Dong Zhuo

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2008!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Social and economic ideology (Center-Right?)

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

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

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

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

GOP

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

Mormons

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

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

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

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

Free market

The Republicans for the past 30 years have supported a high national debt, high government spending, and supply-side economics as opposed to a laissez-faire free market. If "economic conservatism" means reduced government spending and meddling (including meddling by handing out pro-business subsidies) in the economy then this article should't say that GOP's fiscal policy is "economic conservatism." SteveSims (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good question, what should the article say about Republican Party stances when they say one thing and do another?Readin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From a non-POV standpoint, the article should describe both what the party says (platform as well as statements by leading members) and what it does (how most Republicans vote as well as how leaders vote). Probably the best neutral language is to leave out "the party supports ..." and replace it with "the party platform says ..." and "this and that leader say ...." SkyDot (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

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

Is this a joke?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a question worth answering...

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling

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

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

Social Conservatism

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

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

Just a thought.

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

Official Color Red?

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

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

It is not the official color. I'm pretty sure neither party has an official color.Readin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 2000 election was when the colors "switched". Some believe the GOP became associated with red (the color of "power") when the change in power of Senate came about, giving Dems the "old [British Empire] power" color (Dems controlled Senate for decades before the '90s GOP revolution). Of course, it's all speculation. It could've simply been one intern in a TV network control room in NYC who decided it for the remainder of time... we may never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.183.239 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither party has an official color. Every time I hear people talk about red and blue states, they associate red with republican and blue with democrat. I honestly think the whole "official color" part should be taken out as neither party has stated an official color. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Up until 2000, there was a lot of variation, but in general, the in-power party was portrayed with blue and the out-of-power party was portrayed with red. So when Clinton was President (1996, 2000 elections), the GOP challenger (Dole, Bush 2) was red on all of the maps and the Democrat candidate (Clinton, Gore) was blue. In 1984, 1988, and 1992, the Republicans were the incumbent party (Reagan and Bush I) and so the Republican side was blue and the Democrat side was red. But after 2000 when red states and blue states got so much attention, the media just stuck with that designation. --B (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Southern Conservatives

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

No, because the south was historically for the democratic party all the way until the 60's. It only recently became largely conservative. See: Solid South. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your kidding right? The Solid South was one of the most Conservative portions of the country.

Look at that article he gave you. But keep in mind that the Republican party was more liberal prior to that, and the Democratic party was more conservative. Latics (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental policies

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

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

Libertarianism

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

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

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

Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox?

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

Race

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

Controversy in the History Section

I reverted the edit that said this:

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

For the first sentence, it is grammatically assumed that they are "attempting" to fight global terrorism (since that's what a platform is), so that word is unnecessary. And I suppose that you wouldn't be fond of saying, on the Democratic Party's page, that "the Democratic party wants to increase spending regardless of the national debt"; neither party seems very considered with the national debt, as with most parties in the world (see: Japan), so I don't see why that should be in the article. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly. The latter I removed as unnecessary because it casts a negative point of view on the stance (the reader should make that decision) without actually making note of anything. I think something should be changed about the foreign policy stance, but attempting doesn't seem like the right way to do it. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article in dispute

See this edit as one example of POV-pushing. The national debt had stabilized by the year 2000, but since then, under Republican control, the national debt has exploded. Cheney's quote is "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut." How can one conclude anything but that in the 21st century, the Republican Party favors increasing the national debt (which is nothing but an accumulated sum of all years' national deficits) in favor of tax cuts? --Art Smart (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One might conclude that. However, the article cannot. Another reliable source must conclude it; to do so ourselves would be original research and synthesis of sources. seresin ( ¡? ) 13:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No synthesis involved. Facts are facts. According to Treasury Department, the national debt as of 01/22/2001 was $5,728,195,796,181.57. As of 07/31/2008, it was $9,585,479,639,200.33. That's a 67% increase in the 7.5 years of Republican budget control. I propose adding the treasurydirect.gov reference to my previous edit. Does that work? --Art Smart (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that the national debt has risen 67% during the 7.5 years of Republican control, of course. Saying anything else is not supported directly by the source. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. That works for me. --Art Smart (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What you added is not factually accurate, much less neutral. The way you added it makes the nonsensical claim that one of the definitions of the Republican party is a 67% increase in the national debt. That is not correct. The fact can be added somewhere else in the article; section 2.2 seems the most apropos, although it would probably need a bit more information about the general trend of increased national debt. seresin ( ¡? ) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republican Party, at least so far in the 21st century, is defined by tax cuts and preemptive wars regardless of their impacts upon the national debt. That's all I was trying to say until you wanted it reduced to a 67% increase in the national debt so far this century. Please clarify your point. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither party cares about the national debt. You can see this by virtue of the Democrats having a majority in both houses yet the deficit is still increasing. This doesn't belong here, but Politics of the United States. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Without 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats are stymied by the Republicans. Several Democratic attempts at dealing with war funding failed due to Republicans winning cloture votes in the Senate. And what about the Cheney quote? He's the one who has pulled Republican puppet strings all these years, from Bush on down. You won't find a Democratic leader who says "deficits don't matter." --Art Smart (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the Republican's fault that they won't the babysit the Democrats when they're fiscally irresponsible? Both parties are responsible for the deficit. Clinton increased the debt, Pelosi passed unbalanced budgets. Either put it on both pages or neither. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Always assuming good faith, I'm confident you honestly believe what you are saying. Please back it up with neutral reliable sources, and edit the articles accordingly. If I or others find fault with the neutrality and/or reliability of your sources, we'll take appropriate action. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

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

How does one become a member of the Republican Party?

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

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

So, I have two questions, that I would like to see answered in this article:

• How does become a member of the Republican Party (or another party)?
• How can the high number of party members be explained?

Johan Lont (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Senate minority

Technically, the Republicans do not hold a minority of seats. The current Senate is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents. This is not holding a minority of seats. However, Senate rules mandate that Independents must caucus with either Democrats or Republicans. Since the two Independents have chosen to caucus with the Democrats they have a majority for administrative purposes. It cannot however be said in accuracy that the Democrats have the majority of seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.38.253 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you say, it is technically correct to say that the Republicans hold a minority of seats. In fact, it would technically be correct to state that the Republicans and the Democrats each hold a minority of seats.

I agree however, that saying "the Republicans hold a minority of seats" suggests that the other party holds the majority, and a little more information would be welcome. However, it is difficult to change the sentence such as to make it informative and concise and easy to read at the same time. Perhaps the following text would be a good alternative:

Republicans currently fill a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, hold a minority of state governorships, and control a minority of state legislatures. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a majority in the United States Senate.

What do you think? (Note: I will not follow this discussion, because of other activities) Johan Lont (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In this same vein, I made this edit a few days ago. Perhaps similar wording can be incorporated here. seresin ( ¡? )  22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a case of judicial activism

'most republicans'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.95.19 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Most Constitutional Originalists believe Roe v. Wade is judicial activism, which are typically a subset of conservatives, which are typically a subset of Republicans. But you're right, that's a bit of a loose sentence.