Jump to content

Talk:Republican Party (United States): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 217: Line 217:
:::::So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Using magic buzzwords doesn’t make your ridiculous political tirades any more convincing. In fact, it makes it less convincing. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Using magic buzzwords doesn’t make your ridiculous political tirades any more convincing. In fact, it makes it less convincing. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Facts are not an "argument". Besides distraction and denial, what do you offer here? Don’t you have a Q drop to attend to? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't link to the article at all. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't link to the article at all. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:50, 27 October 2022

Template:Vital article

Typo

Hi there is a typo that you made a mistake of while I googled the GOP, the Gop is in the senate minority not the majority anymore, if you have time please change that, but I perfer you to do that becuase im not a expert on wiki. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk • contribs)

Inclusion of "Trumpism" and/or "Authoritarianism" as an factional ideology, or something to that effect

WORK ON THE BODY BEFORE ADDING TO INFOBOX
My understanding is that this started as a normal discussion over the addition of factions to the infobox, and was never turned into a formal RfC, despite the !votes. As such, this discussion never enjoyed the advertisement of the RfC system, which makes it much harder to follow through with a formal close, which was requested at WP:RFCC.

There is consensus against adding "Authoritarianism" as an ideology in the infobox, but the same can't be said about "Trumpism". The OP contains a paragraph from the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) article, which clearly states "Trumpism" is a faction, and a fair amount of the participants agree with the sources provided by that paragraph. On top of that, those opposing the addition of "Trumpism", in some form, to the infobox did not provide strong policy reasons not to do so.

While I see a rough consensus in favor of adding "Trumpism" to the infobox, it shouldn't be done at this time. I say this for two reasons: first, editors didn't agree on how it should be added (as an ideology, a sub-ideology, or a faction?); second, a point raised by an opposing participant was that this information wouldn't be supported by the body of the article. The article as it stands now contains a sub-section on Trump's presidency, but not much about Trumpism itself, or how it relates to the Republican Party. Editors should first workshop how to best introduce the concept of Trumpism within the body of the article before considering adding it to the infobox. (non-admin closure) Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.


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

From that article, an excerpt.

As of 2021, the dominant faction in the Republican Party[1] consists of Trumpists, supporters of a movement associated with the political base of Donald Trump.[2] A poll conducted in February 2021 indicated that a plurality of Republicans (46%-27%) would leave the Republican Party to join a new party if Trump chose to create it.[3] Rather than adopting a new platform, the Republican Party resolved in 2020 to renew its platform of 2016 and declared, "The Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-First agenda".[4][5] By late 2017, performative loyalty and demonstrations of devotion to Trump were normalized within the party.[6] Political science research indicates that the "insurgent" Tea Party faction paved the way for Trump and this faction within Congress.[7] While ideological components of the movement are considered fluid and can at times be hard to define or approach from one lens of analysis, Trumpism is widely considered to represent the far-right in the United States [8][9] and be an extension of the global national-populist and neo-nationalist movement which saw prominence beginning in the 2010s.[10] Trumpism has frequently been considered to be the American realization of right-wing populism by many political scientists while others have viewed it as a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, characterizing it as authoritarian and illiberal.[11][23][note 1] Some historians, including many of those using a new fascism classification,[note 2] note that there are strong parallels but considerable differences between Trumpism and 20th century European fascism. [26][27] Trumpism has been considered to be an ideological successor to paleoconservatism as well.[28] Increasingly, vocal support for election denial and voter suppression are near universal traits of Trumpist politicians and Trump himself endorsed many 2022 midterm candidates who held such beliefs.[29] Leading Trump supporters in Congress as of August 2021 include Representatives Jim Jordan,[30] Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar,[31] Marjorie Taylor Greene,[32] Lauren Boebert,[33] Madison Cawthorn[34] and Elise Stefanik,[35] and Senators Josh Hawley,[36] Ted Cruz[37] and Tommy Tuberville,[38] who were among 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.[39] Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Greg Abbott of Texas[40] and Kristi Noem[41] of South Dakota are also strong supporters and allies of Trump.[42][43][44][45]


Here are some sources

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

It's not an ideology. Also, the party was recently in control of the executive and during that time no opposition leaders were arrested, resistance media such as CNN were allowed to continue publishing and dissident intellectuals were allowed to continue teaching. In fact the number of "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay declined and no show trials were held. TFD (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, according to Wikipedia right now, Trumpism is the sum of the "political ideologies, social emotions, [and] style of governance...associated with Donald Trump". Multiple sources I listed have compared this to authoritarianism, for its "set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power". And no, I'm not saying the party is literally authoritarian. Like I said, I'm referring to a major faction, listed on a separate page on this site, who broadly support authoritarianism. Your own choice of phrasing "resistance media such as CNN" "dissident intellectuals" suggest that you are perhaps not wiling to contribute to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view viewpoint. If you are willing to be neutral, however, that's great. Aubernas (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used that terminology to show how absurd the comparison is. When there is an authoritarian government, its opponents are by definition dissidents. Of course there is an element of truth in it, but you are taking it to extremes. In the late 1700s, the Dems called the Federalists royalists, while the Federalists called them Jacobins. In 1912, the Republicans referred to the Dems as socialists. None of these accusations were justified, although they had an element of truth. It's nothing new. And authoritarianism is not an ideology.
I am being constructive. I don't think that articles should mirror partisan rhetoric, wherever it originates.
TFD (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the opposition politicians called themselves "the Resistance." TFD (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpism isn't a thing and our article on it is a fucking embarrassment. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of political scientists would disagree with you. ––FormalDude talk 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trumpism specifically. It's surprising to me we don't have it as part of the article already. It's clearly a faction of the Republican Party and our page on it makes that quite clear. Loki (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support- But many Republicans want Trumpism to be effective, so therefore it's part of their ideology. The workings of the Senate Republicans to nominate hardline conservatives to the Supreme Court, and Josh Hawley saluting the protestors on 1/6 is Trumpism, even if it didn't accomplish all of their goals. It's got nothing to do with Trumpism actually working. Leftwing politicians in Japan still believe in democratic socialism, even if the 1955 system means that the LDP has been in power for almost 70 years. If it's on the page about factions itself already, why wouldn't be in the article? Aubernas (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources that Trumpism is an ideology? If it is, what is it beyond support for the leader by people of different ideologies? Can you name any ideological texts? TFD (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could start with th 2020 GOP Platform. Your arguments so far are straw man. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That would mean I made misdefined authoritarianism. So there's a brand of authoritarianism that doesn't actually arrest its opponents and rule by decree? And FYI, the 2020 platform merely repeated the 2016 one, despite Trump's objections. TFD (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen you often misdefine or define in terms of adjacency rather than substance. You also tend to appropriate isolated facts out of context, which results, if I may say so, in your confusion on certain issues of American politics. Anyway the platform bit was widely reported: [1] [2] [3] SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article that you linked to says the 2016 platform was not written by Trump supporters, Kushner wanted drastic changes to it for 2020 and the RNC decided instead to adopt the 2016 platform for 2020. You can read the full resolution here. In fact Biden had far more say over his party's platform in 2020. Are you arguing that because Trump had no say in the 2020 platform that he was authoritarian? TFD (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. You seem to be defining "authoritarian" as "effective" or "successful" authoritarian. By that standard, Mussolini, Saddam, and countless others were not authoritarians. I think you're aware of the well-documented accounts of Trump wanting to shoot citizens, overturn the 2020 election, encourageing his rallygoers to beat up protesters, etc. So I think your problem is simply that your definition makes no sense. Trump is clearly and widely reported to have pursued authoritarian goals and methods. He has not been fully successful to date. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that if the circumstances that applied to interwar Europe applied to the U.S. today, would Trump have become a dictator? I think he probably would have. Then again, the European dictators had near unanimous support from conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals, who voted to give them dictatorial powers. So I imagine given the same circumstances, most Democrats would be Fascists too. In fact if the next election is between a Trump and a progressive Democrat, I expect a lot of editors will be working hard to change the tone of this article. Donny Deutsch for example said that given the choice between Trump and Sanders, he would support Trump, and I am sure he speaks for many Democrats, especially the leadership. Does that make him an authoritarian? Where do you draw the line? TFD (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donny Deutsch? That's easy. Draw the line at ever thinking about Donyy Deutsch. Back to reality, Trump has the support of most Republicans, who failed to convict him in the second impeachment. And although the Taliban was looking forward to that Camp David weenie roast with him in 2020, Trump's model is nothing as smooth as the Continental fascists. More 3rd world. SPECIFICO talk 11:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding authoritarianism as it is far too broad of a term to use. Trumpism is better because it is more specific and thus more accurate, but I'm not sure about adding Trumpism. X-Editor (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding Trumpism per OP. Frankly I'm surprised it's not in the article already. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of those sources are sufficient for adding "Trumpism" (what ever that is) as a faction of the GOP. Additionally the evidence for "authoritarianism" is suspect and the sort of thing that should only be added with historical hindsight rather vs relying on contemporary sources than may be trying to persuade rather than just inform their readers. Springee (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Writing "whatever that is" after "Trumpism" shows us that you ignoring the article I linked to just there, and that many others have linked to further up in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does an ideology requires their supporters to be in power for it to be an ideology? This is a complete non-argument. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia should aim for accuracy MappedTables (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both, assuming we're talking about the infobox. Neither is fleshed out well enough in the body to even consider it at this stage. I'd favor changes to the body of the article that discuss Trump's effect on the party, including at least a mention of Trumpism. Part of the problem here is that §Trump era is written like a summary of the Trump presidency article and goes into far too much detail about things that have little relevance to the party. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support on adding Trumpism. Instead of listing it on its own, it could possibly be listed as a sub-point under right-wing populism. Given recent events, though, I'm unsure if moving right-wing populism and possibly Christian right out of factional ideology and place them under conservatism as a main ideology or something of that sort. Oppose adding authoritarianism due to the fact it is too general, and even parties universally considered authoritarian like the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, etc do not have it listed in the infobox, instead discussing it in the article body. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of these. Verbally, Trumpism is the lighter of the two; but they both amount to the same. Anti-immigrant, anti-democracy, and anti women's and LGBT rights rhetoric and effections are historically telling signs of authoritarianism. GarethPW (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. "Authoritarianism" is much too vague and broad – as every politician (and parent) supports it. (I'm in charge!) "Trumpism" is vague too. Mr. Trump has one political philosophy (or "ism") – to be the focus. So including it as a characteristic of the Republican Party is putting a non-encyclopedic importance into the term. – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. There is a dearth of reliable sourcing supporting each of these. I definitely think that they should be, at minimum, listed as ideological factions of the party in the infobox. Cpotisch (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aratani, Lauren (26 February 2021). "Republicans unveil two minimum wage bills in response to Democrats' push". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2021. In keeping with the party's deep division between its dominant Trumpist faction and its more traditionalist party elites, the twin responses seem aimed at appealing on one hand to its corporate-friendly allies and on the other hand to its populist rightwing base. Both have an anti-immigrant element.
  2. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J. (20 March 2019). "Trumpism is US". WZB | Berlin Social Science Center. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  3. ^ Elbeshbishi, Susan Page and Sarah. "Exclusive: Defeated and impeached, Trump still commands the loyalty of the GOP's voters". USA TODAY.
  4. ^ Epstein, Reid J. (2020-08-25). "The G.O.P. Delivers Its 2020 Platform. It's From 2016". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
  5. ^ Wheeler, Tom. "The 2020 Republican Party platform: "L'etat, c'est moi"". Brookings.
  6. ^ Gessen, Masha (2021). Surviving Autocracy. Penguin. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-593-33224-5.
  7. ^ Blum, Rachel M. (2020). How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-68752-0.
  8. ^ Lowndes 2019.
  9. ^ Bennhold 2020.
  10. ^ Isaac 2017.
  11. ^ Foster 2017.
  12. ^ Butler 2016.
  13. ^ Chomsky 2020.
  14. ^ Berkeley News 2020.
  15. ^ Badiou 2019, p. 19.
  16. ^ Giroux 2021.
  17. ^ Traverso 2017, p. 30.
  18. ^ a b Tarizzo 2021, p. 163.
  19. ^ Ibish 2020.
  20. ^ Cockburn 2020.
  21. ^ Drutman 2021.
  22. ^ West 2020.
  23. ^ [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
  24. ^ Tarizzo 2021, p. 178.
  25. ^ Giroux 2017.
  26. ^ Evans 2021.
  27. ^ Weber 2021.
  28. ^ Matthews, Dylan (May 6, 2016). "Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained". Vox.
  29. ^ Edelman, Adam (May 22, 2022). "Election deniers who say Trump won in 2020 are running to be top cop in 4 battleground states". NBC News.
  30. ^ Wallace, Danielle (November 22, 2019). "Rep. Jim Jordan attacked by Ohio newspaper in shocking personal, partisan column". Fox News.
  31. ^ "Matt Gaetz added to pro-Trump event lineup alongside QAnon supporters". Newsweek. September 1, 2021.
  32. ^ Lasseter, David Jackson and Evan. "'Around here, Trump is king': How Marjorie Taylor Greene got to Congress by running as the MAGA candidate". USA TODAY.
  33. ^ "Pro-Trump Republican Lauren Boebert say God will remove 'unrighteous' politicians in wild speech at religious conference". www.msn.com.
  34. ^ "Donald Trump Endorses Republican Congressman Madison Cawthorn For 2022". The Political Insider. March 24, 2021.
  35. ^ Behrmann, Savannah. "Who is Rep. Elise Stefanik? RNC speaker ranks as one of the most bipartisan lawmakers, but also a staunch Trump supporter". USA TODAY.
  36. ^ "Trump ally Josh Hawley comes unstuck in Fox News interview about electoral college challenge". The Independent. January 5, 2021.
  37. ^ Lange, Jason; Gardner, Timothy (2 January 2021). "Trumpists in Senate vow to formally undermine democracy in America by challenging Biden's election | amNewYork". AM New York Metro. Reuters. Archived from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 23 September 2021. Trumpist Texas Senator Ted Cruz on Saturday said he will spearhead a drive by nearly a dozen other Trump-sympathizing Republican senators to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's victory when Electoral College results are tallied in Congress on Jan. 6 – a largely symbolic move that has virtually no chance of preventing Biden from taking office.
  38. ^ "Tuberville backs Trump's unsupported cheating claim". AP NEWS. May 5, 2021.
  39. ^ Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry; Lu, Denise (7 January 2021). "The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results". The New York Times.
  40. ^ Svitek, Patrick (June 1, 2021). "Donald Trump endorses Gov. Greg Abbott for reelection". The Texas Tribune.
  41. ^ Lippman, Daniel. "Kristi Noem gets a Trump-hosted fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago". POLITICO.
  42. ^ Kennedy, John (11 January 2021). "DeSantis reaches midpoint of his term as governor, facing a Florida changed by COVID-19 and divided on his leadership". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 11 January 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021. His unswerving allegiance to Trump is clearly a factor in the public's perception of him.
  43. ^ Cadeau, Teri. "SD governor leads 'Women for Trump' bus back to Twin Ports". Duluth News Tribune. Archived from the original on 18 January 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
  44. ^ Chandler, D. L. (24 June 2021). "NBC's Brian Williams Blasts Trump Backside Smoocher Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Over Safe Dogs Act Veto". The Latest Hip-Hop News, Music and Media | Hip-Hop Wired. Archived from the original on 12 September 2021.
  45. ^ Fabian, Jordan; Warren, Susan; Jacobs, Jennifer (7 May 2020). "Trump Touts Texas as Model for Reopening Even as Cases Climb". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on 29 November 2020.
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.

Add National Conservatism/Paleoconservatism as a faction of the Ideology section.

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

I'm not too familiar with the wikipedia procedure for proposing changes to protected articles but I think National Conservatism should be added as a faction of the Ideology section on this article. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't really actual wings. There's a substantial amount of overlap with social conservatives/Christian right, and maybe a handful of commentators. It's about as real as Reformicons were. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. TFD (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nixon and Watergate completely missing from the “history section “?

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

Nixon is mentioned, although Watergate isn't. It should be included. TFD (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon is mentioned as a name, but absolutely nothing about his presidency or his strategy is. Not the Southern Strategy, not the beginning of "tough on crime" rhetoric, not winning by huge margins, not the beginnings of the modern primary system... It's not just Watergate we're missing here. Loki (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon won the election by 1968 by a popular vote margin of 0.70%, and the election of 1972 by a popular vote margin of 23.15%. The "huge" vote margin was actually less than some of the election victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren G. Harding. We can compare vote margins in List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"restrictions on voting rights"

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

This is a mobile edit so please excuse any brevity. I have also been concerned with both the volume and neutrality of the content you recently added. I think you have put assertions in as fact and the sourcing isn't broad enough to give the comments the weight you have given them. Springee (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also citing such things as core examples of things the GOP supports, which is beyond ludicrous. I would encourage ViperSnake151 to stop with these disruptive, inflammatory edits. Toa Nidhiki05 17:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two issues 1) Specific phrasing and 2) Whether appropriate for the lead. I agree that the Republican party generally has supported greater regulation of the voting process; things like voter ID laws and purging of registration rolls have been key party-wide positions for some time. I think that restrictions on voting rights is likely to be inflammatory phrasing. I'm kinda agnostic on whether it does belong in the lead, but I think that if we decide it is, I think the phrasing could be tweaked. Perhaps something like "greater regulation of voting processes" or even just list the concrete things they support or have tried to enact, like voter ID laws and the like. --Jayron32 19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now the article uses the wording "stricter voting laws to control electoral fraud", which does get at your idea more. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are clear that Republicans want electoral restrictions, not regulation to prevent electoral fraud; that's overt Republican propaganda. There's virtually no electoral fraud in the US; what Republicans are trying to do, and have done so historically (see Democracy in Chains, historians have written about this for decades), is to limit and restrict electoral participation in the US, most notably by making it difficult for people to vote (the US doesn't have voting holidays, doesn't offer paid time off from work to vote, and voting is generally held in the middle of the work week to make it difficult for most people, combined with recent efforts to restrict mail-in voting). It's by design that the US has some of the lowest voter turn out out of any democracy. Republicans don't want the majority of people to vote, because when they do, they vote left, not right. This isn't even debatable, it's a matter of record. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an encyclopedia, not a political rally, Viriditas. I'd recommend you leave the talking points at home. Toa Nidhiki05 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's exactly the opposite. The political propaganda we're being spoon-fed here is that the Republican Party does not engage in restrictions on voting rights, when the history of the topic shows otherwise, and the key figures, historians, philosophers, political activists, party members, donors, fundraisers, and politicians have all expressed support for voting restrictions. You're trying to tell us the sun the shining when it's clearly raining. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the material from the lead as this is not a long time party position and in general. I think the large increase in voter related content is still an issue as this is meant to be a summary of the party that covers a period over 150+ years. A lot of the newly added content fails IMPARTIAL and too much seems to be echoing just a few sources rather that presenting a broader range of views on the subject. The last two paragraphs of the renamed "Voting Rights" section seem to be a recent play by play with a strong POV pulled from a few sources. I think the previous version of that text was better. It would be better to call the section voting regulations since "rights" works both ways and implies that any tightening of regulations is automatically the restriction/removal of someone's rights. Springee (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of historical record that Republicans in the US support and pass laws that restrict voting and registration. Saying otherwise is pure propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of record that Republicans support putting more things in place that one must do in order to be able to vote. The issue is in the use of pejorative or emotional language to describe that. --Jayron32 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voter rights in the body

FormalDude, please restore the long standing consensus text then make your case for a change here [4]. Two editors have challenged the change you are making. The source, MJ, doesn't support a generalized statement that "political analysts suggest..." That phrasing implies that this is basically a universal opinion among analysists. MJ, a less than neutral source, only mentions the Brennan Center for Justice as making this claim. It doesn't say this is a widely shared view across the political spectrum of analysists. The original, long standing text that "Opponents" view this as is correct and supported by the source. Finally, please follow BRD. You first made this change less than 24 hr ago. It has been challenged thus doesn't have consensus. The correct next step is to make the case here. Springee (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new section since this is about different content than the section above.
None of the sources label any of the statements that they support as the viewpoints/arguments of opponents, they all state them as facts. Brennan Center for Justice is a political analysis group, so it is accurate to say that their statement is political analysis, as is the case with the other two sources as well. To downplay these facts as being the opposing view is a false equivalence that gives WP:FALSEBALANCE. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brennan is a left-wing think tank. It's far from a neutral source for analysis - it's akin to citing the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brennan is far from the only one to make this claim. We could easily use this source from a Cornell political scientist instead:
The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you searched for sources supporting the change? I don't oppose changing the wording from "Opponents" to "political analysists who oppose" or similar but it's not OK to make it look like this is a universal view. Springee (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed searched for sources supporting the change, and I am confident that these statements are the mainstream view of reliable sources and portrayal of them as anything less would be false balance on our part. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that is your OR, not what the sources say. I'm sure you know we need to stick with what the sources say, not what we are certain to be correct. Springee (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed change is what the sources already say. The current text is wrong, nobody who made the claims in the sentence are an "opponent" of it, they are neutral political analysts. And my evaluating of multiple sources to see if the majority verify a statement is actually the opposite of original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good compromise might be "many/some political analysts and opponents..." because quite frankly, I don't see a source saying (point-blank) this is a view held by all (or even a majority) of analysts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that "political opponents say" would be a suitable compromise. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources verify that though. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources are described in their wiki articles as "progressive" and "liberal", so I think it's fair to call them "critics" when we state what they say here. BTW, I would support replacing "opponents" with "critics" or "critical sources". The sources clearly are being critical, but describing them as "opponents" kind of implies they're biased. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that support a change

––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You appear to be confusing opinion writing for news reporting in many of these cases. Also, news is OK for reporting events that occurred, but it's not great for what is better covered through academic sources. --Jayron32 13:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's labeled a perspective because it's from an outside writer rather than someone on WashPo staff. The author, Robert Griffin, is a political scientist and research director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group which means they are a subject matter expert and this can safely be considered a reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per News organizations, both "analysis and opinion pieces" are rarely reliable unless written by an expert. Quality news media are reliable for current events not political science. You have to show btw that Griffin qualifies as an expert. His background appears to be thinktanks, including the highly partisan Center for American Progress. I think btw that your summary is correct, but needs to be properly sourced and phrased in a neutral tone. That probably means expanding the section to explain Republican strategy, including putting it into the context of U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed sources

Here's peer-reviewed sources, even though the current sources used for this portion are all news media.

––FormalDude (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to find sources that don't support that this is voter suppression? This is kind of a general problem with political opinions is finding sources that do support a view then assuming we have represented the range of views on a subject. Springee (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the most relevant sources I could find on the topic of Republican's recent legislative attempts to enhance election security and restrict voting. If you can find an academic source that analyzes this topic and does not refer to it as voter suppression and disenfranchisement, be my guest. I could not. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To say that something is an effect of a policy position is not the same as saying that it is a policy position, however. Republicans support legal gun ownership with minimal regulation; however that doesn't mean that "more mass murders" is a Republican policy position. They don't support mass murder even though scholarly studies clearly show that the effect of lower gun regulations is higher rates of mass murders. It would be wrong to say they support mass murder. Similarly, even though Republican policy has the effect of suppressing voting by qualified individuals (i.e. it reduces voting by people who have the unambiguous legal right to do so), that is not a policy position of the Republican party. It is merely an effect of that. Just as saying that Republicans support mass murder is not a reasonable thing to say, neither is saying the support voter suppression or restriction or other such emotional language. That is appropriate for the campaign trail, not for an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely correct. It would be like saying "progressive Democrats support taking people off healthcare plans they like" because they support single-payer healthcare. It's technically true, but that's not the goal or the intended policy. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree. I’ve been following this issue for decades. Voter suppression is a policy position of the Republican Party, and the claim that it is only an effect of their positions is false. This discussion is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a nice argument senator, why don’t you back it up with a source? Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tova Wang, The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote, Cornell University Press, 2016. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the effect of a policy position, it is about the policy position itself. These sources describe how Republicans masquerade legislation that disenfranchises voters behind the guise of "election security" and "fraud prevention". ––FormalDude (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples in the Voting rights section

Could someone please explain to Toa Nidhiki05 that this edit adding a wikilink is completely appropriate? ––FormalDude (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inflammatory edit in line with the problematic additions above. Should be fairly obvious unless you're trying to make a pointy edit. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is "inflammatory" about adding a link to an established Wikipedia article that is directly related to the content in that section? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WTF is going on here? Just because an editor's political beliefs are offended does not justify political censorship. That is not allowed. NPOV tells us to leave those editorial POV behind when editing. It's a perfectly appropriate and on-topic link that should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite literally linking to a random, unrelated page and section. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is just patently false. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed that both articles talk about the exact same topics using many of the same sources? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting a link that implies the efforts are specifically voter suppression vs addressing gaps in the system to verify voters are eligible etc is a NPOV issue. Such claims require sourcing. While certainly it is possible to find sources that argue this is voter suppression, absent some effort to find sources that don't agree this becomes a NPOV issue. The link in the tag implies something in Wiki-voice that isn't supported in sourcing. Springee (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Voting rights section is explicitly about the restriction of voting access by Republicans, and so is Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples. That it uses "suppression" instead of "restriction" is inconsequential and any NPOV concerns about the title of Voter suppression in the United States should be taken up at that article's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article section looks like a collection of cases where someone claims something is vote suppression, not much more than a list article. The problem here is there is a dispute between vote suppression and vote integrity as well as making sure voting laws are followed. For example, if a state's voting laws claim the legislative branch is solely responsible for voting rules, is it legal for the executive or judicial branch to change the rules? Is a law attempting to clarify this voter suppression? I suspect most would agree that there is some tradeoff between say how strictly residency is established vs voter integrity. At one far extreme might be anyone who claims to be a resident on a mail in ballot has a vote that counts. At the other extreme is some rule that requires say you prove you have lived at the address on your license for at least 5 years before you are allowed to vote and then only in person etc. These extremes illustrate a tradeoff between access and integrity. To describe things only in one term as if it were the only applicable concern is not NPOV. Springee (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to just link to the whole article and not the section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or not link to the article at all since it caries an implication that is disputed. Springee (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no implication that is disputed. These articles talk about the exact same cases and even use some of the same sources. One just uses a synonym that you're for some reason not comfortable with. You need to take up that concern at Talk:Voter suppression in the United States, not here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of outright denial on this page is astounding and concerning. The GOP have been very public about their vocal support for voter suppression. To claim that this is just an opinion or an unintended "effect" of their polices is blatant misinformation. We have hundreds of examples. One of my favorites is from former Republican John Kavanagh of Arizona, who repeatedly told the media why Republicans didn’t want most people to vote.[5]. This isn’t an "effect", this is the GOP policy. The attorney for the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court the same thing.[6]. They’ve passed hundreds of bills to prevent people from voting. Anything less than admitting this is a real policy position of the GOP, when they’ve repeatedly admitted it, is denial. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We’re not here to listen to a political rant, Viriditas. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using magic buzzwords doesn’t make your ridiculous political tirades any more convincing. In fact, it makes it less convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are not an "argument". Besides distraction and denial, what do you offer here? Don’t you have a Q drop to attend to? Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link to the article at all. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)&oldid=1118445362"