terms. If the former, then the whole country is shifting right so the Republican Party might not be moving anywhere, relatively speaking. Finally, the OnTheIssues.org source is probably WP:SYNTH. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Right is generic enough to include any centre-right fringes, which are a minority indeed. --Phagopsych (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start a RfC. This should have been done a while ago. --Drdak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)