Jump to content

Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right wing to Far right

[edit]

Someone else mentioned this too. Why it isn't labelled as right wing to far right? Trump has clearly criticized former Republican governance and has abandoned neoliberalism and globalism as party policy. Also Trump and Republican Party have associated themselves with parties and people which are labelled as right wing to far right such as UKIP and Farage, Fidesz and Orban. Republican Party position of political spectrum really needs to be changed to right wing to far right so people know exactly what Republican Party actually believes or is situated on political spectrum and not this erroneous identification. 86.124.126.108 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for this? Regardless of our personal political views--I voted for Harris and agree with the Democratic Party on most issues--the fact Trump won the popular vote in 2024 means that roughly half the country supported his agenda. See WP:SOAPBOX, and there have been plenty of discussions on this. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a candidate who wins an election cannot possibly be far-right is just silly. Extremist candidates do sometimes win the popular vote. — Red XIV (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of editors have argued that although the Democratic Party is not center-left by international standards, it should be called center-left because it is by U.S. standards. Accordingly, if 50% voted for Donald Trump, they must be center-right.
I notice too that Meloni's party is described as center-right. Considering that she the Fascist youth leader and her party is a successor to Mussolini's Fascist Party, the definition of center-right is pretty elastic. My solution would be to remove these labels as there is no correct answer and the fields provide no meaningful information. TFD (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not how it works at all. Winning 50% of the vote (which Trump actually fell just short of, but I suppose 49.9% is close enough) does not mean they "must be center-right". The notion that only the center-left or center-right can ever win an election is absurd. It's entirely possible for a party that's either far-right or far-left by its own nation's standards to win an election.
Also, since when is Meloni's party labeled as center-right? Its infobox lists it as "right-wing to far-right". You seem to be mistaking the "centre-right coalition" (an alliance of Italian parties ranging from center-right to far-right), of which Brothers of Italy is a member, with Brothers of Italy's own political position. — Red XIV (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I don't think we should determine position on the political spectrum differently in each country. TFD (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alliance that Meloni is the leader of is called the center right coalition. It’s most likely in reference to that rather than her actual political position 2601:804:8700:17D0:EC66:5280:53A1:7D50 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alliance that Meloni is the leader of is called the center right coalition. It’s most likely in reference to that rather than her actual political position 2601:804:8700:17D0:EC66:5280:53A1:7D50 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazi party got 30% of the votes I doubt you’d call them center right Natalieeeeeee (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, where's your reliable sources then? 220.245.162.215 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone winning the election and calling the candidate "far right" is not the same as the entire political party. There is far too much bias in these recent edits and in these replies.
Someone could easily argue that Biden, Harris, Obama were/are "far left", but does that mean the party is far left as a whole? Everyone knows that "far" in combination with left/right is a slur, and it is also entirely objective. To make this defacto claim on either political party's page is simply propaganda, unless either party officially announced that they hold that position on the political spectrum.
Additionally, the person who made all these recent changes (Kedamomo999) claims there was a consensus here. There was not, and the intent seems obviously politically driven. The sources cited by this person are left leaning, and it would be no different than citing Fox News as a source on the Democrat Party's page. 146.86.160.101 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone knows that "far" in combination with left/right is a slur"
I strongly disagree. Plenty of people would consider themselves "far left" or "far right" and believe that that is the logical place to land on the political spectrum. Joejoe1864 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a very strong difference between... What did Biden do again? Pardon federal prisoners convicted of simple possession of cannabis, reinstate DACA, have Medicare negotiate drug prices, impose a strict COVID response with stimulus checks... I struggle to find any radical positions from Biden. Not on the same level as withdrawing the US from international efforts such as climate change research and WHO, completely reversing LGBTQ rights, and greatly expanding the power of the president. It would be very difficult to seriously argue Biden is representing a political fringe, but Trump is acting much more aggressively with his executive orders, and that's why he's considered far-right. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's radical is held in the eyes of the beholder. I don't like getting in the nitty gritty of politicians and their views, but neither Trump nor Biden are extreme by any means. I guess it does depend on what you view as extreme though. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this argument is irrelevant. Wikipdedia doesn't care about personal opinions about what constitutes an extreme political position. It depends on what WP:RS say - and in this case that should principally be coming out of social science and humanities journals and books as the topic is well-explored in academia and those will likely represent the best available sources. And, having recently done the reading on this, I'll advise you that there is not a consensus in the academy about where the Republican party, as a party, lies in terms of political extremity. If we want a clear, concise, view of what to call the Republican party that is guided purely by academic best sources we call them right-wing. Not center-right, not far-right. Just right wing. Without adjectives. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol what academic best sources? 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has on it's page and website republican party members who are considered far right by Wikipedia itself and I gave a list at the bottom of this talk. Is wikipedia lying to itself like there is not far right faction in Republican Party when Wikipedia itself acknowledges there are far right members in it. Like why even call this members far right at this point no? Everyone is the same in the Republican party by your logic lol. Mindless robots 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do partially agree, the GOP is center-right to right wing (mostly right wing). I personally do not think reliable sources exist regarding "far-right" and "far-left" as those terms are subjective, and are prone to human bias. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that if AfD hypothetically wins 51% of the vote in the upcoming German elections, the "far right" label would have to be removed from their party? That makes no sense. Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, if 50% of the overall population voted for said party, then by Germany's standards they would no longer be far right (going based on the concept of the Overton Window). If 50% of the voting population voted for the party, then they would still probably be "far-right" by Germany's standards, but not as "far-right". BUT if you view "far-right" as a consistent ideology (which I personally don't) then they will always be far-right. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should the NSDAP be reclassified centrist and all other Weimar Republic parties far left by comparison? I hardly think what parties are popular has much bearing on what's far right. We go by the Wikipedia page on far-right politics, which clarifies they make ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and nativism core beliefs. Trump has made his entire platform from anti-immigration, so that's at least one undebatably checked box. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this matters. If sources call the party far-right, it is far-right, otherwise it is not.
Stating that a party can't be far-right because it got X percent of the vote is nonsense - fringe doesn't mean extreme or the other way around. Cortador (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that prior to the banning of other parties and that the Nazi Party did not have a majority above 50%, then by 1930s Germany's standards they would have still probably be far-right. Given our modern concept of "far-right" the Nazi party would be far-right as its the model far-right party. If you mean "far-right" as in political relativism then they would have also been far-right given the minority prior to the banning of parties. Regardless, the modern GOP is neither, by American standards the GOP is center-right to right when talking about American political relativity. If the GOP banned any other party from running, centralized power in the executive branch, removed all state and local rights, withheld elections, banned any form of immigration and kicked out all non-whites, then the GOP would be far-right! Hepatotoxicity (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00438200231176818
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162211070060
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-02-06-trump-supporters-and-extreme-right-share-widest-range-junk-news
Wikipedia can't do anything without people like me who searched for 1 minute such obvious sources of information for why Republican Party should be considered right wing to far right.
Oxford and Sage Journals are academic sources. It takes 1 minute to search very obvious stuff. If someone has the patience to research for more than 1 minute to find even more obvious sources to prove that Republican Party is right wing to far right I leave it up to them.
Ironically the oxford article is from 2018 Wikipedia is so lazy that it can't put such old information as source 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for all that is holy and just - back this claim up with sources. Take five minutes to browse the talk page. This is a discussion we have had a million times. Carlp941 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why you don't do it yourself if it takes 5 minutes? 86.120.162.98 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least it should be labelled as "center right to far right". Even if we pretend that they still have a "center right" wing of the party, there's no possible way to deny that a significant portion of the party is "far right". Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let's stop being dishonest with ourselves, we all know it is. Billie Lean (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To back up your point, the Wikipedia page for Trumpism had the Ideology section changed to just say far-right a couple days ago as of 2/11/2025. Considering Trumpism's influence on the Republican Party, I do not think it is far-fetched or biased to say that the party currently covers that part of the ideological spectrum. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding far-right in some form. As stated above, if Trumpism is fully categorized as far-right, then the Republican Party logically must at least have a far-right faction. I don't see why it's getting opposition, as "center-right to far-right" is an accurate descriptor of the party (if not a bit too moderate nowadays). LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yall, they’re throwing sieg heils on a regular basis, If we don’t have sufficient sources to call them far right then that’s a Wikipedia problem. Losasta (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Black_(white_supremacist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz all three Republican Party members, Elon musk Nazi salute and many other neo Nazi and white supremacist members in the Republican party are not enough reasons to include far right then it means nothing is far right anymore 86.120.162.98 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree because Trumpism, Trump, and JD Vance are all considered right wing to far right in the media. It is also the dominant strand of Republican ideology so it should be right wing to far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsija (talkcontribs) 02:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The republican party has a much weaker center-right faction than even a far right faction

[edit]

Given Trump is the president and the only moderates in the senate are Susan Collins and Muroski with some other occasional dissent from senators that isn't quite what would would say is enough to be considered moderate it doesn't feel right to say there is a center-right, of course it doesn't really feel right the slightly more powerful but still weak far right faction is (that) powerful either, even if it's growing in scale. The source that credits that there is a center-right neocon faction is 10 years out of date and the rise of populism has thrown out "RINO"s with these exceptions. This isn't a jab at the republican party in a biased manner, I'm not calling them far right for this reason, just saying there is no strong center and not much to stop general non-moderate sentiment. Pundits and news anchormen that were more moderate before that represented republican media have also conceded their centrism to not be disliked by the majority. Kedamomo999 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is in charge, and congressional Republicans are basically giving him what he wants per RS. There is no center or far right, rather it's just that Trump is basically doing what he wants.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/03/gop-meek-acquiescence-to-trump/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a neutral, justifiable source to provide? Cavdan2024 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Centrism" should be removed from the list of ideologies, especially given that the few Republicans who could have hypothetically been called "centrists" (like Mitt Romney) are gone. The "Political positions" should include far-right. Joejoe1864 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should center-right be removed from the infobox?

[edit]

Should center-right be removed from the infobox in the political position section? EarthDude (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I end the discussion? I lacked involvement in this thread in particular. Pogchampange (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure EarthDude (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend leaving the RfC open for the normal 1 month then letting an experienced editor close it. A close isn't required but a lack of closing is an issue if someone disputes the results. Springee (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a WP:VOTESTACK, but just looking around, it seems like there are 10+ editors in agreement over removing "center-right", while only 3-4 are in opposition. Does this indicate consensus? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Consensus is based on arguments. One argument based on policy can outweigh a million !votes if all of them are trivial. guninvalid (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my question was a bit vague and conveyed that I was asking about whether this indicates consensus "in general." I meant, is there consensus in this specific RfC? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current edit by that one guy seems to properly not technically break the rules of removing center-right before an RfC but also seems to meet what everyone here wants its a pretty good compromise and it shouldn't be reverted Pogchampange (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that someone should close the RfC. Consensus has been reached. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion II

[edit]
  • The political position in the infobox states that the party is center-right to right-wing. However, when I looked at the sources for the center-right claim, one source is marked as obsolete and another is marked with failed verification. The sole source left is from 2019, and states that the party is clearly changing and that Trump is supposedly "remodeling the right" (this is wording from the source). Furthermore, other sources in the article also directly contradict with the view that the Republican Party has a substantial center-right force. The article itself states "Trump's election exacerbated internal schisms within the GOP,[225]: 18  and saw the GOP move from a center coalition of moderates and conservatives to a solidly right-wing party hostile to liberal views and any deviations from the party line.[226]"
While a center-right faction may still be existing, it is clear that it's no longer mainstream in the party. Since it's no longer a defining characteristic of the party, it should be removed from the infobox
On top of that, here are some other sources which go into this:
1. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21449634/republicans-supreme-court-gop-trump-authoritarian
2. https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2024/07/politics/republican-gop-platform-annotated-dg/
3. https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/donald-trump-remains-dominant-force-in-republican-party-following-acquittal-121021400093_1.html
EarthDude (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here 2603:8001:1700:25A:5FB0:BFC1:55B0:FE6E (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing only makes sense now. Particularly as the "center right" sources continue to age poorly.
Support removing center right. Carlp941 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I previously have opposed this for a very long time, I am changing my vote to support due to a large amount of sources within the body of the article that have substantiated the claims that the center of the Republican Party has substantially hollowed out and become next to non-existent. While I think some of the sources that are used in this particular RfC aren't the greatest, other sources already in use on this page are in my view sufficient enough to use as references for the change to simply right-wing. BootsED (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Support removing as the party received 50% of votes in the last election and there are no significant third parties in the US Dw31415 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The percent of the vote they received should not be relevant in determining their ideology. Joejoe1864 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Javier Milei won 55% of the second-round vote with significant support from traditional center-right parties (with it's politician and voter base) but the political position for his coalition La Libertad Avanza is still labelled Right-wing to Far-right Mhaot (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing center right. As part of this change, I also support removing "centrism" from the list of ideologies. Joejoe1864 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I've opened up a topic in the space down below, the Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference still retain their "center-right to right-wing" labels, which is understandable as people like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski still remain active in Congress. Even Trump supporting people like John Thune are not explicitly affiliated with Trumpism, noted by how he and actually many other senators are not in the list of politicians associated with Trumpism. The only reason why the GOP in this page and the "List of political parties in the United States" page had their ideology changed was only due to one man: Donald Trump. If both chambers of the Republican legislature are still deemed as "center-right," then I think that justifies enough reason to bring back (unless of course, we change those too) DougheGojiraMan (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing only is my view. I oppose both center-right and far-right. There are certainly some center-right and far-right factions, but the bulk of the party and Trump are described by RS as right-wing. Specifically it's mainly right-wing populism, which has proven to be electorally viable, winning 49.8% of the popular vote in 2024.
There are plenty of sources describing how the Republican Party has lost its establishment, center-right faction since 2016.
  • It's worth nothing that George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, and Mitt Romney didn't attend the 2024 RNC.
  • In early 2024, a good article from Punchbowl News described how the Republican establishment was nearly gone.
  • I don't know if you want to get into the Supreme Court, but the Roberts Court since Trump is the most right-wing Supreme Court probably since the time of FDR.
I oppose far-right, because regardless of our personal political views, the Republican Party is broadly popular with roughly half the country. It has the edge in party identification and won the popular vote in the last presidential election.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/us/politics/rnc-bush-quayle-pence-cheney-romney.html
Link: https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/the-end-of-the-old-republican-party-senate-conference/
Link: https://www.vox.com/scotus/371361/supreme-court-call-republican-justices-republicans

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that a party can't be a far-right party solely because it is popular is nonsense and original research. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose far-right, because regardless of our personal political views, the Republican Party is broadly popular with roughly half the country
This is what, the fifth time you’re proposed this exact reason for opposing any change in this way, and you’ve been told repeatedly that it’s WP:OR and an inappropriate way to determine accurate information on articles. Please stop putting original research forward as a reason. Editors aren’t going to respond positively to it and it’s frankly a little disruptive that you’re keeping at it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally already a discussion going on about this. Toa Nidhiki05 05:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about the inclusion of far-right to the infobox specifically, and doesn't deal a whole lot with the center-right claim of the infobox EarthDude (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05 That discussion is a garbled mess where everyone is arguing with each other. Frankly Trump strikes me as reminiscent of Miklós Horthy from Hungary, as someone who edits biographies and history articles in Wikipedia. This is not a discussion about history, but from a historical perspective and judging among center-right governments abroad versus far-right ones, Trump straddles a unique dividing line. Trump is both reactionary yet futuristic, forging alliances with some of the richest men in human history like Elon Musk.
  • "Between 1919 and 1944, Hungary was a rightist country. Forged out of a counter-revolutionary heritage, its governments advocated a "nationalist Christian" policy; they extolled heroism, faith, and unity; they despised the French Revolution; and they spurned the liberal and socialist ideologies of the 19th century. The governments saw Hungary as a bulwark against Bolshevism and Bolshevism's instruments: socialism, cosmopolitanism, and freemasonry. They perpetrated the rule of a small clique of aristocrats, civil servants, and army officers, and surrounded with adulation by the head of the state, the counterrevolutionary Admiral Horthy."
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the difference between right-wing and far-right/fascist, I would refer to Germany's last monarch, Wilhelm II on Adolf Hitler.
  • "There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God [...] He builds legions, but he doesn't build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, traditions: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children [...] For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought of it as a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a time, some of the wisest and most outstanding Germans. But these, one by one, he has got rid of, or even killed ... Papen, Schleicher, Neurath – and even Blomberg. He has left nothing but a bunch of shirted gangsters! [...] This man could bring home victories to our people each year, without bringing them either glory or (danger). But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics."
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear; what argument are you making? And how is it relevant to this RfC? guninvalid (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making the argument that at the national level, the Republican Party is now de facto just Trump, except for maybe writing tax/budget legislation. So I view this entire discussion as just trying to characterize Trump. What exactly is the party doing at the national level that isn't approved or done by Trump? Even the SCOTUS is just bending over backwards to accommodate his wishes, given he appointed 1/3 of the justices and could soon appoint a majority.
And in the historical context, Trump is similar to right-wing but not far-right leaders. I'll get sources, with my view that Trump is wielding power on par with a constitutional monarch or regent. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have sources that specifically back up that the GOP equals just Trump and that Trump is just right wing and not far right, AND said sources outweigh those which just attribute an ideology to the party, this is, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, more original research. Cortador (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part I: The GOP just equals Trump.
Sources: [1][2][3]
Part II: Trump is just right-wing and not far-right.
Sources: See the multitude of sources in the article describing right-wing populism as the dominant faction of the Republican Party on the article. It's right-wing, not center-right or far-right. Also there have been RfC's on Trump's talk page opposing describing him as far-right. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that (dubious) logic the party position should be right wing to far right and possibly neo-fascist, since those are the positions the article on Trumpism uses, which in turn is what your first source uses. Cortador (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as saying, "Trump is just right-wing, not far-right", how does that reconcile with RS calling Trumpism a variant of far-right ideology?
For example....
During the 2010s the far-right replacement theory became popular in the United States among white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and right-wing militias, among other extremists, whose racist rhetoric and ideas were more freely expressed during the presidency of Donald Trump (2017–21). Right-wing media personalities, including Fox News commentators Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, also attested to the conspiracy, though in ostensibly milder language that did not directly refer to race or explicitly invoke anti-Semitism.
In part because of its endorsement by right-wing media and in part because Trump, in his own way, had signaled his support of racism toward people of colour (e.g., by indulging in racist slurs, by accepting the support of prominent avowed racists, and by refusing to condemn—or only reluctantly condemning—racist violence), key aspects of replacement theory came to be accepted by nearly half of Republicans and by a third of all Americans by 2022. Some Republican politicians also endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump.
Cheers... DN (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can no longer make hide nor hair of what point you're trying to make. That said, "fascist" isn't an alternative term for far right, it's a specific subset of far right. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or reword. For my entire life until around somewhere between 2015 and 2025, the Republican party has always been described in pretty much every major source as a center-right to right-wing party. I think that warrants either keeping it or describing it as "historically center-right". (Yapperbot says hi!) guninvalid (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be something suitable for the body, not the infobox. The infobox should reflect the current sourcing on the position. Cortador (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few cases I've seen of political parties which have a notable/recent historical position listed alongside their current position (see also: Mongolian People's Party, Jobbik, etc). Perhaps list right-wing as the current position, then in a note or new line state center-right as a historical position, each with sources? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How far back are we going for that, and is that even necessary? The Republican Party (and the Democratic Party) date back almost two centuries. We have sections on their histories and actions.
    If you're just talking about the transformation since Trump, that's one thing. But I don't think any historical notes are necessary. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current sourcing is weak. The 2015 source is fairly old and merely calls the GOP a "political instrument" of the centre-right. Another, as EarthDude pointed out, supports a shift away from the centre-right. The text cited for the third source is nowhere to be found in the actual linked source, but even if it was, a single source is insufficient to support a party position. Cortador (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, the second and third sources are marked as obsolete and failed verification respectively. The first source is the only valid source, which itself is 5 years old (being from 2019) EarthDude (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per the above. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article on centre-right politics claims that centre-right parties and factions have been in decline since the 2010s.: "The centre-right underwent a decline throughout the western world in the late 2010s and early 2020s, led by demographic changes such as increased tertiary education and ethnic diversity as well as the waning influence of religion and the rise of identity politics. At this time, the centre-left came into power and centre-right parties drifted rightward or were supplanted by new far-right parties." [4] Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is a good source, and I read it. We should incorporate it into the article, which I'll work on this month. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ball, Molly (January 23, 2024). "The GOP Wants Pure, Uncut Trumpism". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  2. ^ Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie (December 12, 2024). "The Stock Market and TV: Trump's Most Durable Guardrails". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 20, 2025. Mr. Trump is likely to receive only the meekest resistance from his own party, which will control both the House and Senate and whose members fear Trump-backed primary challengers. He has completed his hostile takeover of the Republican Party and the dissenters have been driven into retirement, defeated in primaries or cowed into silence.
  3. ^ Cohn, Nate (December 25, 2024). "Trump's Re-election Defines a New Era of American Politics". The New York Times. Retrieved December 25, 2024. Instead, it's the three Trump elections — in 2016, 2020 and 2024 — that look as if they have the makings of a new era of politics, one defined by Donald J. Trump's brand of conservative populism. ... Much of the Republican Party's old establishment — like the Cheneys, the Romneys, Paul Ryan — is now without a home.
  4. ^ Cliffe, Jeremy (2023-02-15). "The Strange Death of the Centre Right". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2023-02-25.
  • Support Even the "Compassionate Conservative" period of George W. Bush is not uniformly described as center-right by academic literature, with some scholars note a continual rightward shift throughout that period. The Southern Strategy is decades ago at this point and calling the Republican party center-right depends on either outdated academic sources or lower-quality news media sources that have a financial incentive to stick with the American Overton window. Wikipedia, menawhile, should not stick to the American Overton window and should, instead, cleave to academic best sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 The Southern strategy was only completed around 2010, contrary to popular wisdom. I'm the main editor of Solid South, writing almost half of the article, including the section on the Southern Strategy.
  • If you want milestones, it was in the 1994 Republican Revolution that Republicans won a majority of Southern U.S. House seats, the 2000 presidential election that Republicans consistently won almost every single former Confederate state (except Virginia since 2008) in elections, and around 2010 that Southern state legislatures finally became Republican.
With respect to center-right, I agree that the Republican Party is not center-right except for some small factions or politicians, and is instead whatever academic sources describe Trumpism as. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia absolutely should stick with US centric definitions of right and left when describing US political parties. The claim that the US is far anything seem to be used by those who are arguing to a conclusion and decide that many countries outside of Europe/former English colonies don't count. Also, the "southern strategy" has become a very nebulous term that seems to serve many masters. The core part of the "southern strategy" really only applied to Nixon's presidential strategy and then the facts are open to interpretation. However, as anything "southern strategy" is bad (just as the GOP is now seeing anything DEI as "bad" regardless of the merits) it's handy for partisan commentators etc to call out "southern strategy" as an alternative to crying racist. Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. We are a global encyclopedia, we are not Ameripedia and we should be using academic definitions and not the disinformation-distorted American local definitions. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have to say that suggesting that basic historical concepts like the southern strategy has become a very nebulous term that seems to serve many masters is an amusing claim. You can't mystify the 20th century just yet. We all still remember it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should we use Japan's perspective when deciding right vs left? It's quite reasonable to say left or right vs where you are now vs where someone else is. Your comment about the southern strategy is of topic here but yes, the term has had a lot of usage creep and even in our article it doesn't have a clear definition thus the label can be invoked when convenient. Springee (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Left and right are fairly clearly defined in theory. It is pretty easy to source credible theory papers and discussion to place any government anywhere on earth on a left-right axis, with caveats that not everyone will agree on all aspects and some may be understudied. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. We are not using any nation's folk-idea of left and right. We use academic sources. This is Wikipedia. That's what we do. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Center-right is no longer warranted, and the sourcing is embarrassingly weak for it. Far-right is also not supported as a general position for the overall party. The party is mainstream Right-wing today, as proposed, and as reflected by how Right-wing populism has found its way into the "majority" part of the ideology section. The sourcing for right-wing is much, much stronger than for center-right. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for the same reasons. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but open to options. In a very general sense the GOP is the right wing of US politics and the Democrats are the left wing. So in that regard I think it would be just fine to say "right-wing" and call the Democrats "left-wing". In all cases it needs to be understood that when one looks across the nation the parties have people who will span from center to far. I do agree that Trump has moved the party to the right while Obama moved the Democrats to the left. The center is not as big as it was in say the 1990s (for both parties). Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is false equivalence. This fails to take into account how the Republican Party is led by one person, Donald Trump, unlike the Democratic Party. What exactly are we discussing, when both the party's voters and its elected officials are beholden to Trump? See the CNN poll, which describes how the party is less about ideology than loyalty to Trump.
    For the Democrats, during Biden's presidency his agenda was subject to intense negotiations and was often blocked by centrists like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.[1] The Democratic Party forced Biden out of the presidential race in 2024 as well. For lack of better phrasing, the Democratic Party spans a much larger range of views, and is not beholden to a single person.
    "And many of those aligned with the GOP view loyalty to Trump as central to their political identity. A 53% majority say that supporting Trump is a very important part of what being a Republican means to them. That’s up from 34% who said the same in late summer 2021, months after the end of Trump’s first term. It also outpaces the share who now assign similar value to tenets like favoring a less powerful federal government (46%), supporting congressional Republicans (42%) or opposing Democratic policies (32%); only “holding conservative values and policy positions” (54%) carries similar weight."[2] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again this seems to be a preference for local folk-definitions of left and right. We should adhere to academic definitions in all cases. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the failed verification source (Routledge handbook on political parties) is just linked to a completely different PDF, presumably just an editing error mixing up a source used for the party's far-right factions. I don't have access to the full text but a search of it on Google books can confirm the text as quoted appears on the cited page fairly easily. I don't think it is particularly compelling to cite a source using the term centre right while describing all the ways the party doesn't fit that term anyway but thought it worth mentioning. Chaste Krassley (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This source (link below) provided by @Dimadick is very good at describing how center-right parties across the Western world have shifted to the right, and/or other right-wing or far-right parties have gained in popularity (for multi-party countries). In Europe, this includes Germany's AfD ("Alternative for Germany"), France's National Rally, Italy's Brothers of Italy, Britain's Reform UK, etc. Or in Latin America, Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro and Argentina's Javier Milei.
    • The point is right-wing populism and the rise of right-wing to far-right parties in recent years (i.e. in the 2010s and 2020s) isn't solely an American phenomenon. And center-right parties, politicians, and ideologies have been in decline among voters in terms of support.
    According to the source, which confirms what other sources on educational polarization have said, part of this is due to educational polarization causing splits between the college-educated but less socially conservative (on a broad range of issues) versus the non-college but more socially conservative.
    Link: https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2023/02/strange-death-centre-right-moderate-conservatism JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the removal of "centre-right" in the infobox. Republican party is currently led by the far-right MAGA movement, which is an American ultra-nationalist political faction that is based on Trumpism. As of 2024, Trumpists dominate and control the Republican Party.[3][4]
Outdated or obsolete sources are currently cited in the infobox to claim that Republicans are a centre-right party. The Republican party is not described as a centre-right party in "The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties" (2023) book which is currently cited along those obsolete sources in the infobox. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to close RfC and declare consensus 2603:8001:1700:25A:2DA7:146D:2F73:F7E3 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think it'd be a good idea to have a dynamic IP interpret this consensus. No offense. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I do it? (I’m relatively new here, but just from skimming the RFC I can see a consensus. RiverMan18 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see an issue with it, but I'd give it another day or two. Up to you though! Carlp941 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closures require a knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as an understanding of how to evaluate a close. A random dynamic IP where this is the only edit isn't exactly going to instil confidence that this was adjudicated fairly (even if it is), which is a problem as this isn't a WP:SNOW closure. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention WP:RFC guidelines explicitly state that IPs are not permitted to close RfCs. Any uninvolved confirmed or autoconfirmed editor can close RfCs, but I really don't recommend it. Any close is likely to be challenged and brought to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you play nice and WP:ANI if not. guninvalid (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I was not suggesting that the IP close it, just that i didnt have an issue with @RiverMan18 closing it. Carlp941 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it! Theres been a few days since the discussion has gotten any new comments, and there is a very clear consensus to remove center-right lol EarthDude (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I'd recommend if a newer editor closes is to read the RfC carefully before closing rather than skimming and seeing a rough consensus. Because an RfC is not a vote the quality of specific arguments is critical to accurately assessing consensus. A closure note that engages with substantive arguments, even those it ultimately felt did not have consensus, is generally wise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we see the arguments presented, I see only two that oppose removing center-right, and want to keep it in the infobox. For those who want to remove center-right, its mostly on reliable sources stating so, and the infobox stating that the article is center-right having bad sourcing. Toa Nidhiki05 argued that there are recent good sources for the party still having a mainstream center-right position, but when asked, didn't provide any. The only other editor who opposed, simply claimed that the Republicans are the right-wing of US politics and Dems the left-wing but didnt add anything further and didnt use scholarly definitions or sources for it. The arguments are also much stronger for those wanting to remove center-right from the infobox. You seem to be an experienced editor, maybe you can close the discussion? EarthDude (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean me then, no, I am far, far too involved in the discussion to close. Ideally the closer should not have !voted in the RfC. I've done that, provided sources, and got involved in an arbitration action that came out of the other related RfC regarding infoboxes and political alignment. In that context I could not close this RfC in a way that wouldn't be perceived as POV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove field Let readers decide where the party lies in their own perception of the political spectrum. Use of the field conveys no useful information. TFD (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just factually false. The field does convey important information. Parties are commonly described by their political position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the removal of "centre-right" in the infobox,(Summoned by bot) sources record the description as now clearly out of date. There are certainly some center-right and far-right factions, but the bulk of the party and Trump are described by RS as right-wing. Specifically it's mainly right-wing populism, per JohnAdams1800 and Republican party is currently led by the far-right MAGA movement, which is an American ultra-nationalist political faction that is based on Trumpism. As of 2024, Trumpists dominate and control the Republican Party per Shadowwarrior8. Pincrete (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted the closing by an editor with just 4 edits to their username. We aren't quite in SNOW territory here and given there is no time limit it's best to let this run out naturally. RiverMan18 removed the material from the article based on the closing I reverted[1]. Since it looks like that is where this will probably end up and since they were following the closing I would suggest leaving the good faith edit in place. Springee (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace "To" With Comma This is a contingent !vote to replace the word "to" with a comma if "center-right" is kept: Center-right to Right-wing --> Center-right, Right-wing. None of the sources on either side indicate there is a spectrum of beliefs spanning the center-right to right-wing, each make their claims in silos, apparently indicating there are center-right and right-wing elements within the party, as opposed to indicating a unified party ideology that combines center-right and right-wing ideas. The word "to" puts us in violation of WP:SYNTH by combining "material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Center-right and right-wing are generally considered to be adjacent on the political spectrum, so there is nothing in between them. At the same time, "centre-right to right-wing" doesn't mean the party's position is literally in the middle of the two positions, rather, the party exhibits traits of both positions. It's inclusive, not exclusive. Anyways. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the party exhibits traits of both positions" That's not supported by the sources extant. The sources extant either say "center-right" or "right-wing" they don't say "incorporating elements of the center-right and right wings". If some sources say the sky is blue, and others say the sky is yellow, we can't put on Wikipedia "the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes yellow" or "some parts of the sky are blue and others are yellow" or "the sky is green". "To", as a preposition, indicates a relationship between each element which is not supported by sources. A comma is more appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing for just right-wing in this specific case. But the format "position to position" is fully valid and I support it in some instances. When sourcing is split evenly about what the position is, we usually do that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's invalid. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with some other support positions stated here. While Center-right was a mainstay for a long period of time, it is no longer warranted according to what many sources might consider or refer to as a paradigmatic shift further to the right since 2016. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for the above reasons. One of the best examples of this is the Supreme Court itself, dominated by Republicans and which has shifted further to the right since 2016.
    • I have sources saying that the Roberts Court (current SCOTUS with 3 Trump appointees) is no longer center-right, but right-wing in a below discussion. In many of the Roberts Court decisions, it has cast aside center-right decisions and become much more rigidly partisan and ideological--not just Dobbs, but also say the Trump immunity case and enabling voter suppression and gerrymandering. These decisions have been supported by the Republican Party, and simply cannot be dismissed as center-right politics.
    JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Luscombe, Richard (3 October 2021). "Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema: The centrists blocking Biden's agenda". The Guardian.
  2. ^ Edwards-Levy, Ariel (January 19, 2025). "CNN Poll: Most Democrats think their party needs major change, while the GOP coalesces around Trump". CNN. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
  3. ^ Ball, Molly (January 23, 2024). "The GOP Wants Pure, Uncut Trumpism". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  4. ^ Eisler, Parker, Peter, Ned (16 August 2024). "How Trump's intimidation tactics have reshaped the Republican Party". Reuters.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"I find it telling that there are no calls to change "center-left" on the Democratic Party (United States) page"...See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
"The attempts to change the infobox to "push" this page towards representing this party as farther "right" are simple attempts to use Wikipedia"...See WP:AGF.
Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OSE does not apply here. When there is a coordinated effort to use Wikipedia to push a POV, that warrants being pointed out. I am assuming that editors are acting in good faith - but that does not require me to overlook their unintentional POV pushing or allowing their own personal biases into their comments on a topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you assume it is "coordinated"? DN (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, Berchanhimez: perhaps you are the one pushing their POV in this discussion? There is no "coordinated effort" here. Aren't you making a bad-faith assumption by saying that? Never mind that your statement about "far-left politicians in the Democratic Party" is 1. irrelevant, 2. false, 3. false equivalence, and 4. not even about the same type of position change, as here we're discussing the removal of center-right, not the addition of far-right. See the above RfC for that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that American Politics has been designated as a contentious topic is more than enough evidence that there is a history of coordinated POV pushing in this topic area. Regardless of what you think, there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of center-right politicians in the GOP. So trying to remove center right from the party designation is blatant trying to rewrite the narrative using Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds if not thousands? DN (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are those thousands of center-right politicians? Sources are not reflecting what you are saying. This RfC proposal isn't being done lightly: it is based on appropriate interpretation of available sourcing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on cherry picked sources which are pushing their own pov. Treating those sources as above those that report on the totality of the circumstances (such as the NYT, for example) is POV pushing. You can find reliable sources that will purport to say almost anything. And there's many sources that do not say the GOP as a whole is far right (or no longer center). Choosing only those that say what you want is not appropriate. You cannot simply ignore all the sources that do not comment on the issue at all and claim that because they don't comment they must agree with you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be engaging in bad faith. Please read WP:Assume good faith. Have a good day. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed good faith. I have merely pointed out that people in this (and other) discussions are cherry picking sources. I have assumed that is unintentional, and rather than provide any arguments to how they aren't doing that, you've chosen to personally attack me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying we should cleave to academic sources - how is that cherry picking? Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which prominent Democratic politicians are "far-left", and which of those are in anything other than marginal positions within the party apparatus? Iostn (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards oppose As 'centre-right' still describes the philosophy of some parts of the Republican Party, and because the party at a state level may in some cases (particularly in the north-east) still by and large be reasonably described as centre-right. This is a tough one as Trump's administration is anything but centrist and he has unfathomable power within the party today.

On the other hand, it may be the unfortunate truth that 'right-wing' is now the average between centre-right and far-right Republicans. The average centre-right American may still choose to associate more with the Republican Party, and vote for it.

I have placed a tag on the article drawing readers & contributors to this discussion as I believe that is warranted for this is an important differentiation. I hope I am not prolonging this discussion longer than it should be. Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just fixed one of the references for 'centre-right' by adding a correct URL and removing the 'failed verification' tag. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively the order can be reversed so that it reads 'right-wing to centre-right'. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying that the party does not have any center-right group or tendency. What this discussion is about is whether or not center-right is still mainstream enough to warrant a place in the infobox. For example, the Republican Party has members and caucuses with dozens of different ideologies but only some are in the infobox because the rest are too fringe to count and would clutter space. Center-right used to be a mainstream position but has become increasingly fringe in recent years and is no longer mainstream enough to be included in the infobox. EarthDude (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Center-rigjt figures have largely been driven out of positions of power in the Republican party and a large proportion of their former luminaries have largely left public life. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it is worth looking at the composition of the Republican Party in Congress. A large portion of members remain part of caucuses identified as centre-right or centrist, or have been identified as moderate Republicans, included some elected in recent years.
It is also worth looking at the state branches, in the north-west and Utah particularly.
You may be right that 'right-wing' only is the best descriptor, but these facets need to be considered. If in a couple of days there's no notable change in the state of this discussion or it is stale then I for one fully consent to the infobox being amended. Will Thorpe (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean on for putting Right-Wing as political position:
- There are mainstream conservative parties that is not listed as Center-Right such as Likud in Israel (Right-Wing), Fidesz in Hungary (Right-Wing to far-right), Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (Right-Wing), Bharatiya Janata Party in India (Right-Wing to far-right) and People Power Party (South Korea) (Right-wing). I will use Likud as the closest example given there was a largely contentious debate in their talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Likud) whether it should include "Centre-Right" with very similar arguments to this talk page (Likud varies from Centre Right to Far-right etc.) but the consensus ended up retaining as Right-Wing
- In the Chinese and Spanish wiki page for example, listed as them as Right-Wing with Center-Right to Far-right Factions
- Some people say just because nearly half of Americans voted for Trump means that it has to be at least "Center-Right" but Political Position is about core base, policies and party ideology not about voters themselves. Javier Milei won 56% of the vote yet his alliance is still labelled Right-Wing to Far-right despite having consolidating support from Center-right parties and voters (due to the two-round voting system).
- Parties that are labelled Center-Right to Right-Wing (e.g. Liberal Party of Australia , Conservative Party (UK) , Conservative Party of Canada) are mainly because are Right-wing Populist on certain issues (e.g. Settler Colonialism and Indigenous issues for Australia, Brexit for UK, and anti-Trudeau sentiment for Canada) else they remain moderate or center-right on most other issues.
- As for Local and State branches such as Vermont Republican Party, they can get separate political positions from the National Party (e.g. Liberal Party of Australia is Centre-Right to Right-Wing but Tasmanian Liberal Party is simply Centre-right)

Mhaot (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removing center-right. I think a simple descriptor as Right-wing would leave open that such ideologies within vary in intensity. It's just the most neutral descriptor here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Even leaving aside the continued decline/irrelevance of GOP moderates, "right-wing" just by itself is an open, sufficiently ambiguous term that can encompass the party broadly. Listing "centre-right" today is actively misleading, if anything I'd argue this is more of a compromise that leaves "far-right" unlisted. I suppose we could list "centre-right and far-right factions" but simply stating right-wing is both simple and the least controversial. Iostn (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, though the response should be taken on what is most merited on fact. Still, it seems the composition of the Republican Party today may well justify 'right-wing' as the average and best descriptor of its current platform.
    Still, as I stated, a very large portion of Republicans in the Congress belong to caucuses identified as centrist, centre-right or moderate, such as the Main Street Caucus. I'm not sure how to square this. Regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other issue is that a number of recent reliable sources (listed in infobox) still refer to the party as centre-right at least in part. Even one debatably marked as obsolete, in what I think may be a case of WP:POVPUSHING, is only from 2015.
    I propose that if we do make it simply 'right-wing', which it seems we will, we include a note acknowledging that Republicans exist on a spectrum from centre-right (or even centrist) to far-right, attributed to reliable sources including those already present. Will Thorpe (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I made a proposed compromise which is already done in the Chinese and Spanish wiki pages
    Right-wing
    Factions:
    Centre-right to far-right Mhaot (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support above proposal. Will Thorpe (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EarthDude @Simonm223 @JohnAdams1800 @Berchanhimez @Paul Vaurie I'm reaching out to all you for your opinions on the proposal. Will Thorpe (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CANVAS DN (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All followed. Will Thorpe (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im averse to keeping center-right in the infobox. Center-right politics have been marginalized from being a formerly mainstream position of the party to a now fringe position. Knowing this, maintaining center-right in the infobox would be very misleading and cluttering, since its only supposed to show a party's main ideologies and positions, not every single one of them no matter how small or fringe they are. This is especially the case for US politics, where the two party system, and to a lesser extent the sheer size of the country, has incentivized both the Democrats and the Republicans to have a huge range of ideologies and positions, even though recent years have seen a lot of polarization and radicalization. So again, center-right should be removed from the infobox period. Maybe, a small efn note could be added stating the party used to be historically center-right. EarthDude (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the Republican Governance Group and the Main Street Partnership. These still have dozens of members in Congress, some of whom have been recently elected. Will Thorpe (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm averse to including centre-right in the infobox too since I think that presents an inaccurate view of the Republican party as viewed from the outside. As I've mentioned before Wikipedia is an international project and should use an international perspective. I would be willing to allow a compromise of just calling the Republicans right-wing without any qualifiers in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia library indicates that there are zero academic sources that discuss the Republican Governance Group by that name. Meanwhile there are two academic sources since 2016 that discuss the Main Street Partnership.
    1. Who are President Trump's Allies in the House of Representatives? By: Clarke, Andrew J.; Jenkins, Jeffery A. Forum (2194-6183). Oct2017, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p415-429. 15p. DOI: 10.1515/for-2017-0029.
      Please note that this source is from 2017 - that will be relevant later. From the abstract We build our analysis around three groups of Republicans, based on caucus affiliations: members of the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP), the Republican Study Committee (RSC), and the House Freedom Caucus (HFC). We find that House Republicans, regardless off caucus membership, broadly support President Trump and largely shared in the his electoral success. Yet, we also uncover suggestive evidence that the HFC is maneuvering into a position of influence with President Trump. Freedom Caucus members are more closely tied to his electoral performance than members of other conservative groups, and they appear to receive more time with the President relative to a comparable group of House Republicans. They include information that does indicate that the RMSP is, on average, less conservative than other Republican groups, representing the least conservative faction that exists within the Republican party. The Republican Main Street Partnership represents the centrist members of the House GOP. Their mission is to serve as “the governing wing of the Republican Party,” with an emphasis on economic and national security policy.[5] The RMSP includes the less formal “Tuesday Group,” with prominent leaders like Charlie Dent (PA-15) and Elise Stefanik (NY-21). Charlie Dent is no longer in Congress. Stefanik is likely leaving soon to take up a position as Ambasador to the UN with delays coming from within her own party in response to Democrat maneuvers that would keep her seat empty for an extended period of time. However it seems safe to conclude that her days in congress are numbered. This is editorial but it's interesting to note she's being appointed to an ambassadorship to a body that Trump loyalists in the Republican party have discussed exiting with some seriousness. As such the two identified leaders of Republican centrism in 2017 are no longer in positions of significant leadership.
      The average Republican had a Trump Support score of 97%, with 99 lawmakers providing perfect support for the President. Interestingly, we see dissension among centrist and non-centrist Republicans. For example, two of the three least supportive Republicans were from competing factions; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) is a member of the Main Street Partnership, while Justin Amash (MI-03) is a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus and a vocal opponent of the President. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen left congress in 2019. Justin Amash left congress in 2021. nearly every Republican has offered extensive support to date.
      Turning to who Trump favored in 2017 the article says The results suggest that, after accounting for several possible confounding variables, membership in the House Freedom Caucus increases the probability of receiving face time with President Trump. By contrast, membership in the RMSP and RSC produces no such relationship.
      Turning to the conclusion they said Trump also appears confident in his capacity to use primary challengers to cow obstinate co-partisans, as the simmering proxy war in Jeff Flake’s (AZ) re-election campaign suggests. This is supported by the fact that every single named Republican opponent of Trumps, bar one, is no longer a member of congress. This includes Mitch McConnell who is mentioned as disliking Trump and who is not seeking re-election although, in his case, this may be principally because of advanced age which is why I left him out above in this literature review. Whatever President Trump’s strategy may be, congressional Republicans are in for a challenging couple of years. Having secured the full legislative power of the federal government, they now face the daunting task of preserving a fractured coalition in the House and overcoming publicly advertised disagreements with the White House. is the final word of this 2017 paper.
    2. Subpartisan Cues and Ideological Distinctions: The Effect of the Tea Party Label on Voter Perceptions of Congressional Candidates*. By: Gervais, Bryan T., Taylor, Jeffrey A., Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 00384941, Nov2016, Vol. 97, Issue 5 A note - this is a 2016 source. It is also passing mention only, proposing more research would be useful regarding groups that were near the R/D boundary such as the Republican Main Street Coalition and Blue Dog Democrats.
    Our own page on the Main Street Partnership indicates it was fully dissolved in 2019. It re-formed in 2021 but with the specific caveat that The group won’t take policy positions.[2] (apologies for using a lower-quality news source. After 2017 the Main Street Partnership were not apparently deemed significant enough for academic attention).
    Ultimately it does seem like Clarke and Jenkins had a finger on the pulse when they indicated Republican factions were largely somewhat irrelevant - the average Republican lawmaker provided legislative support to Trump 97% of the time. It's his party. They're all just warm bodies to him.
    I will note my previous literature reviews only looked at the Republican party holistically and did not drill down to specific factions. However, on this minimal basis, I think I will formally adjust my position to suggesting that the infobox be adjusted to just say "Right-Wing" without any qualifiers. The academic literature on the most moderate Republicans paints an ambivalent picture of a group that either remained loyal to Trump or who subsequently left politics. I don't think it would be appropriate, considering the extent to which Republican legislators seem to operate as armatures of Trump, regardless of personal political convictions, to assign any more specific labels in either direction.
    The one weakness of this literature review is the dearth of academic literature on the Main Street Partnership and the total absence of academic literature on the Republican Governance Group. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that Romney – a prominent moderate – was replaced by another. Collins and Murkowski remain in the Senate, whilst others who hold centre-right positions unfortunately will be biting their tongues when it comes to explicit criticism of Trump. Obviously this is a horrific state for the party to be in. I don't think moderation can be assessed entirely on what members explicitly express about Trump, and their close alignment to Trump on most legislative votes may not indicate much either, if these positions are often just reflecting of longstanding GOP policy. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the good materialist that I am I feel that their actions (supporting Trump legislatively) are much more significant for identifying their ideological underpinnings than their rhetoric. However, ultimately, my opinion as a political philosopher are somewhat irrelevant (unless I publish something on the topic and work up the nerve to WP:SELFCITE ;) ) and what is relevant is what RSes say. Unfortunately, when it comes to these factions, the answer is that RSes don't say much. And that's why I think we should leave out the factional conditions and ranges and just call the Republicans a right-wing party. It's accurate, well sourced, clear, correct and non-controversial. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose center-right, just stick to right-wing. We have RS on how the party has become increasingly right-wing and has contributed to democratic backsliding. I would suggest looking at the Roberts Court page for how the party has shifted to becoming right-wing as one example. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose proposal with factions. I think this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the center and far right aspects of the party. In my understanding, the vast mainstream of the party is simply right-wing, nothing more. There are some center and far right factions, but they are not prominent enough to warrant such inclusion in the infobox. We already have "factions" listed in the ideology section. However, if we want to leave a hatnote, I would find that to be more appropriate of a proposal. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be amenable to an efn or hatnote placed at the bottom of the infobox, as seen on the page for the Liberal Party of Australia. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing

[edit]

The infobox says the party is "center-right to right-wing" which is the same categorization as the Conservatives (UK) and the GOP is to the right of the Tories, in my view it should be only right-wing. 189.76.128.100 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RFC above—it discusses essentially what you are proposing. RiverMan18 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the RFC above—it discusses essentially what you are proposing. RiverMan18 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We use the standards of the country and time period, along with academic sources. There is no universal standard or cross-country comparison. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: We only use academic standards. We do not use the standards of the country and time period except when the academic consensus does likewise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no academic consensus that the Republican Party is center-right. Currently, the infobox cites three sources for using that designation. One of them is clearly outdated, being from 2015 and before Trumpism took over the party. Of the two sources published after Trump's ascendancy, one flat-out admits that the party is "an outlier" amongst Anglosphere political parties that are considered center-right and caters more to its extremist elements than is typical for the rest. These are not good sources to justify the "center-right" label in the infobox. TKSnaevarr (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a discussion about this going on. You can contribute there EarthDude (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 We use academic sources, which incorporate the standards of the country and time period. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We use academic sources and a global standard, instead of using separate standards for separate countries EarthDude (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can compare to the global standard but they are stated in relation to their country and time period. For instance Democrats would be considered right wing in most of western Europe but we state they are Center-left in their infobox because by the American politics standards they are. So yes, they are separated standards per country. PackMecEng (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go as far as calling the Dems right-wing by European standards, theyre more center-right by European standards. I think the Wiki page for the Dems should be changed from calling em center left to a centrist party, cuz thats what it is, by the global standard, as they mix right-wing economics (except for the center-left bernie-AOC progressive faction of the party) with generally progressive social policies. EarthDude (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Can we incorporate the Roberts Court's decisions into discussions of right-wing and far-right?

[edit]

If there's one place where the Republican Party's shift to the right has been much clearer, absent electoral results (SCOTUS justices aren't elected), it has been the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. Aside from Dobbs, I have RS documenting how the SCOTUS has become extremely partisan and right-wing in recent years with Trump's appointments. Partisan is in the sense that its members have predictable ideologies based on the president that appointed them, which is far different from the past, despite what many might assume. I was editing the Roberts Court article today, and thought it might be relevant.

The SCOTUS isn't "right-wing populist," in that it doesn't need to campaign or appeal to voters. None of the justices are wearing MAGA hats or being populist, they're just deciding cases. It helps provide a perspective on how the Republican Party has changed since Trump beyond merely elected officials in my view.

  • But it has shifted much further to the right post-Trump, with the more recent 2024 Trump v. United States presidential immunity decision being a good example. Would these sources and others be useful for incorporating into the party's ideology, with the second source of Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences being a good example.
  • Partisan means "a committed member of a political party who strongly supports their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with political opponents." [1][2] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how all of this relevant? And to what is it relevant? Be more concise, please. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court has been just as transformed as the rest of American politics in the Trump era (2016-present). And given the Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees (6-3), and the nature of its recent rulings (i.e. Dobbs, Trump immunity case, voter suppression and gerrymandering, etc.), it helps provide support with RS that the Republican Party is ideologically no longer center-right as a significant component of its political position.
  • The Supreme Court is likely the very last "establishment" faction of the Republican Party, given Trump can't fire its members. And it has largely enabled Trump and Republicans, while shifting to the right.
The Supreme Court isn't an elected institution, and isn't "right-wing populist," given its job is just to decide cases. I have RS that it is partisan, and ideologically right-wing. The Supreme Court's job is to decide cases, and the nature of its decisions provides strong evidence that the Republican Party has largely lost its moderate and center-right faction. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Court is right-wing populist if RS describe it as such, and isn't if they don't.
Regarding the actual question: it's probably appropriate to include in the article that the judges voted for by GOP representatives have drifted further and further right, sourcing pending, naturally. Cortador (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020s SCOTUS highlights the sheer scale of the ideological polarization between the two parties and the Republican Party's further shift to the right. Here are some examples:
  • As the Vox article says, there was once a time when Republican nominees were pro-abortion (i.e. Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens), not to mention Roe's author Harry Blackmun was appointed by Richard Nixon.
  • Compare United States v. Nixon (1974) with Trump v. United States (2024) on presidential immunity and conduct.
I'm not a lawyer, but the sheer contrast in the SCOTUS of the time of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush to Trump's time is astounding.
I can bring more RS if necessary, but today's SCOTUS was confirmed by Republicans and Democrats for ideological purity. Beyond specific issues, another RS quote here couldn't better describe the current SCOTUS:
  • "The Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party that was hostile not only to liberal views but also to any perspective that clashed with the core views of an ideologically cohesive conservative cadre of party faithfuls."[3] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While SCOTUS isn't exactly mutually exclusive to either party, I think this is an interesting question, that largely depends on the amount of coverage by RS on the matter. Is the Roberts court a fair and accurate reflection of the Republican party? Tune in next week ;-) Cheers. DN (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no RFC tag? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was too lazy to put the RFC tag. This is a "Request for Comment" to discuss the Republican-dominated SCOTUS, not really about an editing dispute. If there's one place where it's clearest that the Republican Party has shifted to the right, it's the SCOTUS.
  • I help maintain the judicial appointment history for U.S. federal courts. As one example, the Roe court in 1973 was 6-3 Republican, and the Casey court in 1993 was 8-1 Republican. Roe's author was Harry Blackmun, appointed by Richard Nixon. There are other decisions and issues too.
All four appointees of Trump and Biden were confirmed very narrowly: Gorsuch 54-45, Kavanaugh 50-48, Barrett 52-48, and Jackson 53-47. It's a powerful sign of the times, both of the Republican Party shifting to the right and partisan polarization in general. (Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3 for reference.)
In my view the Roberts Court cannot be described as "center-right," both with respect to its decisions on say abortion but also RS describing how it has contributed to democratic backsliding. And the Roberts Court has been described as both extremely partisan and also enabled by elected Republican officials, making it a strong sign that center-right should be removed.
Link: Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts#Supreme Court JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without the tag, you're not going to get a lot of input. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Bush v. Gore 2001. Five Republican SC justices awarded the 2000 election to the Republican presidential candidate. Republicans led by Roger Stone (Yes, that Roger Stone!) had impeded the vote count during the Brooks Brothers riot. There's noting new. TFD (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References

  1. ^ "We should call the Republican justices "Republicans" and not "conservatives"". Vox. October 5, 2024. Retrieved February 22, 2025. Nor have Democrats failed to police their own nominees' ideological conformity. None of the Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden broke with the Democratic Party's approach to judging in the same way that Souter broke from the GOP's. ... Democrats' vetting process, meanwhile, is more informal. But it's been no less successful in identifying Supreme Court nominees who reliably embrace their party's stance on the most contentious issues. The last Democrat appointed to the Supreme Court who broke with the party's pro-abortion rights stance, for example, was Justice Byron White — a dissenter in Roe v. Wade appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. ... The result is a modern-day Supreme Court where every single member was carefully selected by their party to ensure that they will not stray on any of the issues where the two parties have settled views. ... The Republican justices, in other words, behave just like Republicans in other policymaking roles. They sometimes disagree with their fellow Republicans on important issues, but they also share a broad theory of governance, as well as a fairly granular agenda that includes (among other things) eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, implementing a "colorblind" theory of the Constitution, and centralizing regulatory authority in the judicial branch of government. ... We should call the Republican justices "Republicans," and the Democratic justices "Democrats," because that is the best way to educate our readers about how the modern-day Supreme Court actually functions.
  2. ^ Biskupic, Joan (April 4, 2023). "Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences". Retrieved February 22, 2025. Nine Black Robes displays the inner maneuverings among the Supreme Court justices that led to the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade and a half century of women's abortion rights. Biskupic details how rights are stripped away or, alternatively as in the case of gun owners, how rights are expanded. Today's bench—with its conservative majority—is desperately ideological. The Court has been headed rightward and ensnared by its own intrigues for years, but the Trump appointments hastened the modern transformation. With unparalleled access to key players, Biskupic shows the tactics of each justice and reveals switched votes and internal pacts that typically never make the light of day, yet will have repercussions for generations to come.
  3. ^ McKay, David (2020), Crewe, Ivor; Sanders, David (eds.), "Facilitating Donald Trump: Populism, the Republican Party and Media Manipulation", Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 107–121, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17997-7_7, ISBN 978-3-030-17997-7, retrieved 2024-06-13, the Republicans changed from being a right of centre coalition of moderates and conservatives to an unambiguously right-wing party that was hostile not only to liberal views but also to any perspective that clashed with the core views of an ideologically cohesive conservative cadre of party faithfuls

New ideology

[edit]

Anti-Atlanticism
Anti-Ukrainian sentiment 2001:1C01:4009:D00:18CC:615D:5326:C030 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are certainly categories, but do not merit individual ideologies. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Republican's stance on anti-Atlanticism and anti-Ukrainian sentiment. 2001:1C01:4009:D00:18CC:615D:5326:C030 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do love it when I click a link and it immediately cites Samuel P. Huntington who is pretty thoroughly discredited. 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate term is "obsolete", not "discredited". JacktheBrown (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical position

[edit]

I think we should include a historical political position (Center to Center-left) and do the same on the Democrats (Right-wing) AstrowszechwiatWKG (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because it really depends on the time period. We have the history section for that. Also the Solid South was often entirely separate from the non-Southern Democratic Party until the 1970s. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is anachronistic to use political terms for periods before they were used in the U.S. or in many cases anywhere. In any case, both parties had supporters right across the political spectrum until from FDR to Reagan they reoriented along left-right lines. TFD (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces One interesting event was that in 1938, FDR tried to purge many conservative Democrats from the party, and mostly failed.
Source: Roosevelt's Purge: How FDR Fought to Change the Democratic Party JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnAdams1800: we should add this reliable source within one or more articles. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good source. It might be more relevant at Democratic Party (United States) but if it has significant material on the Republicans it should certainly be usable here too. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the use of this source in both articles. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JacktheBrown @Simonm223 I read the book while writing my Masterpiece article, Solid South. The main thing I got out of the book was that Southern Democrats were very conservative even by the standards of their time, and allied with conservative Republicans to form the conservative coalition.
  • The book doesn't cover much about the Republican Party. It's mainly about how Southern Democrats were really just a regionalist party that were generally ideologically conservative. The Southern United States has never been a progressive or liberal region for the most part. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but just add a historical position, FDR was definetely left-wing, just saying it would be cool to add a historical position
Also i primarily mean the 1800s AstrowszechwiatWKG (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FDR was left-wing in the sense of the Old Left, not the New Left. FDR said “I am a Christian and a Democrat.” FDR permitted the Jim Crow South, though his New Deal and World War II helped lay the groundwork for the end of the Jim Crow South. (I wrote over half of the Solid South article.)
Neutral - Only if it's done for the Republican Party article. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change libertarianism into libertarian conservatism?

[edit]

They're a damn ton of paleo-libertarian/libertarian conservatives elements and adjacent factions of the republican party but there are no more socially libertine factions in the republican party, there was a temporary boost in the 2000s to 2017 but that's about it most libertarians that vote have shifted to the right on so many social issues and those issues really tend to be more authoritarian which could a good or bad thing but isn't something of liberty without the additional caveat of "well urm they're moreso socially conservative libertarians" Elon and Doge is a good citation for the rise in paleo libertarianism as well as close connections to Milei so the libertarian stuff isn't completely gone I imagine Kedamomo999 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that is not the proper term for this, Mangoflies (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, its socially conservative libertarianism Pogchampange (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, what do the sources say? Will Thorpe (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Moxy🍁 03:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Republican Party (United States) into Political parties in the united states. I think that having seperate articles just for each political party is unnecessary, and things just overlap. Mangoflies (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Misunderstanding solved
What does wanting to merge a disambiguation article into another, have to do with this article? GoodDay (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that could be a potention, consoldating all of the different parties into one article Mangoflies (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you edited your comment. Mangoflies (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "potention" & "consoldating" mean? GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
potential. Consolidating? to join together into one whole, Mangoflies (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please don't just edit your comments. You changed it so my reply was different. What do you mean by "have to do with this article". This is the talk page for the article that will be merged. This is where it said to have the discussion Mangoflies (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a tad confused about which Republican Party article, you're linking to. Read of your first post. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GOP party.
We are on the talk page for that article. I don't know what you mean by "Read of your first post" Mangoflies (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you link to Republican Party? GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because that is the party. The GOP, republican party. Are you based in the US? Mangoflies (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've fixed the link. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political position factions

[edit]

Majority: Right wing

Factions: centre to Far Right

It already essentially of says this with the [B] on political position. But this would be an aesthetic improvement to the formatting. In my opinion. Thoughts ? 69.120.198.205 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-right

[edit]

Last time i visited this article, republican party's political position was centre-right to right-wing. Now, some guy edited this article and removed centre-right position, making republican party just right wing. I havent seen any consensus on this talk page to remove centre right position from this article. I propose that the centre-right position be added back and the user who changed it without permission be warned. Thank you. 81.9.127.73 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was removed by Willthorpe here. But it looks like an active RFC was discussing the topic and it probably should not of been changed. It should probably be restored pending a close. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was made during a brief period when the relevant RfC was closed by an IP editor who made an account to close the RfC. Willthorpe's good faith change was after the closing. I reverted the closing as it was done before the RfC had run 30 days and it was done by an account with 4 edits. I didn't revert the article level change for the sake of stability since I assumed that will be the outcome in the end anyway. Springee (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I missed the strange timeline on that. My mistake, though it should be status quo until it is closed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit my edit had nothing to do with the discussion closure which apparently lined up with it. I had a few days prior reverted a previous change to the article suggesting we wait a little longer. When I did implement the change myself, I attached a footnote which I hoped in combination with the change would accomodate all concerns. My justification for the footnote is below. Will Thorpe (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A long discussion between editors had been going on regarding this, and a clear consensus had been reached. The edit changing from center-right to right-wing follows that consensus EarthDude (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political position footnote

[edit]

I have attached a footnote to to the 'Political position' section of the infobox, the footnote reading as follows:

Parts of the Republican Party have been described as centrist, center-right, and far-right.

I wish to justify this and offer other editors a chance to express their opinion on this resolution of the disputes which have transpired over how the GOP's political position should be described.

Each of these terms I have attributed to reliable, recent sources. Each term is, I believe, widely applied enough to sufficiently relevant sections of the GOP to negate the criticism which may arise from WP:UNDUE – as does the fact this acknowledgment of the GOP's fuller ideological spectrum has been relegated to a footnote.

A clear majority of editors in a recent discussion supported the removal of 'center-right' from the 'political position' section of the infobox but there was some opposition and there were attempts to find a middle ground option.

I have taken care to add three sources for 'far right' compared to two each for the other options in reflection that this term may be more contentious, but each term must be supported.

There is comparable practice concerning political positioning, with nuances relegated to a footnote, in the articles for the United States Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.

Will Thorpe (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note further – the footnote merely posits that sections of the party are described this way, which is true in reliable sources. It allows for disagreement. Will Thorpe (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with the logic of your request, but given that EarthDude has reverted your addition, the proper thing to do is follow WP:BRD. You do not have consensus to add this footnote AFAIK. Please revert and discuss here. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an info-box is to get readers key facts at a glance. Having footnotes defeats the purpose. If information is nuanced, then it belongs in the body of the article, not the info-box. Also, you should avoid the passive tense per Wikipedia:Weasel. TFD (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are justified when their exclusion obscures rather than illuminates. This is the case here. As I stated, other articles offer a precedent. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite the policy or guideline where that appears? The purpose of the MOS:INFOBOX is "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." There's nothing about footnotes which defeats the point of any info-box. TFD (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. That seems to prove my point! Did you mis-write? By the way, I am happy to avoid the passive tense in a re-write. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you are a reader who sees the Republican Party mentioned in a news article, you know nothing about it and come to this article for a brief overview. Maybe you live in Australia and you want to know if it is more similar to the Liberal or Labor parties. A quick glance of the info-box should tell you. You are not going to look at the footnotes or follow the external links.
OTOH, if you want detailed information about the party, there's a whole article to read with a table of contents helping you find whatever aspect interest you. TFD (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes might just help you, particularly when considering the GOP has historically been termed a 'big tent'. Footnotes are sometimes important for clarification, and yes, provide basic information at a glance. Will Thorpe (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change because it is WP:UNDUE. For example, the two sources used for centrist are just news sources, but both center right and far right have a journal as a source in addition to news sources. I think its is an unnecessary addition to the infobox, and it gives equal weight to unequal viewpoints. The case is different for the Trumpism footnote because Trumpism is a big enough ideology/movement to be clarified with the footnote. The footnote for the democratic party is also just a helpful clarity thing. I do feel somewhat iffy about the footnote in the australian liberal party, and think it is kind of unnecessary but i dont know much about australian politics and also, i think removing that footnote would need a discussion, so i wont remove it now EarthDude (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeable to removing 'centrist' and simply having 'center-right' and 'far-right', but at least these warrant inclusion and as you stated have academic sources supporting them. It does not suggest they are necessarily equal and I must stress this is besides the question. It does not matter if 'far-right' and 'center-right' are equal in prevalence; it only matters if reliable sources sufficiently back their inclusion, and they do. Their relegation to the footnote indicates they are of less significance than the party's broad right-wing alignment, but they still provide important clarification.
It would not be difficult to find additional reliable sources to support these terms.
Will Thorpe (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will still need consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought inclusion of the footnote may be acceptable as a bold step to resolve an ongoing discussion in accordance with the majority wish but also negating the concerns of a minority in a way that to me appears reasonable. I hope to gain agreement to reinstate a similar footnote.
If I am unable to attain that through this thread, I will start a formal RfC. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure to use WP:RFCBEFORE. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine?

[edit]

I really don't know how else to describe it, given the 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy meeting. Foreign policy is done only at the federal level, and mainly by the President. It's extremely clear that Trump is a Russophile who opposes foreign aid and military security guarantees to Ukraine.

Title: The World Trump Wants; American Power in the New Age of Nationalism Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage

  • Quote: "In the two decades that followed the Cold War’s end [1990-2010], globalism gained ground over nationalism. Simultaneously, the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks—institutional, financial, and technological—overshadowed the role of the individual in politics. But in the early 2010s, a profound shift began. By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization. ... The shift arguably began in Russia. In 2012, Vladimir Putin ended a short experiment during which he left the presidency and spent four years as prime minister while a compliant ally served as president. Putin returned to the top job and consolidated his authority, crushing all opposition and devoting himself to rebuilding “the Russian world,” restoring the great-power status that had evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union, and resisting the dominance of the United States and its allies. Two years later, Xi Jinping made it to the top in China. His aims were like Putin’s but far grander in scale—and China had far greater capabilities. In 2014, Narendra Modi, a man with vast aspirations for India, completed his long political ascent to the prime minister’s office and established Hindu nationalism as his country’s dominant ideology. That same year, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had spent just over a decade as Turkey’s hard-driving prime minister, became its president. In short order, Erdogan transformed his country’s factionalized democratic ensemble into an autocratic one-man show. Perhaps the most consequential moment in this evolution occurred in 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true that individuals are now having more of an impact on policy in those countries than parties. Specifically, in the US, the Republican Party no longer really has a policy or, if it does, it's irrelevant. What Trump says and does is the only effective policy. I know we've always talked about parties having policies, but it really doesn't make any sense to say that now in the case of the Republican Party in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why at least 6 senators and over a dozen total members of Congress that are in the GOP have come out against Trump's tirade in the meeting? Get real. To claim that Trump = GOP is a flagrant violation of neutral point of view and is borderline an attempt to use Wikipedia to prove a point in the real world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should take other people's comments in WP:GOODFAITH, instead of immediately attacking them for supposed and seemingly baseless WP:RGW EarthDude (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't take one person's opinion and express it as fact. I noticed btw that the text you quote at length does not mention the Republican Party, which is the topic of this article. TFD (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. In accepting Trump as their presidential candidate, the entire party has said that whatever Trump says and does is fine and IS Republican policy. If they don't really believe that, they should have said something earlier. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:OR works, sources have to explicitly draw the conclusions presented in the article, editors aren't allowed to draw their own conclusions or to read between the lines. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing OR. My main point was how the Republican Party, with foreign policy mainly conducted by Trump as POTUS, has dramatically changed its foreign policy positions. The Republican Party is now pro-tariffs, pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine, anti-multilateralism and "America First," anti-interventionist, etc.
The quoted source is about this being a new age of nationalist leaders, who are destroying the old neoliberal/multilateral order that had lasted from around 1990 to the 2010s. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy quote does not mention the Republican Party. Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Your source does not say that Trump has changed the Republican Party and therefore what they write about Trump applies to the party. It does not matter if that happens to be true, but whether or not the source implicitly says that. TFD (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces The source was about the broader changes in global politics, of which Trump is part of. Its purpose was to characterize Trump and his foreign policy, not the Republican Party as a whole. Foreign policy is conducted mainly by the POTUS, as head of state and government. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it does not belong in this article. TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't. It is not NPOV to try and put the views of the current executive (the President and administration officials) on the party as a whole. There are at least 6 GOP senators that have openly come out since that meeting on Friday against the view of Trump/Rubio/etc. just as an example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"mainly conducted by Trump as POTUS, has dramatically changed its foreign policy positions" The organ grinder plays the tune, the trained monkeys dance to the tune. That is how party discipline usually works. The party members obey the policies of the party leader, or they will be kicked out of the party in the next political purge. Business as usual. Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did they do any more than just talk? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many RS stating that just talk, and don't take action. They are just rubber stamps for Trump's agenda, which often wildly deviates from what was once Republican orthodoxy.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/843b18e3-7f37-4a82-8c5c-c2875a49c2c8 ; The US Congress is missing in action JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those senators (Lisa Murkowsi) voted for a resolution that falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, despite knowing there was no evidence for this. There is no policy that says Republican senators are beacons of truth. TFD (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the source and quote was to put Trump in context, which is with nationalist leaders arising in the 2010s like Putin, Xi, Modi, Erdogan, etc. Regarding foreign policy, there are many RS that Trump has changed the Republican Party's foreign policy to be "America First" and clearly pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign Policy Magazine likely constitutes a reliable source, but the quote provided doesn't indicate that the Republican party has become more pro-Russia, instead it indicates Trump's election is significant as a movement in the United States toward nationalism. I know that there is academic material about the alliance between conservative political groups that drew out ties between the contemporary Republican party and Russia. Solar Politics by Oxana Timofeeva might have something about this although I can't remember off the top of my head how explicit she was. I'll look later. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rhetoric has changed, but then both George W. Bush and Obama praised and helped Putin. I looked into his eyes and saw his soul. Mitt, the eighties called: they want their foreign policy back. Trump was more harsh on Putin in his first term than any other U.S. president. As for Ukraine, wars end. Biden ended the war in Afghanistan, returning the Taliban to power. Was that a change in foreign policy?
At present, we don't know what direction foreign policy will take. All we have are opinions. They are worth including, but none can be taken as fact. TFD (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(short phone edit) John, I think there are issues with your recent edits. First, I didn't think we should say the party opposed aid to Ukraine. I think it's clear the president and his circle want to change/scale back support but that isn't the same as oppose. Also it's not clear if Trump is Russiaphile or trying to be conciliatory to end a war. Given we are dealing with unfolding events we should be very cautious about direct statements such as this [3]. Springee (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. The current administration and the Republican Party as a whole has shown itself to be remarkably Russophile and Ukrainophobe EarthDude (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken about Solar Politics having supporting material. I also checked Tari's There is no unhappy revolution which also was a wash - odd as I was sure I read something relevant in one of those two books. Oh well, I suppose I misremembered. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that JohnAdams1800 has attempted to make these edits to change "is divided on" to opposes aid for Ukraine in the lead and also to explicitly add the term "russophile" to the article while this discussion is ongoing with non-insignificant opposition/concern. This article is about the Republican Party, not Trump, Vance, or any other individual. While it may be appropriate to report on individual members of the party (such as the President's recent meeting with Zelensky and the aftermath of that), it is not appropriate to try to shoehorn individuals' views into this article that are clearly strongly disputed within the party. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is a hill I am willing to (figuratively) die on. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal under international law and Putin has engaged in crimes against humanity. Trump is engaging in historical negationism and Russophilia with respect to it.The only Republicans to whom foreign policy is applicable is at the federal level, and particularly the POTUS as head of state and government. (Unlike say abortion legislated at the state level, or tax policy written by congressional Republicans.) Trump is clearly a Russophile and a Ukrainophobe.
It doesn't matter what the views are within the party, rather it matters whose views actually carry out policies. Ronald Reagan opposed the Soviet Union and Communism, while Donald Trump supports Russia and right-wing nationalism/populism.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
me - Some individual Republicans may have expressed a different view, but the party has given Trump absolute power over party policy. Whatever he says simply IS party policy for all practical purposes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's the case, sources should be found to back up each claim individually without having to fall back on the transitive property, i.e. "Trump's the party leader, he's against immigration[exampleref], ergo the party is anti-immigration". Any of these sources describing Trump's personal views and policies can be included on the Donald Trump or the Political views of Donald Trump page/s, just because he's a prominent member of the Republican Party doesn't mean his views are synonymous with the party's views. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they are! The "party" as an entity is not displaying any position on anything that differs from what Trump says. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't be difficult to find sources in support of JohnAdams' edits. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what John Adams has written. I am simply commenting on this discussion on the Talk page. You seem more concerned about another editor. To me, this is WP:BLUESKY stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party as an entity is the sum of its members. If there is no official position, then it is not proper to assume that one of the positions supported by some of the members, no matter how significant those members' positions are, is the position of the party. That is inappropriate WP:SYNTH and very far from "the sky is blue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even when, for all practical purposes, it is? HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to have that opinion. Unless it's their official position (which could be sourced to their platform under WP:ABOUTSELF), then you need reliable sources that say it's their position. Otherwise, it's inappropriate WP:SYNTH. The only sources presented so far are that Trump and a few others have a view, not that the party as a whole has that view as a whole. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, where DO I go to find the party's official position on things? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should that be interpreted as a threat to edit war if you don't get your way? Regardless of your beliefs or how "wrong" it is, Wikipedia is not for you to try to right great wrongs in the world. This article is about the party, so it certainly does matter what the views are within the party. Not what the views of one or a few members only of the party are. And whether or not they have the legal ability to do anything about it, if they are a prominent member of the party, their views are a part of the party. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-question has been page-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on finding some sources that might support this claim or one similar to it. Here's what I've found so far.
  1. Betraying Ukraine Commonweal. Mar2024, Vol. 151 Issue 3, p5-5. 1p. Other figures on the Right have adopted Trump's admiring attitude toward Putin. In an interview with the Russian president, Tucker Carlson encouraged Putin to advance a deluded historical justification for the invasion and asked no questions about Russian war crimes or Putin's authoritarian crackdown on dissent. When questioned about his favorable treatment of Putin, Carlson said, "Leadership requires killing people." A few days later, news broke of the death in prison of Putin's most prominent critic, Aleksei Navalny. Asked to comment on Carlson's interview, Republican senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said, "Take things with a grain of salt, but a lot of the points that Vladimir Putin made are accurate."
    Of course, there remains an old guard in the Republican Party—represented by Nikki Haley, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, and Sen. Mitt Romney—that rejects MAGA isolationism and clings to the party's pre-Trump interventionism, but it has become a clear minority.
    Opinion piece. Should not be used without attribution.
  2. How Putin Co-Opted the Republican Party. By: Elliott, Philip, Time.com, 24762679, 2/23/2024 And Republicans have gone along with all of it. They looked the other way on intelligence breaches, and failed to convict Trump during a record two impeachment trials. And, even in the face of evidence that their impeachment payback of Biden is based on an FBI informant now indicted for telling lies that he alleges started in Russia to hurt Biden, House Republicans say they'll plow forward regardless. The fact that the cornerstone of their case against Biden originated with Russian spooks and bogus claims of checks sent to Biden family members from Ukraine is inconsequential in their march to help Trump's chances of returning to Washington. And as Ukraine struggles in its fight against Russia, it seems those Republicans are ready to abandon the former Soviet republic because Trump has a grudge.
    It's quite an act of intentional forgetting on the part of the Republican Party to set aside their lionized legend of Reagan in service of another TV talent, one who seems to hold Reagan-era precedents in contempt and share little of his admiration for democracy. Yet this is the current work of a large cut of the contemporary GOP. For a lot of conservatives, it has not been easy to get over their first crush, but they have another charismatic figure at the ready. Or at least one refusing to retreat.
    Opinion piece. Should not be used without attribution.
  3. This one actually contradicts the claim that the Republican party, rather than just Trump, is Russophilic - albeit quite weakly. No real pull quote that puts the hammer to the nail. I'm including it in the review to demonstrate there isn't a uniform consensus on this but don't think it's that useful as, despite the promise of the headline, it's quite ambivalent and doesn't end up saying much in any sort of assertive way. Republican Lawmaker Breaks Ranks to Defy Trump Over Ukraine. By: McBride, Courtney, Bloomberg.com, 2/20/2025
  4. The Religious Right and Russia: Christian Nationalism and Americans' Views on Russia and Vladimir Putin Before and After the Ukrainian Invasion. By: Perry, Samuel L., Riccardi‐Swartz, Sarah, Davis, Joshua T., Grubbs, Joshua B., Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 00218294, Jun2023, Vol. 62, Issue 2 - this is a proper academic source. Its conclusion was that religious right support for Putin was curvilinear, dropping off both as people were less affiliated with Christian nationalism, then rising before falling again amongst the most extreme Christian nationalists. The hypothesis brought forward is that for Christian nationalists the promise of Putin to return Russia to an ethnonational state of Christian hegemony was seen as a good but for christian Nationaists, concerns over Russia as a geopolitical rival were more prevalent. On Republicans it says Despite long‐held suspicions toward Russia, certain political transformations in the former Soviet Union since perestroika have struck an ideological chord with many Americans on the cultural and political right. Especially since the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, growing networks of conservative actors in the United States and abroad have drawn together the potential political futures of both countries (Riccardi‐Swartz [31]; Stoeckl and Uzlaner [34]). Since the mid‐2010s, conservative support for Russia has increased, with polls showing that Republicans, in particular, had warmed toward Russia and Putin leading up to the Ukrainian invasion in February 2022 (Gallup 2022; Huang and Cha [16]; Pew Research Center [28]; Reinhart [30]; Swift [35]). Although Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has received bipartisan condemnation, several vocal leaders on the Christian far‐right have expressed support for Putin as they support other authoritarian leaders elsewhere (Olmstead [24]; Riccardi‐Swartz [32]).
I have to call it here for now because I'm out of time for source review for the day. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that hard to find the sources are we really following consensus vs searching to emphasize what we feel is correct? This is the problem with contemporary politics. We have an absence of real inside knowledge information and certainly no historical view on with which to assesses these claims. I think this is the sort of thing that should be left out until we see some sort of clear consensus on the party (not just Trump). Basically, err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard to find sources. It's just time consuming reading academic papers and periodicals. I stopped because I ran out of time, not papers to read. Please, by all means, jump on Wikipedia library and have a look at what you can see. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can cite policy and guidelines if required, but an article in a journal about religion is not an acceptable source for an article about the Republican Party. In any case, all it says is that Republicans "have warmed toward Russia and Putin" between 2012 and 2022.It doesn't go into further detail because the article is not about the Republican party's foreign policy and in fact does not mention it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being rather completionist in sharing what I've read on the topic - I would concur that specific source is a bit on the weak side as it is principally about the religious right and its commentary on the Republicans is slim, being limited to the quote I shared. If we found sufficient due sourcing for the claim it might still be usable as part of a bundled ref. I'm sure you know humanities and social sciences sources aren't always perfectly clean in their delineations of religion, politics, and society as the disciplines see them as interrelated phenomena. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cannot. The lede as it looks now suffices. We should be cautious in responding to current events particularly when they upend established orthodoxy in the way Trump is doing. It is best to wait and see what sticks – and note there is still a considerable number of Republicans who support Ukraine. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the reliable sources provided support what the lede presently states; this proposed edit would change the article text so that it less closely follows the sources it cites. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If trump were to start giving military aid and supporting Russia that would be feasible. There is such a thing as neutrality, Trump may have said absolutely nonsensical things regarding Zelensky, but he by no means is Pro-Russia. For the record I’m pro Ukraine but as long as Trump doesn’t support Russia he’s not a Russophile. If anyone watched the full Zelensky interview they would see that Trump wants peace so both sides stop sending young soldiers to needlessly die. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change for HRC and SRC?

[edit]

This was originally going to be a rebuttal to the RfC consensus to remove "center-right" from the infobox, but I'll just ask as a general question.

The Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference still retain their "center-right to right-wing" labels, which is understandable as people like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski still remain active in Congress. The only reason why the GOP in this page and the "List of political parties in the United States" page had their ideology changed was only due to one man: Trump. If both chambers of the Republican legislature are still deemed as "center-right," shouldn't that give us reason to retain the "center-right" position? Or should we change their infoboxes too, to just "right-wing"?

This is not to challenge the RfC, at least not yet. I'm just confused on where we draw the line in ideology for the subsets of the Republican Party, as a Republican myself. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the challenge here is that a fair bit, but not by any means all of, the academic literature suggests that Republican voting preferences are such that there's no significant legislative space between the various party factions once the rubber hits the road. Rhetoric is rhetoric but if people vote with the US President 96-100% of the time then can we really categorize them as being ideologically distinct from him? This is, however, something where there is a lively debate within the academy. The decision to stick to just "right wing" that has been evolving was basically a recognition of that, combined with our need to summarize in the info box. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question then becomes does voting record equal viewpoints? Not necessarily. Politicians make deals all the time to vote for or against certain measures in exchange for another politician agreeing to vote for or against a measure. Furthermore, tactical voting exists even when there isn't an actual deal in place right now - it's entirely possible for some members of Congress to vote for legislation they don't support now to build political capital and be able to then go say "well, look, I voted with you on this other thing, but I just can't deal with this new bill in its current state" for something they consider more important later. I haven't a strong opinion on whether splitting out "center" and "far" is even appropriate in the first place to be quite honest, because I think it's better to be as general as possible to account for the wide range of viewpoints in each party.
And to reiterate, it's very common for party members in both parties, except for the absolute most extreme members, to "fall in line" and just vote with the party on a significant majority of legislation, especially when they are in power (i.e. control the legislative body, or have the presidency). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I were wearing my political philosophy hat I'd say that a materialist interpretation needs to prioritize deeds over rhetoric. Basically what's in the souls of Republican politicians is irrelevant - how we interpret them should depend on their deeds - and those deeds include participating in a political system where party whips are a thing. Of course being Wikipedia we need reliable sources to say that instead. Several have. Others disagree. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that go for both political parties? I think individual philosophies still exist within these people, especially after what McConnell, Murkowski and and Susan Collins pulled on Pete Hegseth, as well as that one Republican representative voting against the new 2025 budget reconciliation bill. I think it's far more nuanced, and despite Donald Trump's Trumpism taking most of the party's ideology, notable moderates to traditionalists still exist within these spaces; Mitt Romney and Meghan McCain are still in a somewhat notable space of influence after all. Not to mention, Democrats still vote alongside their party lines most of the time as well... just saying.
I think it's definitely more nuanced; I actually don't know how to formally make a counter-RfC yet, but I'd like your take on it Simon. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally advocating to add far-right to factional ideologies and changed my mind on that, preferring to exclude anything other than right-wing being persuaded both by the inconsistency of the academic literature and the requirements of an infobox to summarize. And I think that's where I ultimately land. Are there differences and inconsistencies in the ideology of various factions or individuals in the Republican party? Absolutely yes. Are any of these significant enough to be due inclusion in an infobox? that I have come to doubt. Simonm223 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that would be the funniest thing to do: having it as "center-right to far-right" to show how the Party has so many distinct factions within it.
Can we attract other people to this discussion?
And what do you think of the Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference keeping their factions? Should they keep it? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the RfC for center-right is, to my knowledge, still open you might have better luck participating in the discussion above. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is broadly my view. The terms center/far are much more useful in countries/systems that have meaningful third (or more) parties and/or significant groups of independent/unaffiliated members. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that political parties simply cant be radical or extremist if its a multi party system? What???? EarthDude (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, I still think far right should be included in the infobox, but honestly, theres just been so many rfcs on the infobox ideologies and political position alone, its getting tiring. Once the center right rfc fully closes, i think we need a moratorium for two or three months for rfcs on the infobox EarthDude (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ideology and political position section of the HRC and SRC need to match this article's ideology and position EarthDude (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source to Share, still banned from editing the article until 3/18/25

[edit]

I'm still banned from editing the article for now, and don't plan to appeal it. But I found a really good source. Based on this RS, I think it is fair to describe the Republican Party as right-wing, and exclude center-right. For comparison, the Democratic Party was found (the graphic is copyrighted) not to be an outlier on liberal/conservative values or international cooperation.

Title: Why the Maga mindset is different; US decisions can no longer be analysed using assumptions shared across the democratic west

Relevant quotes:

  • "Usually, analysis is done at national level, but by drilling down to different political parties in the latest raw data I find that on everything from attitudes towards international co-operation, to appetite for an autocratic leadership style, through to trust in institutions and inward- vs outward-looking mindset, Trump’s America is a stark outlier from western Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. In many cases, the Maga mindset is much closer to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey.""
  • "The stark divide remains even when we compare US Republicans with their conservative counterparts elsewhere in the west. On the key policy issues defining the 2020s, Trump-era Republicans are a different breed from the British, French or German right. This wasn’t always the case. The US Republicans of 20 years ago were no keener on autocracy than the average Canadian or western European — and just as supportive of international co-operation. Picture George W. Bush and Tony Blair “shoulder to shoulder”.
  • "A government seemingly driven by zero-sum ideology and a commitment to reducing international co-operation is one whose threats of a trade war you should probably take seriously despite possible economic self-harm. Likewise, a leadership team that believes geopolitics is a game of cards played by strong men and great powers is one whose support and co- operation other countries should quickly build independence from. The next four years and beyond will be a bumpy ride come what may, but it will be more navigable after accepting that the world has fundamentally changed. For decades, the US was the champion of western values. The America of Trump, Vance and Musk has left them behind."

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/3046013f-da85-4987-92a5-4a9e3008a9e1 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the Maga mindset is much closer to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey."" "And you needed a source for that, Captain Obvious? Trumpism and Putinism are both nationalist and imperialist ideologies. Per the main article on Putinism: "He characterized Putinism as "the highest and final stage of bandit capitalism in Russia, the stage where, as one half-forgotten classic said, the bourgeoisie throws the flag of the democratic freedoms and the human rights overboard; and also as a war, 'consolidation' of the nation on the ground of hatred against some ethnic group, attack on freedom of speech and information brainwashing, isolation from the outside world and further economic degradation"." [1][2] Dimadick (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to mention the source, to help when it comes to this talk page's recurring discussions over characterizing the Republican Party as center-right, right-wing, or far-right. Fundamentally, the source lends credibility to characterizing the Republican Party as an international outlier, yet still able to win nationwide in extremely competitive elections.
The mentions of Putin and Erdogan were done by the source, not me. This is about the Republican Party's transformation broadly when it comes down to the policy positions of the party's voters and elected officials in the Trump era. This isn't solely about Putin and Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources say the party is right-wing and none are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces This is just one source, the Financial Times (a British newspaper), and it's behind a paywall. I'm not sure why you consider this not to be a reliable source.
  • Do you want me to gift you the article on your talk page (there are limits to the numbers of viewers per article gift)? This source doesn't cover specific issues, but the party broadly. I'm not editing the Republican Party article until March 18, with no plans to appeal the short-term ban.
Fundamentally, it finds the Republican Party to broadly be a major outlier along two axes: liberal/conservative values and international cooperation. The Democratic Party is well within the mainstream by comparison.
  • The point is the Republican Party's voter and political views are now outliers compared to the Anglosphere (i.e. UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) and Western Europe.
JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Editorial and opinion commentary: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Why would you take the word of a journalist writing to a deadline instead of material written by professors for an academic audience? TFD (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Piontkovsky, Andrey (11 January 2000). "Путинизм как высшая и заключительная стадия бандитского капитализма в России" [Putinism as highest and final stage of bandit capitalism in Russia]. Советская Россия [Sovetskaya Rossiya] (in Russian). No. 3. Moscow.
  2. ^ Piontkovsky, Andrey (11 January 2000). "Путинизм как высшая и заключительная стадия бандитского капитализма в России" (in Russian). Yabloko. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2021.

RfC on infobox political position footnote

[edit]

Should the infobox include the following footnote attached to the party's political position (described as right wing)?

Parts of the Republican Party have been described as center-right[1][2] or far-right.[3][4]

  1. ^ Keckler, Charles; Rozell, Mark J. (April 3, 2015). "The Libertarian Right and the Religious Right". Perspectives on Political Science. 44 (2): 92–99. doi:10.1080/10457097.2015.1011476. To better understand the structure of cooperation and competition between these groups, we construct an anatomy of the American center-right, which identifies them as incipient factions within the conservative movement and its political instrument, the Republican Party.
  2. ^ Dumain, Emma (December 10, 2015). "Tuesday Group Wins Big on Steering Committee". Roll Call. The conservative House Freedom Caucus was the first faction to start pushing leadership to expand diversity on the House Republican Steering Committee, but it was the center-right Tuesday Group that ended up winning the lion's share of the influential panel's six open seats.
  3. ^ Touchberry, Ramsey; Soellner, Mica (November 9, 2022). "Emboldened far-right Freedom Caucus presents hurdles to Kevin McCarthy's run for House speaker". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.
  4. ^ Rouse, Stella M.; Hunt, Charles; Essel, Kristen (March 2022). "Growing Tea With Subnational Roots: Tea Party Affiliation, Factionalism, and GOP Politics in State Legislatures". American Politics Research. 50 (2): 242–254. doi:10.1177/1532673X211041150. ISSN 1532-673X.

Will Thorpe (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; a clear majority of editors supported the removal of 'center-right' from the 'political position' section of the infobox but there was some opposition and there were attempts to find a middle ground option.
Numerous reliable sources including from the past few years identify reasonably-sized sections of the Republican Party as being either center-right or far-right, and as both of these categories carry important distinctions in policy and ideological terms, and represent sufficiently notable contingents of the party (refer to the congressional membership of the Tuesday Group or the Freedom Caucus), this clarification is worth inclusion in the infobox.
Footnotes are used in the infoboxes of other Wikipedia articles to clarify arguably finer details than this of a party's political orientation, including on the articles for the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.
Both terms are widely applied enough to sufficiently relevant sections of the GOP to negate the criticism which may arise from WP:UNDUE – as does the fact this acknowledgment of the GOP's fuller ideological spectrum has been relegated to a footnote. This, I contend, ought to be an acceptable middle ground when all factors are considered, which does the best job at informing the reader at a glance of the party's political orientation/s whilst leaving further detail for the article body, and doing all of this in an appropriately balanced way reflective of reliable sources.
Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it has been discussed and rejected many times, please see earlier discussions before opening another rfc 62.217.191.221 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same matter. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify – there have been discussions about what the 'Political position' section should read, but at least no recent dedicated discussions about a potential footnote. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This would clutter the infobox too much. I generally oppose footnotes in infoboxes, but they are sometimes necessary for clarity. In this case, I oppose ur footnote because it is unnecessary and would add clutter to the infobox. EarthDude (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As I've opened up a topic in the space down below, the Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference still retain their "center-right to right-wing" labels, which is understandable as people like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski still remain active in Congress. Even Trump supporting people like John Thune are not explicitly affiliated with Trumpism, noted by how he and actually many other senators are not in the list of politicians associated with Trumpism. The only reason why the GOP in this page and the "List of political parties in the United States" page had their ideology changed was only due to one man: Donald Trump. If both chambers of the Republican legislature are still deemed as "center-right," then I think that justifies enough reason to bring back (unless of course, we change those too). This has no need for sourcing; you can just go to their wiki pages and see what their positions say, and see that not ALL of them favor Trump the way Matt Gaetz would. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"opened up above" I mean DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DougheGojiraMan Do you mean to support, then? Will Thorpe (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it means putting center-right back, yes. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The info-box didn't have a position for both parties on the spectrum for many years. We should consider just removing them from both articles. I've frankly grown sick of the contentious discussions about them, particularly for the Republican Party's talk page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnAdams1800 that may be advisable. The ‘ideology’ section does a good job as surmising where the party stands, Will Thorpe (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better IMO as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still banned from editing the article until March 18, which I don't plan to appeal. I have a source from The Economist titled "Hard-right parties are now Europe’s most popular." Right-wing populism is not just an American phenomenon, and according to the source, conservative (center-right), social democrat (center-left), and hard right parties each get about 1/4 of the vote among European Union countries. The hard-right in particular has made large gains according to the source.
Regardless of whatever we pick, and personally I prefer just removing a position, the trends in American politics are hardly isolated. For various debated reasons, conventional conservatism has been in decline in many Western countries.
Here are some quotes:
  • "The origin of Europe’s recent hard-right surge is difficult to pin down. Some theorise that, beginning with the financial crash in 2008-09, voters were driven away from the mainstream and towards the extremes by economic anxiety. But the evidence for this is mixed. Europe is the richest it has ever been. And hard-right parties often win substantial support from the well-to-do. You could hardly look at the Netherlands—one of the wealthiest countries in the world, per person—and cite economic anxiety to explain its hard-right-led government."
  • "Another often-heard argument is that the hard right represents a backlash against the migrant crisis that came to a head in 2015. Irregular immigration to some European countries has remained very high. Again, this theory is imperfect. In Germany, like many other countries, the hard right’s support comes predominantly from areas with little immigration. In fact, the association between immigration rates and support for the hard right is weaker than you might expect. Ireland has one of the largest foreign-born populations in Europe, for example, but no major hard-right party. The inverse is true of Poland (see chart 2)."
  • "Instead, the rise of the hard right is probably the result of a mix of factors. A succession of crises from 2008 onwards have weakened confidence in European leaders. And although Europeans are getting richer, many feel anxious about their economic security and social status. This makes them more sensitive to cultural changes such as immigration—even when those changes are happening far away. These trends are compounded by changes to the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media. The hard right’s growing support also has a ratchet: each time the parties increase their representation, they are normalized in the eyes of more mainstream voters."
Link: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/28/hard-right-parties-are-now-europes-most-popular JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party's position should be stated as 'Right-wing' with 'Factions: Center-right to far-right'. This seems to be how most sources portray the party nowadays and I think it's a very easy solution that I'm surprised hasn't yet been seriously proposed. I am also strongly against removing the position from the infobox altogether — I don't really understand what some editors think makes US political parties so unique that justifies not listing a political position when the vast majority of articles on parties worldwide have them without issue. This is especially the case considering how clear sources are on the fact that the GOP is right-wing. Loytra (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Loytra I would support this, thought it seemed to meet pushback in the 120-comment RfC above. I hoped this might be accepted. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the idea, but the whole point of an infobox is to be relatively robust, broad, and free from clutter. Asterisks like this and their discussion belong in the body. Just10A (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the exact position of the Republican Party (and for that matter the Democrats as well) is quite contentious, the position was omitted from the infobox of both parties for a long time and has lead to numerous RfCs at this point. I think we should place a moratorium on future RfCs as well. Aydoh8[contribs] 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on moratorium. Just10A (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy procedural close requested. There is a discussion about this. It's on this page. Please add this there. And for the love of all things holy, can we discuss literally anything else? Carlp941 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons stated previously. Cheers.DN (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism in infobox ideologies

[edit]

Trumpism is included under "Right-wing populism", which is an actual political ideology, as opposed to Trumpism, which is a specific political movement. Trumpism can be grouped under Right-wing populism. The note at the bottom of the infobox that is attached to Right-wing populism is fine, but Trumpism being included on its own is wrong and UNDUE and over the top. Hence, I removed it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support because an ideology is not the same as its leader and movement, which are usually a subset.
Right-wing populism is not just an American phenomenon, nor is it restricted to just Donald Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's version is unique and more extreme than most. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 Per RS there is support for that claim, see link. But that is about describing Trumpism and his version of right-wing populism, not identifying the ideology itself.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/3046013f-da85-4987-92a5-4a9e3008a9e1 ; Why the MAGA mindset is different JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism as a far right ideology

[edit]

As the Republican Party is now dominated by Trump, who is widely recognized as a far right leader, a classification of its political position as right-wing to far-right would he more than appropriate.

References

[1] Mudde explicitly labels Donald Trump as part of the far-right populist surge in the United States.

[2]Norris and Inglehart describe Trump as a key figure in the rise of far-right populism, linking his policies and rhetoric to authoritarian tendencies.

[3]Bergmann explicitly categorizes Trump as part of the radical right, comparing his political style to other far-right leaders globally.

[4]Kriesi discusses Trump's alignment with the radical right, emphasizing his role in the broader far-right movement in Western democracies.

[5]Goodwin identifies Trump as a prominent figure in the resurgence of far-right politics, highlighting his anti-immigrant and nationalist rhetoric.

Ly.n0m (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources even link him to historical fascist movements, just as a back-up for the far-right classification, I do not wish to add Fascism as an ideology.

References

[6] Snyder argues that Trump exhibits traits aligned with illiberal democracy and authoritarianism, drawing comparisons to historical fascist leaders in terms of undermining democratic norms.

[7]Müller discusses how populist leaders like Trump can exhibit fascist tendencies by rejecting pluralism and promoting a homogeneous national identity, which echoes themes seen in fascist ideologies.

[8]Parenti examines the ways in which Trump's administration reflects fascist tendencies, particularly through its use of xenophobia, authoritarian governance, and attacks on democratic institutions.

[9]Gleeson explores the overlap between Trump's populism and fascist ideology, focusing on his nationalist rhetoric and authoritarian tendencies.

[10]Berlet analyzes Trump's personality and political style, arguing that they align with authoritarian and fascist patterns observed in historical contexts.

Ly.n0m (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research. You are providing primary sources showing opinions of various scholars, assuming because you have provided ten of them that they represent academic consensus, asking us to interpret them to mean that Trump is far right and assuming that this label can apply to the entire party. TFD (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Cas Mudde is one of the most significant scholars in the field of political extremism and his opinion is likely due in the right page, TFD is correct that we cannot jump from Mudde calling Trump far-right to calling Trumpism far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take no position on this discussion, because I'm frankly tired of the debates resulting from these types of discussions. But I do have a link that Trump has de facto reduced congressional Republicans to rubber stamps.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/trump-republicans-congress-power.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mudde, Cas (2019). "The Far-Right Populist Surge in America: The Case of Donald Trump". Journal of Political Ideologies. 24 (2): 157–176. doi:10.1080/13569317.2019.1609390.
  2. ^ Norris, Pippa; Inglehart, Ronald (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47383-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  3. ^ Bergmann, Merlin (2020). "Donald Trump and the Radical Right: A Comparative Perspective". Political Studies Review. 18 (2): 187–199. doi:10.1177/1478929919894961.
  4. ^ Kriesi, Hanspeter (2020). "Trump and the Radical Right in the United States". In Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (ed.). Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47383-7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  5. ^ Goodwin, Matthew (2016). "Understanding the Rise of the Far Right: Lessons from the USA and Europe". Parliamentary Affairs. 69 (4): 829–846. doi:10.1093/pa/gsw019.
  6. ^ Snyder, Timothy (2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books. ISBN 978-0525574460.
  7. ^ Müller, Jan-Werner (2016). What Is Populism?. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812293771. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  8. ^ Parenti, Christian (2018). "Trump and Fascism: A Dangerous Synergy". New Politics. 16 (3): 45–58.
  9. ^ Gleeson, Colin (2019). "Populism, Fascism, and the Rise of Donald Trump". Journal of Political Power. 12 (2): 175–192. doi:10.1080/2158379X.2019.1629984.
  10. ^ Berlet, Chip (2017). "Donald Trump and the Authoritarian Personality: Historical Parallels to European Fascism". Sociological Perspectives. 60 (4): 485–504. doi:10.1177/0731121417706633.

Discussion: Can we characterize Republican/Trump's economic policies as autarky and Mercantilism?

[edit]

These are economic policies, not insults. It's clear that neoliberalism is dead, replaced by variants of economic nationalism. The reason I'm bringing this up is that with Trump's monthly and sometimes daily tariff policies, that is the second Trump tariffs, it deserves characterization. Note that U.S. states can't impose tariffs, only the federal government.

This has nothing to do with Republican policies on say tax cuts, the minimum wage, labor unions, etc. This is specifically about Republican economic policies as they relate to other countries. Republican economic policy can no longer be characterized as simply neoliberal, and Trump's policies regarding tariffs aren't that different from the Republican party's from the time of Lincoln to before the Great Depression.

Definitions:

  • Autarky is the characteristic of self-sufficiency, usually applied to societies, communities, states, and their economic systems. ... Conservative, centrist and nationalist movements have also adopted autarky, generally on a more limited scale, to develop a particular industry, to gain independence from other national entities or to preserve part of an existing social order.
  • Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade.

Long story short, with Trump's tariff policies it is no longer possible to simply characterize Republican economic policies are simply neoliberal, Economic liberalism (it's the term), or free-market capitalism given tariffs are intentionally taxing foreign imports. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided you have sources that uses these or equivalent terms. Cortador (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/politics/trump-tariffs-auto-industry-corporate-executives.html ; Title: Trump’s Unwelcome News to Auto Chiefs: Buckle Up for What’s to Come
Quotes:
  • "For corporate America, including some major donors, the shock of Mr. Trump’s second term is that it turns out he really does believe the thing he’s been saying publicly for 40 years: Foreign countries are ripping America off, and tariffs are a silver bullet for America’s problems. ... To Mr. Trump, tariffs are not merely a negotiating tool. He believes they will make America rich again. And they combine two of his favorite features of the presidency: They are a unilateral power that he can turn on or off on a whim, and they create a begging economy, forcing powerful people to come before him to plead for mercy."
  • "Nor is Mr. Trump hearing strong dissent from Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers are either converts to protectionism or cowed against speaking out. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is the rare right-leaning institution still consistently challenging his approach to trade."
The definitions are from the Wikipedia articles on Autarky and Mercantilism. I looked, and I can't currently find any sources using the term "autarky," (it's an obscure word) but the definition seems to fit well because Trump's apparent goal is to make the United States self-sufficient. Regarding mercantilism, it seems like an obvious fit because that's literally Trump's goal with his obsession on reducing trade deficits. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No that'd be synth. I see what you want to do - you take the NYT description of what Trump did and line it up with what we describe as mercantilism and they're 1:1 so the first and the second match. But we can't do that in Wikipedia - that still constitutes a form of original research. What you'd need is multiple high-quality sources calling it mercantilism and also associating that with Republican party policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 Do you have any suggestions for how to phrase this then? Because Trump's tariffs are a major contrast to past Republican administrations and are supported by Republican voters. I'm not hung up on phrasing, rather it seems important enough to mention in the lead how Trump's tariff policies--which are protectionist, aimed at reducing trade deficits with other countries, and do collect federal revenue--are now supported by Republican voters and the party leader, and are being enacted as policy. We can call this protectionist, but my view is that this is a major ideological change in Republican economic views that is economically nationalist, and seems to fit the definitions of mercantilism and autarky.
Link: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/trump-tariffs-poll-republicans-china-mexico-canada ; Title: Republicans favor Trump tariffs despite anticipated price hikes: poll
  • 68% of Republican voters want a 25% tariff on Mexico, 57% on a 25% tariff on Canada, 64% on a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, 61% on a 25% tariff on the European Union, and 78% a 10% tariff on China.
  • For Democrats, it's 11% for Mexico, 9% for Canada, 11% for steel and aluminum, 10% for the European Union, and 23% for China.
This is a real shift in underlying voter positions on the issue of tariffs. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best language to describe it is the language secondary sources use. This is a risk with over-reliance on primary sources that likely use next to no descriptive language. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protectionism is a better word to describe it. Autarky pretty much means no imports and as far as I am aware Trump doesn't reject imports from his master Putin ;) 86.120.162.98 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Republicans favor Trump tariffs despite anticipated price hikes" No surprise there. In 2024, I was primarily using BBC News for coverage of the American elections. Several times throughout the year, they interviewed American business owners on the topic of a possible Trump victory. Concluding in plain terms that Trump's promised economic policies would lead to an increase in production costs, to price hikes, and to possible shortages in certain products and food items. Which is what Trump's voter base wanted anyway. Dimadick (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: characterizing the Republican Party as nationalist in this new age

[edit]

Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage ; The World Trump Wants: American Power in the New Age of Nationalism

My ban on editing the article expires tomorrow, on March 18, 2025. Anyway, I've spent time reading sources and I am asking for feedback on characterizing Trump and the Republican Party's turn as emblematic of a new age of nationalism. Per the source, Trump fits in with other nationalist leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and Narendra Modi of India. These leaders espouse different ideologies and positions, but all are nationalist strongmen who have supported territorial expansion, espouse nationalism and have cults of personalities, and express disdain for the prior Post-Cold War international order.

  • "In the two decades that followed the Cold War’s end, globalism gained ground over nationalism. Simultaneously, the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks—institutional, financial, and technological—overshadowed the role of the individual in politics. But in the early 2010s, a profound shift began. By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization."
  • "Trump and comparable tribunes of national greatness are now setting the global agenda. They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums. They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule. Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging."
  • "But today, a major war rages in Europe, the Middle East is in disarray, and the old international system is in tatters. A confluence of factors might lead to disaster: the further erosion of rules and borders, the collision of disparate national-greatness enterprises supercharged by erratic leaders and by rapid-fire communication on social media, and the mounting desperation of medium-sized and smaller states, which resent the unchecked prerogatives of the great powers and feel imperiled by the consequences of international anarchy. A catastrophe is more likely to erupt in Ukraine than in Taiwan or the Middle East because the potential for world war and for nuclear war is greatest in Ukraine."

Fundamentally, my argument is that I want to include content about the Republican Party's transformation fits in with the international context, as that of this new age of nationalist strongmen operating with 21st century technology, espousing irredentism and expansionism, and claiming to represent their nations. And some of them are winning popular elections--Trump, Modi, and Erdogan have won the popular vote in elections. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnAdams1800 Okay, so what changes would you like to make in the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added some content to the "Factions" page on right-wing populism. International trends matter, like in the 1980s it was neoliberalism with Reagan and Thatcher, and in the 2010s and 2020s it seems to be right-wing populist and nationalist leaders. This isn't just an American phenomenon, and the international context with RS (i.e. "The strange death of the center-right," "The world Trump wants," and "Why the Maga mindset is different") are all useful. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a major war rages in Europe, the Middle East is in disarray" So, what is new about that? The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and has lasted for 11 years with no end in sight. The Middle East has been in non-stop disarray since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, and I rather doubt that I will live long enough to see the end of that set of conflicts. The Americans have truly accomplished their mission of destabilizing the region. George W. Bush was not lying. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is that globalization and neoliberalism have passed the point of no return, and the post-Cold War order from around 1990 to the 2010s is dead. Foreign Affairs is about international events and leaders. Events including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2021–2023 inflation surge, and the Gaza War are all points of no return (see side-note on wars). There is no going back to the pre-2020 world, and many of its prior political positions.
Donald Trump is merely one of a group of nationalist leaders that have arisen since the 2010s, and the source helps explain common characteristics of these leaders. Trump's victory was part of the global 2024 anti-incumbent wave.
  • Some of these nationalist leaders have been popularly elected, and defy the conventional idea that authoritarian-inclined leaders cannot win majority/plurality support. Trump won the popular vote in 2024, Erdogan won a majority of the popular vote in the 2023 Turkish presidential election, and Modi's party has won the most seats in the Indian parliament since 2014.
  • My favorite example of how American democracy has apparently gone haywire is that despite Harris losing the popular vote by a close 48.3-49.8% to Trump, all 50 states and DC shifted rightward from 2020 to 2024, for the first time since 1972 to 1976 (Nixon's landslide victory to Carter's narrow win) It's most likely simply due to inflation, but still see the link.
Side-note: The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest and deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II, while the Gaza war is the deadliest war in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Link: https://abcnews.go.com/538/americas-swing-2024-wide-deep/story?id=116639076 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnAdams1800: John my friend, can you please just calm down? Your proposals are not concise, and few enjoy reading the blocks of text that you post on this page. Just calm down, and when you have a serious proposal, bring it forward in a succinct manner. Also, remember the policy on original research. Stop trying to synthesize information: just follow what most reliable sources say and let's go with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie
I can do that, and my real name is Vallabh Kudva. In exchange, would you be willing to read my masterpiece Solid South article, which I've spent most of my Spring Break editing?
I'm trying to get it to become a good/featured article. The true story of how the Southern United States became a one-party state is one of the most tragic, mind-blowing, and heart-breaking I've ever learned about in my opinion.
In particular, would you be willing to read the sections Solid South#Compromise of 1877 and Solid South#Populist Party? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Remove "Centrism" from the list of ideologies

[edit]

I'm not aware of any current members of the Republican party that would fit the definition of "centrist". I propose that either centrism be removed, or changed to center-right. Joejoe1864 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any ideology needs strong academic sourcing. A single news source is insufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Cortador (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It has extremely weak sourcing, and some other sources contradict it too EarthDude (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]