Talk:Republican Party (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Republican Party (United States) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Politics: American / Political parties / Libertarianism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance). Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 20, 2014 and March 20, 2021.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.

• The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
• Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.

@Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.

It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the closer's comment: 'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)

The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.

A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.

Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The republicans under Trump are “Right-Wing to Far-Right” in my opinion. Jaybainshetland (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

This doesn't say that Republican party is far right but makes very good and interesting observations on how much right it is

Please have a read everyone 2409:40E1:100E:6F93:5B56:46AD:AB19:390C (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Richie1509 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the "right-wing" classification should be removed, and only "center-right" should remain. The Democratic Party is listed as "center-left," and it is no less to the left than the Republican Party is to the right. Donald Trump is not right-wing or a conservative, he is a populist (and one who causes a lot of controversy at that). The Republican Party platform has shifted its position on same-sex marriage, abortion, IVF, and birth control much further to the left than it was before, and it would make no sense to suddenly classify the party as "right-wing" when it has been becoming gradually centrist overtime. DocZach (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been lots and lots of reliable and very credible sources that the republican party, in recent years, has shifted much further to the right, compared to the level at which the democratic party has shifted to left EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I definitely agree. The source given for right-wing populism in the party itself states how that block has become the dominant faction of the party EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to explain that ideological position is based on how RS describe the party and the politics of the country. This is not about changing the ideological position of the Republican Party in the infobox. Please do not substitute your own views for how reliable sources describe the Republican Party.

Side-note: My personal political views are mostly libertarian, that is mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though not on all issues. I have a similar set of views as Chase Oliver, who I will likely vote for in 2024.

Examples

• Many political parties around the world are socially conservative, such as in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia, but still considered to be politically left-wing because they are liberal on fiscal issues and their countries are socially conservative.
• Similarly many political parties that are socially liberal in countries that are very socially liberal, such as the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Canada, are still considered to be politically right-wing because they are fiscally conservative and their countries are socially liberal.
• Some political parties are big tent or ideologically diverse parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, with several factions. For these parties, a range of views on the political spectrum may be appropriate.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, parties that have been fiscally conservative had been considered left-wing, while parties that have been fiscally liberal have been considered right-wing. That's because mainstream political parties deal with reality. They select policies which best reflect their ideology according to time and place. TFD (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a point though that even with the countries political standards rather than the universal, mainstream political parties can have ideological positions that is not Centre-left or Centre-right such as Likud, Fidesz . Mhaot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit by Firefangledfeathers, which was then immediately removed by Springee. There appears to be some context in the body on this, but please feel free to discuss. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely some body content on GOP+Russia, but I don't think it was best summarized with that new content. I was on the fence about removal. It's been long enough that there's probably some scholarship on the phenomenon, if someone cares to strengthen the sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be in the lead without some strong sourcing in the body. The sourcing shouldn't be partisan reporting claiming some GOP members seem to want to cozy up to Russia or don't support Ukraine. Rather this needs to be solid sourcing on the topic that says these people actually want to help Russia (not just saying they feel placating is the less bad path etc). The lead is not something that should be frequently changing given the subject of this article is a political party that was founded over 150 years ago. In the mean time this should be removed. Springee (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, any mention of Russophilia is unwarranted because sources don't appear to support it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the bit about Russophilia seems out of place, and can be removed. The rest seems up for debate. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darknipples, maybe self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an attempt to reconcile all these issues per BRD. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical propaganda that both sides use. People who wanted to end the war in Vietnam were pro-Communist, people who opposed the invasions of Iraq were pro-Saddam Hussein, people who oppose the invasion of Gaza are anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas. Of course these takes should be mentioned, but they are opinions, not facts. TFD (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god... No one in this talk page said "THE GOP LOVES PUTIN", we are talking about subfactions of the Trump-Populist faction. That's what it said IN THE FIRST place. Plus, you yourself seem to be biased, since all of the examples you listed are plausibly positions against the United States. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is sourcing available on the pages of individual GOP politicians in the populist camp, If you want me to go ahead and gather them LMK. @Toa Nidhiki05: 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 19:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iallwayscomeback123, your revert reinserts unsupported context that is contradicted by the body, specifically in the Europe, Russia and Ukraine section. Unfortunately, without RS a {CN} tag comes back into play. DN (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be the most common stance among the Republican establishment, embodied by someone like Mitt Romey considering Russia to be the U.S.'s greatest adversary. Iallwayscomeback123 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion that no longer seems accurate. The lead currently says "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia..." I might agree that the GOP used to be tough on Russia during the Reagan era, even up through Bush, but AFAIK there is no source stating that Romney currently embodies the GOP, compared to Trump. Things have really changed since 2016, and the body currently contradicts the lead in this context. That's not my opinion BTW, that's just what sources say.

1. The GOP has been softening its stance on Russia ever since Trump won the 2016 election following Russian hacking of his Democratic opponents. There are several reasons for the shift. Among them, Putin is holding himself out as an international champion of conservative Christian values and the GOP is growing increasingly skeptical of overseas entanglements. Then there’s Trump’s personal embrace of the Russian leader.^[1]

2. For years, the party treated Trump’s Putin adoration as something to be ignored or grudgingly tolerated. That’s no longer a tenable position. With Russian forces capturing Avdiivka while a desperate Ukraine waits for U.S. aid blocked by the House GOP Caucus, Trump’s apologist posture toward Russia and the Republican Party’s position are essentially indistinguishable; it’s a dynamic that has enormous consequences across the globe.^[2]

3. Large parts of the Republican Party now treat Vladimir Putin as if he were an ideological ally. Putin, by contrast, continues to treat the U.S. as an enemy.^[3]

4. American historian Anne Applebaum - "Only a minority of House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, joined most Democrats to approve $60 billion in aid yesterday. What is now clearly a pro-Russia Republican caucus has consolidated inside Congress."^[4]

DN (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article body states that neoconservatives are now a minority, whereas the opening claims they are the party establishment. The body also states that a majority of GOP representatives voted against aid for Ukraine, whereas the opening claims that only a populist faction is isolationist. It should be the other way around - stating that the party generally opposes aid, and a minority support it. The current wording warps what the body (backed by RS) states. Cortador (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, please consider reverting from this dated and inaccurate version of the lead. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to both be careful about putting to much weight into a few commentary articles. Also the desire to avoid entanglements, especially given the US was getting out of two belt long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly explain being less included to use force vs diplomacy. Isolationism seems like a fat better explanation vs some sort of love of Putin/Russia. Springee (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that say the GOP is still neoconservative on foreign policy when it comes to Russia? That is the issue here. DN (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or takes a "tough stance" against Russia? (also part of the issue) DN (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have anything against removing that content from the lead and leaving it in the body where it can be given fuller context. Springee (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably something similar already in the Reagan era section. DN (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal. Hopefully someone can take on improving the body content. North Korea isn't even mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be removed. Likewise, North Korea and Iran aren't discussed in the article. Unless that has happened, mention of them in the lead paragraph should be removed as well.

There's also plenty of sources that support the GOP being divided on Russia, with parts of the party being pro-Russian now and/or regurgitating Russian taking points: 1 2 3 4 Cortador (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Foreign policy section (below), I don't see anything specifically mentioning the other countries either...

• "The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

If they exist elsewhere in the article I'd be glad to discuss how we can relocate the current text (below) in the lead...

(Current) "In foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative, supports an aggressive foreign policy and tough stances against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, while the populist faction is isolationist and in some cases supporting non-interventionism."

With this and other pre-existing context from the article in mind, I offer the rough draft (below), and I welcome productive criticisms and suggestions with RS...

(Proposed) After 1945 and into the early 2000s, the party establishment was generally neoconservative. By 2016, populist factions that advocated for isolationist, and in some cases non-interventionist policies, began to challenge the neoconservative establishment again, as they had prior to World War II.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id' word it like this: "Following World War II, the party establishment generally supported interventionism. After the peak of Republican neoconservatism in the early 2000s, populist factions advocating isolationist and non-interventionism gained strength within the party."

This avoids the issue that neoconservatism is more of a post-60s movement and has been diminished greatly since the Obama years i.e. I don't think the article body supports that they are still the establishment. I'd also date the rise of isolationism back to 2009 (as per article on the Tea Party), tough I agree that it again gained strength post Trump. Cortador (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't have any major issues with that. Let's wait and see what others have to say. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article in the Brookings Institute, "The Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric."[1] It then lists 52 actions Trump took against Russia. Another article points out that Trump was far harsher on Russia than Obama.[2] The problem is that the rhetoric by talk show hosts doesn't reflect the reality. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Trump and the populist faction are in no way mutually exclusive, they are both part of the GOP, respectively. I'm not advocating for cites that use "talk show host rhetoric" for the GOP populist faction that is advocating isolationist and non-interventionism policies. For example, one of the cites I referred to, (4.), comes from American historian, Anne Applebaum. DN (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Applebaum is an specialist in Communism who wrote a number of popular books published outside academia. She supported Hillary Clinton in 2020 and most of her writing is political opinion for news media. She was also associated with the American Enterprise Institute. I don't want to argue about how credible her opinions are, but they're not the final word.

Due to the nature of the major parties in the U.S., virtually anything you say about "some members" is bound to be true. Some members of both parties have been serial killers for example. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were even active in their respective parties. We need to respect weasel-wording. How many Putin admirers are there and what influence do they have on the party? TFD (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, the LEAD still seems to contradict the body with unsourced material. I would like for this update to be as objective as possible, and omit any weasel-wording. That is why I'm counting on editors here, like yourself, to help us avoid such pitfalls while fixing the problem, so I'm open to your suggestions. If you prefer the Brookings Institution as a source, they have articles that also seem to identify and shed light on the current republican party's opinions and stances on Russia. Some even include opinion polls by Pew Research on the subject, if you think we should examine those.

"Pew’s findings indicate 60% of Democrats believe that “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs”, compared to 39% who say that “we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home.”Among Republicans, however, fully 71% say that we should concentrate on domestic problems, while only 29% endorse an active international role for the United States. We will find out after the 2024 election whether these differences augur the greatest change in U.S. foreign policy since the Republican Party abandoned its longstanding isolationism after World War II."^[1]

"Today, these figures are no longer on the fringe of GOP politics. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from May, an astonishing 49 percent of Republicans consider Russia an ally. Favorable views of Putin – a career KGB officer who hates America – have nearly tripled among Republicans in the past two years, with 32 percent expressing a positive opinion."..."To be sure, the Republican Congress, at least on paper, remains hawkish on the Kremlin, as evidenced by the recent 98-2 Senate vote to increase sanctions against Russia for its election meddling and other offenses. But in no way can they be said anymore to represent the GOP party base, which has been led to believe by the president and his allies in the pro-Trump media that “the Russia story” is a giant hoax."^[2] - journalist & author James Kirchick

"It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing...." "The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress".^[3] - political scientist Robert Kagan.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with neoconservatives is that they have aways been wrong from Soviet power in the 1970s and 1980s to Iraq in the 1990s and how we were winning the wars in the years after. For an entertaing history watch "The Power of Nightmares" on youtube or read They Knews they were Right by Jacob Heilbrunn. Their analysis is so unreliable, that they can ony get published by right-wing think tanks or in editorials.

Kirchick's statement that 49% of Republicans considered Russia an ally in 2016 is wrong. The total was for ally or "friendly nation." In its legal sense, that means they were not at war with the U.S. The same poll said that 24% of Trump supporters viewd Russia favorably, compared to 19% of Clinton voters.[3] I don't have access to the actual poll, but imagine the numbers were cherry-picked.

Both sides btw are protectionist.[4]

I accept there are differences but we need better sources to explain them.

TFD (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I feel as though we may be getting off track by looking at new citations for a consensus on to how to update the last paragraph in the LEAD.

We already have citations and context in the body that the LEAD simply needs to follow.

What about something similar to this...?

• In the 21st century, the Republican Party receives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, and white voters without college degrees. On economic issues, the party has maintained a pro-business attitude since its inception. It supports low taxes and deregulation while opposing socialism, labor unions and single-payer healthcare. On social issues, it advocates for restricting the legality of abortion, discouraging and often prohibiting recreational drug use, promoting gun ownership, easing gun restrictions, and opposing the transgender rights movement. On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative but signaled some decline with Trump's election in 2016. Since then, the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. TFD (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article body doesn't support that the party is neoconservative on foreign policy at this point. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Foreign policy section....

• ""The Republican Party has a persistent history of skepticism and opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Neoconservatism, which supports unilateralism and emphasizes the use of force and hawkishness in American foreign policy, has been a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Some, including paleoconservatives, call for non-interventionism and an isolationist "America First" foreign policy agenda. This faction gained strength starting in 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump, demanding that the United States reset its previous interventionist foreign policy and encourage allies and partners to take greater responsibility for their own defense."

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not backed by its sources. The Oxford Reference sources states that neoconservatives had "some influence during the administration of all Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan", whereas the article turns that into "a prominent strand of foreign policy thinking in all Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan's presidency". "Some influence" is much milder than that, and does not support the claim that the current party establishment is neoconservative and/or the main driving factor behind GOP foreign policy. I suggest we just strike "neoconservative" from the lead paragraph entirely. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far there appears to be some consensus for removing the list of countries that don't appear in the body, but your proposal for removing "neoconservative" from the lead all-together, while somewhat relevant, is not what we are discussing here. I would suggest a separate topic of discussion for that proposal. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another version, that is a bit less clunky and more to the point.

• On foreign policy, the party establishment remained largely neoconservative, but since Trump's election in 2016 the party has experienced increased advocacy for some of his more populist positions such as isolationist and non-interventionism policies, as well as economic protectionism and tariffs.

DN (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph currently states that in "foreign policy, the party establishment is neoconservative". This claim is not supported by the article body or its sources. Neoconservatism is mentioned only a few times, and I don't see sourcing backing that neoconservatives are the party establishment either in general or in regards to foreign policy specifically. We could just drop the descriptor "neoconservative" here, which I don't think is ideal because we have so little sourcing on what the "party establishment" is actually supposed to be now, but that would be a start. Cortador (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view, the rise of the neoconservative establishment isn't accurate? What about Reagan and both Bush 1 & 2? DN (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better to provide details about their foreign policy, rather than use a term that was better known during the Bush administration. TFD (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I have not made any decision as to whether I agree or disagree. It would help if other editors shared their thoughts on this as well. DN (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was 20 to 40 years ago. If we want to state that the current party established is neoconservative, we need more recent sourcing for that, or avoid that term. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article encompasses the entire history of the GOP, not just current events. DN (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence in the opening is written in present tense, and thus it needs somewhat recent sourcing. It should reflect the body, and right now, the body doesn't state that the present-day (or at least recent recent) GOP establishment is neoconservative. Cortador (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove and see if anyone objects that's fine. I don't see a reason to revert it as of yet, since no one else has chimed in. DN (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now. Cortador (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a dispute tag that has been there since May. If this is an ongoing dispute that's fine, but I don't see any current discussions on the subject. Does anyone still object to removing the tag? DN (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be removed. If someone has an issue with the section, they can always start a discussion and re-add it. Cortador (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a good argument that the democratic party more accurately the Free Democratic or Barnburner wings of the party should be included in the Merger of section in the Info box. I cannot edit this page and even if I can its much too important for me to feel comfortable doing so. Maybe this has been covered before but i think it would be a fairly important addition to the infobox.

Thank you,

W Wnettles03 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ 49.184.140.57 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this elephant symbol is shown as logo?? I edited this as electoral symbol previously but got reverted everytime. Donkey isn't shown as Democrats' symbol in their article. We have separate banner logo for the Republicans. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make total sense, I did not know it only captured membership figures from 30 states. Now that I know that I am against adding it myself. Even if it did capture results from all 50 state then we would have to question how they got that. I am against adding it to the national parties and I suppose we should scrutinize it for state level parties. Ultimately it would be helpful to have membership figures for both parties but unless we find a reliable source we should leave it blank! Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]