Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.

Sources for far-right:

Adolph, R. B. (2021). American Extremism: The far right of the US Republican Party. Atlantisch Perspectief, 45(3), 25–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48638241

Far right kills republican support. (2023/11/14/, 2023 Nov 14). University Wire Gill, K., & editor, a. (2023/09/17/). Texas GOP acquits AG paxton after threats from far-right republicans. San Diego: Newstex. Keilar, B., Berman, J., Sciutto, J., Nick Paton Walsh, J. M., & Phillip, A. (2022/04/27/). Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501957309/BIC?u=vuw&sid=summon&xid=02ead6c4. Accessed 6 July 2024. Lee Drutman, ed. (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0190913854. These far-right Freedom Caucus members had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership, which they felt had forced members into compromising too much with Democrats.

Touchberry, Ramsey; Soellner, Mica (November 9, 2022). "Emboldened far-right Freedom Caucus presents hurdles to Kevin McCarthy's run for House speaker". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022.

David Hosansky, ed. (2019). The American Congress. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1544350639. This set up a difficult battle for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to reach a consensus within his caucus between mainstream Republicans and the forty-member-strong Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right libertarian, isolationist, ...

Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen, eds. (2019). The American Congress. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 14. ISBN 978-1538125847. The parties are very polarized: the middle is empty, so that no Democrat is to the right of any Republican and no Republican is to the left of any Democrat. The Freedom Caucus members are located on the far right.

Battlefield expands as blasts heard inside russia near ukraine; russia shuts off gas supplies to poland, bulgaria in escalation; tapes say, rep. kevin McCarthy (R-CA) feared far-right republicans would incite violence. aired 7-7:30a ET. New York: CQ Roll Call.

"Charlottesville Violence Highlights Republican Party's History Of Far-Right Factions." All Things Considered, 14 Aug. 2017. Dhantegge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree its important to add the far-right factions. I do think its debatable if its even a center-right party anymore due to how big the far-right factions have become. They have a lot of similiaritys to hard right parties like BJP in India, Liberal Party in Brazil, Fidez in Hungary etc. The only thing is the GOP still contains a lot of moderates so I would say it should be Right-Wing to Far-Right with center-right factions. I think it saying it has the same position as the conservative party of UK or conservative party of Canada is silly. I honestly kind of think the article implying the Democratic Party is center-left while the Liberal Party of Canada is center to center-left to be silly. This implys the Democratic Party has the same position as the Labour Party of UK which is a social democratic party with socialist factions. The Democratic Party should be center to center-left with center-right to Left-Wing factions. TYMR (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the party is far left merely that it has a far right, but that seems to be relative to the party. That is, they are the far right of the Repubican Party, not necessarily far right in an absolute sense.

The reason for different descriptions for Canada and the U.S. is that Canada has a muliple party system with Liberals in the center, while the U.S. has a two party system with Democrats on the left. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained in multiple other discussions above, reliable academic sources do not agree with your claims. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Update the lead on the party's positions once the 2024 RNC Platform comes out.

See 2024_Republican_National_Convention#Platform, note that the platform was written by Trump's campaign. The platform has been described as "more nationalistic, more protectionist, and less socially conservative" by The New York Times.

Remarks on the first draft: The platform calls for tariffs on imports--I will update the trade section (I wrote it); it calls for deporting millions of illegal immigrants--update the immigration section; it drops opposition to same-sex marriage--update the LGBT issues section; it calls for states to enact abortion policy--update the abortion section; it calls for ending support for electric vehicles--environmentalism section; it calls for protecting Social Security and Medicare; etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s practically a far right party. Although center right factions exist. Although I would edit the Democratic Party to include factions that are center right Zman19964 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the unsourced above - I oppose major changes to anything based on party platforms. Unlike in Europe, American platforms are practically useless, non-binding, and generally not worth the paper they are written on. Toa Nidhiki05 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for major changes, but the platform provides updates and more information, particularly for the right-wing populism and Trumpist factions. I'm not changing the lead without consensus, but I do want to change the sections on political positions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"more nationalistic" Big surpise there. Trumpism is long thought to have incorporated the ideology of neo-nationalism, and its typical political positions (right-wing populism,anti-globalization, nativism, protectionism, opposition to immigration, Islamophobia and Euroscepticism). Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article, it says this on the platform: "The Party's 2024 platform was opposed to immigration, calling for mass deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States." Isn't immigration & illegal immigration two different things? That statement does not differentiate between the two.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We should not be making any updates based on the platform until it is adopted by delegates at the RNC. It is not adopted until that moment. Before then it is simply a draft and could (though unlikely) be amended at the convention by the delegates. LoneOmega (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Infobox ideologies

Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Cortador and Darknipples from previous discussion.

Poll

• No - Neither is a substantial faction of the Republican Party on the same level as say conservatism, the Christian Right, Trumpism, or even centrism/moderates. Neoconservatism is mainly about foreign policy, and the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus is tiny at just 9 members (out of 435).
• No - While elements of either ideology overlap with the existing conservative faction, neither group has any real organizational prominence within the Republican Party. Existing sources clearly do not place them on the same level as conservatives or social conservatives, and the only explicitly libertarian faction in the House - the Liberty Caucus - has less than 10 members, almost all of whom overlap with other hardline conservative caucuses. Neoconservatism lacks any caucus in either house, or any organizational prominence in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree with this view of current trends, nonetheless the history of these factions within the Republican party and their impact still has weight and should remain in some form. DN (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• No American conservatism is defined as a mix of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with each person placing a greater or lesser emphasis on each of the three aspects. Also, neoconservatism is merely a term to refer to a group of people who began as liberal Democrats, became conservative Republicans and now appear to have moved back to the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. For the same reasons stated above - no evidence has been brought forwards as to their relevance.Carlp941 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) For such a long-established party, the 'core' defining ideologies should be what is in the infobox. No evidence is provided that these are 'core' beliefs now or in the past. As others say, this doesn't prohibit coverage of these aspects within the article. Also broadly agree with the other reasons offered above.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism. I'm not sure why the existing voters seem to ignore that there's still a lot of neocons in the GOP. John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Tom Cotton, and Nikki Haley all have neoconservative tendencies and/or supported by neoconservative organizations; even if they do not identify themselves as neoconservatives, given the political causticity of the term. Individuals who are described as neoconservatives absolutely still exist in substantial electoral and official presence in the GOP, regardless of whether or not they are the defining force of the Republican party. I will concede that the libertarian presence in the GOP is almost certainly minimal at this point, however. Not a label anyone of power or popularity uses for themself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• No, while I agree with DN that each party/faction carries WP:WEIGHT on the topic of the Republican Party, I disagree that their weight should carry to the infobox. That would give them undue weight. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• lien towards: Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism based on my knowledge of the party. However, we don't report what editors think, we need sources to establish (or not) either designation. I see the sources box below is empty. Please fill it and discuss whether those sources are or not reliable, and I will reconsider. I came here because of WP:FRS [1] --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Seems a little odd to not mention the libertarian faction in the info box. (Maybe as a "historical" faction/influence?) The economic policies of the GOP in the modern era has largely been defined by influences like Milton Friedman. I know (as of late) there has been protectionism and so on....but I am thinking of the last 40-50 years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to libertarianism. Include neoconservative implicitly under conservative banner. Pretty remarkable that many of the editors here are suggesting removing libertarianism from the infobox. It has historically (and even presently) exerted a profound role on the right in the United States to an extent found almost nowhere else. Has no one here heard of Milton Friedman? Friedrich Hayek? Ronald Reagan saying that the heart of conservatism was libertarianism? It is indisputable that libertarianism is notable enough for a lead mention. Let's not let 5 year trends completely rewrite the infobox. This is a classic case of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose to including any ideology. Assigning any ideology to the infobox is problematic because it has significantly changed during the existence of the Party. It is very different right now from something it was even 20 years ago. Right now, this is pretty much just MAGA, Donald Trump's party, Alt-right, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes for neoconservatism, no for libertarianism. Libertarianism opposes police, fundamentally opposes borders, supports right to abortion, supports Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, and other Queer rights. This does not describe any faction of the Republican party. Whereas, the GOP does have a neoconservative faction, it was even the majority faction for a while. A Socialist Trans Girl 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No doubts, they are not libertarians. But neocons? Yes, but this is thing of the past. MAGA and alt-right are very different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both would apply during certain periods historically, but they have been less active relative to other groups recently. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointless RfC: There's consensus for the ideologies from the article in the infobox, and no evidence has been brought forward that this consensus has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

The consensus was about including an ideology section, not about which ideologies are to be included. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is about including those from the article body in the infobox. Changing the infobox is against that consensus. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided evidence that this consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

There's dozens of articles (including from 2023) within the past five years indicating that libertarians remain a substantial faction of the party. This is the definition of WP: RECENTISM. KlayCax (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Where’s the mention of the GOP vs. Woodrow Wilson

This arrival mentions the 1912 split between Ted Roosevelt and Taft, but not that it resulted in the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or about how the GOP gave Wilson a run for his money in 1916, making WW the most narrowly re-elected incumbent in modern times until Bush #2 in 2004! 24.154.117.91 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that, given the context you said in the topic, that sounds like it’s good to add. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

political position 2

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [2]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.

We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the New York Times. There are also articles like this article [3], which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter [4]. Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

support

All other country parties do this

The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right

Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No democrats should be labeled as center-right. Maybe in economics, but I assure you not in social policies. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Democrats are not centre right and the common talking point about how they'd be conservatives in Europe or whatever is silly Goonsbee (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that is the part that trips up a lot of editors seeking to challenge the descriptor on the grounds that "In X country they would be considered this or that". It is an argument completely devoid of context. The article clearly specifies (United States). DN (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove political position. The political position should not be included here just as it is not included in the Democrat article. Americans in general don’t have a true grasp of the left/right spectrum and with only two major parties each contain views from the center to the extreme. To label the Republican Party as right-wing but the Democrat Party not left-wing rings of bias which should always be avoided on a Wikipedia page. The sources cited themselves have been heavily accused of being left leaning to lift-wing making them impartial. I’m certain with just very little research there would also be enough right leaning to right-wing sources to label the Democrat Party as left-wing as well. It’s all about how both sides choose to spin the data. At the most each party should be labeled as ether left or right or both not labeled at all. Straykat99 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Just because you do not believe that Americans have a grasp on the left-right political spectrum does not mean that it is not there in our two political parties. Also in response to the comment that Democrats are not a left-leaning party, that is not fully true. The Democrats support a capitalist-socialist system. They support capitalism in that they support the free market, but they support socialism in that they support regulations by the government on that market, as well as supporting many social systems set up. They also support the left in their social policies. 174.240.149.73 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Democrats are definitely not centre-left. More like centre to centre-right, with the republicans being right-wing to far-right. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Economically yes your correct but if you think that democrats are centre right socially then you need to get info about the u.s. that isn’t from a European TV station. socially democrats are centre to left. 107.115.41.124 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of centre-right parties are socially progressive (such as Macron’s Renaissance, the Save Romania Union, and Fine Gael). That doesn’t make them centre-left. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The Republican party is NOT centre-right, as they have ultraconservative social leanings and very right wing economic policy at the moment. This is like saying that the Republican party is the same as the Liberal Party of Australia economically and socially, which it isn't . 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While I think it makes sense to add "right-wing", there are numerous sources stating that the GOP has a far-right faction (as pretty much any American knows), while the given infobox sources for "center-right" all likewise state that the party has center-right factions, not that it is inherently center-right, nor that the party establishment is center-right. I think the most reasonable "political position" would be "right-wing", and below that "center-right to far-right" as "factions", like in these articles. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism as a faction?

Would it make sense to add Trumpism to the factions section of the ideologies box? Trump is obviously the dominating figure of the Republican Party in current times and has created a distinct movement, supported by a large proportion of the party, the magnitude shown in the existence of an independent article about it which describes it. Mainstream media sources are increasingly referring to it, such as the Washington Post recently suggesting that "Trumpism has outgrown Trump" and that "even Donald Trump can’t shift the movement of Trumpism" as it becomes more of a significant ideology than simply the positions of Trump himself. Therefore, given the shift in the party towards the right with Trump's and ideas in the past few years and the fact that Trumpism isn's fully described by other terms (hence it's existence), wouldn't it make sense to include it, as it describes the trend in the party's majority currently, given he's the idolised presidential candidate? I do seem to recall that this was previously in the ideologies box so if there's already a consensus on why this isn't there then I'm really sorry, but it seems to me that it would make sense to add it. Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Sizewell (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Yes. The faction that is currently labelled "right-wing populists" was originally called "far-right Republicans" and "Trumpists" at one point as well. If you check footnote C, you can also see that there are a lot of sources describing Trumpism not only as a faction of the GOP, but as the dominant faction of the GOP.

Considering that Trump has shaped the party for almost a decade now, that seems appropriate. Cortador (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I previously supported this position but settled on simply stating right-wing populism after a lot of debate on the matter. Trumpism is mentioned in the right-wing populism section itself. BootsED (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we have a plethora of sources specifically taking about Trumpism. If we try to supplant that with populism, we go against what sources call this part of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion before, and I'm fairly sure you participated in this. Right-wing populism is the broader, more accurate ideological system this falls into, and it's backed up by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Then someone should add those supposed sources because as of now, there's plenty of sources for Trumpism being that faction. Cortador (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

But Trumpism is much more defined than right-wing populism. I support that in the ideologies part of the infobox as well, but Trumpism, an established movement now, is more extreme and is characterised by various features which "right-wing populism" doesn’t describe, and therefore right-wing populism just seems so vague for no reason, especially when Trump has such a command over the party (and country to an extent) now with his definitive thought. Look at the Communist Party of Vietnam, where Ho Chi Minh Thought is listed. This could simply be listed as Marxism-Leninism as it's a derivative of that, but it's being more specific for a prominent movement, and I think that Trumpism should be added as the same. Sizewell (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ho Chi MInh thought was adopted twenty years after Ho died and was officially declared the ideology of the Communist Party. Although I don't have a crystal ball, I know that in twenty five years time we will not see textbooks on the ideas of Donald Trump or anyone using them to develop policy positions.

Trumpism is more like caesarism, a movement built around an individual that dissipates when the leader leaves the scene. TFD (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not a directly comparable example but the point still stands. Trumpism is more like caesarism, but the leader is on the scene and is dominating Republican Party politics in this generation. Right-wing populism is unnecessarily vague. Sizewell (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really vague at all, and the term "populism" is far more used both by opponents and proponents than "Trumpism". There are no Trumpist caucuses or organizations, no Trumpist platform, and frankly nothing really there of substance at all outside of Trump. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, stick to right-wing populism, with Trumpism as a subset of it. The ideology is right-wing populism, which is the faction. Donald Trump is better for referring to the history of the party, specifically the "Trump Era" (2016-present). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

*IMPORTANT* Presidential/Vice Presidential Nominees

I think we need to note how Donald Trump of Florida and J. D. Vance of Ohio are the presidential/vice presidential nominees of the Republican Party in the info box. It was just revealed on July 15 at the Republican National Convention the presidential and vice presidential nominees (Donald Trump and J.D. Vance). I think it is important to show that because if you look at a lot of American parties that are in the elections’ (e.g. Democratic Party, Libertarian Party) infoboxes, you will see their nominees. Oliverryannn (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We can add a sentence about them--i.e. Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024--and Vance is the new VP nominee in 2024. But we don't need to add them to infoboxes until the election has occurred. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Akagan23 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to edit the page to include the party's stance on Israel and Ukraine in the top section.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the Republican Party neoliberal economically? I have sources that it isn't anymore.

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.

---

Looking for a consensus in the lead for the claim that the Republican Party "has a neoliberal outlook." Neoliberalism supports immigration and free trade, which Trump (nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024) ardently opposes. This is not about my personal views, but the divergences between Reagan to Bush (Sr. and Jr.) to Trump with respect to neoliberalism.

From the article on neoliberalism: A central feature of neoliberalism is the support of free trade.

Neoliberalism overlaps, but is not the same as fiscal conservatism. Trump ended U.S. involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and TTIP proposed free trade agreements, started a trade war with China, and is promising a 10% tariff on all imports to the United States and 60% tariffs on China (along with removing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China).

Neoliberalism also supports immigration, which Trump clearly does not. The cover of the book begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (and the lifting of immigration restrictions between East & West Germany), contrasting with Trump staring at the Trump Wall.

Sources: JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about Trump, not the Republican Party. Do you have sources establishing that a majority of elected Republicans oppose free trade and immigration of any type? Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

2017 Pew Research poll.

Statistics: No free trade agreement (see table) was signed into law during Biden's presidency thus far. Three were signed during Obama's presidency and nine signed during Bush Jr.'s presidency. Just 1 was signed during Trump--USMCA renewing NAFTA. Obama was negotiating the TPP and TTIP, which Trump withdrew from. Both parties have turned against free trade after Trump was elected.

From the section on immigration. These are during Biden's presidency. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear that Trump and the Republican party are in no way mutually exclusive. DN (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you define neoliberalism and compare it with Trump's policies, that's OR. You would need sources to say that the Republicans have abandoned neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is not btw about free trade and immigration. Its "free trade" agreements determine what countries can trade and Trump did not cancel NAFTA, he just renegotiated it. And NAFTA never allowed free movement of people, merely free movement of capital.

The main fault lines in U.S. politics remain cultural issues that don't affect the neoliberal order such as abortion, Jan 6 and transgender issues. The immigration debate is about which side is tougher on illegal immigration, not about the numbers of immigrants the U.S. should accept. TFD (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the Rust Belt in 2016. I added the sources on immigration above.

There are many strong divides in American politics--urban-rural political divide; the diploma (college vs. non-college) divide; the racial divide; regional divides (Northeast vs. the South; Left Coast and Great Lakes region vs. Interior West and Great Plains, etc.); religious divides; etc. See link: https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/build-a-voter JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your source does not say that Trump's support of protectionism helped him win the rust best. Instead it said that people in the Rust Belt voted against the Democrats in order to punish them for the destruction of their part of the country. TFD (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Position

The position says Centre-right to right-wing. But only a faction of the party is centre-right and the main position is right-wing. So I think we should change the position and instead add factions where the centre-right belongs and we should also add the far-right faction. Who agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)