Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Herbert Croly, Progressive Democracy, Marxism, and the War on Natural Rights

Isn't the ideology of the modern Democrat Party based on the strengthening of the Progressive Democrats in the aftermath of the collapse of the Blue Dog caucus?

Isn't Progressive Democracy is the brainchild of Herbert Croly, Teddy Roosevelt's advisor, a prominent New York elitist who was fascinated by the new German welfare state based on Marxism?

And the quotes from so many of the leaders of the Progressive movement -- in their books and their own speeches -- claiming that the Founders were wrong about Natural Rights, and the Unalienable Rights are an error and need to be set aside, none of that appears in this page.

It seems the timeline of the Progressive Democrat core of the modern Democrat Party should clearly reference Herbert Croly, if not Karl Marx himself, and the ongoing war on the Bill of Rights fully documented.172.56.31.238 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

While some of Croly's influence may live on, that's a pretty simplistic view. Not all the founding fathers believed in natural rights and the main modern opponents of them were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, who were conservative Republicans. And both McCain and Trump see Teddy Roosevelt as personal heroes. On the other hand, Progressive Democrats do not control the party, as the selections of Hillary Clinton and Tom Perez show. Even one time Progressive Democrat Nancy Pelosi says that she is a capitalist. TFD (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's just an interesting read -- from the roots in Jefferson, to the transition to an administrative, bureaucratic centralized government via the action of Blue City elite "Royal Families", to the links to organized crime in the major Blue Cities, to the relationship with the Southern KKK, to Ted Kennedy and John Tunney's secret meetings and communications with the Soviet Union, to the Delano-Roosevelt family ties to the Chinese Opium trade, to the Kennedy Clan's prohibition alcohol trade, to the Clinton administration's transfer of LORAL missile guidance technology to China (by one of the largest democrat party donors), to Chinagate, to Hillary Clinton's self-description as a "Progressive Democrat" during her campaign, to the reality that the once powerful "Blue Dog" caucus has practically evaporated in just two decades, to the the linkage between wealthy, elitist CEOs and the prominent Blue City "Yellow Journalists"...so much of the Democrat Party history is rooted in criminality and Marxist ideologies, yet this timeline is totally absent from the wiki. Croly himself wrote the book "Progressive Democracy", and was harshly critical of the Unalienable Natural Rights, yet today we see party activists proclaiming that the 1st Amendment protects their right to lie in the press and publicly attack Conservative foundational values, while championing Progressivism, which by a casual read of the documentation is a European anti-Bill of Rights ideology. It's an odd schism to see a Party using the Unalienable Rights as a defense while simultaneously having a mostly hidden platform to eradicate them. All of these activities are so well documented, it seems a shame to leave so much of it out of the party history, instead having a single ppg claiming that ultra-left, anti-America, European ideology arrived relatively late in the process. As a staunch (former) party member for decades, including donations, most of this was hidden to me, it was only under President Obama that I started reading about all of this, due to many odd statements he was making about America circa 2011. One might think a "criticisms" section is warranted, lest ye be presumed guilty (no Bill of Rights after all) of white-washing the party's history and documented goals.172.56.41.24 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What is important is already in the article in more prosaic and less conspiratorial tone. The party is better seen as a coalition of different groups of citizens led by politicians ranging from the great and good to the downright criminal, a mirror image of the Republicans, who by the way also were influenced by progressives. One can assemble the facts to promote all manner of conspiracy theories, but they do not belong in the article unless they have received support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, with all his raving about about Karl Marx, the IP 172.56.31.238 contributor should take note of Karl Marx' explicit and repeated written support for the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newdem.org/coalition/sndcmembers.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=8874
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208020010/http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php to http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110225904/https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf to https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160802094026/https://demconvention.com/news/democratic-platform-drafting-meeting-concludes/ to https://demconvention.com/news/democratic-platform-drafting-meeting-concludes/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35689
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212043142/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian Democrat

There is such thing as the Democratic Freedom Caucus, and I was wondering if I could add Bleeding heart libertarianism to the list of factions. I already have sources, but it keeps getting removed when I add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJjeremiah (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it is insignificant. Can you name any elected officials who are members? TFD (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305184704/http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/about-me to http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/about-me
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223222648/http://www.pdacommunity.org/issues to http://www.pdacommunity.org/issues
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821122706/http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/issue/worker-rights to http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/issue/worker-rights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410221216/http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/social/ch9.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/social/ch9.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.democrats.org/issues/energy_independence
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227003336/http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dgeorge/Faculty.Study/Pol.Soc.html to http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dgeorge/Faculty.Study/Pol.Soc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111111258/http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/11/digging-into-th.html to http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/11/digging-into-th.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"World's Oldest Party" Untrue?

The wiki says that the Democratic Party is the oldest party because it evolved from the Democratic-Republican Party. However, as is evident by the name, the Republican Party also evolved from this party so why would the Democratic Party be the single oldest party not alongside Republicans?

As an institution, the Republican party didn't evolve from the Democratic-Republican party (to the extent that it evolved from anyone, it evolved from the remnants of the northern Whigs, which evolved from the remnants of the Federalists.) And the Democratic party didn't really "evolve" from the Democratic-Republican party in the sense you mean - institutionally it is that party, under a different name (although obviously its policies and base changed over time.) Scholars call the early Democratic party the Democratic-Republican party because at the time it used the name "Republican", but eventually changed its name to "Democratic"; using only 'Republican' would invite confusion for obvious reasons, but using 'Democratic' would invite confusion in other ways. Hence, Democratic-Republican. --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

fix seats from 46 to 47 due to election source https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/alabama-senate-race-winner.html 71.169.153.34 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Although most media have "called" the Alabama Special Senate election, the Alabama Secretary of State has not yet certified the results, so they are not completely official. In a day or two some-one will probably update this once the results are certified. WP:NODEADLINE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestive adjectives

There are a lot of adjectives added to try to defer from some of the facts of the Democratic Party. There is also a lot on this page that is written as if trying to deny history or rewrite it to make the Democratic Party look better than it is. Is it possible to have someone edit this page to be reflexive of the true history and remove wording bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.236.24 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind being a bit more specific? Which statements in particular do you believe are biased? Alexander Levian (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160907005152/https://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/members to https://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/members
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312171115/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1460.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/budget/wm1460.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807043022/http://www.aaiusa.org/press-room/2045/mustread072003 to http://www.aaiusa.org/press-room/2045/mustread072003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

I am wondering why the political position (left vs right) of US parties is not listed in the infobox. Is it considered contentious to list the Democratic party as "Centre to centre-left" and the Republican party as "centre-right to right-wing"? Speed74 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that would be contentious. You would need to come up with reliable sources to support such an addition.Kingmanatee (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the requested title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Democratic Party (United States) → Democratic Party – The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users who are looking for the Democratic Party are looking for the American party by that name. Source Kingmanatee (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the disambiguation page is to useful to lose. Page views can be distorted due to recent events, and should never be the sole justification for a move (if it was, we would automate moves based on them). --Netoholic @ 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation page could be moved to Democratic Party (disambiguation). And while page views are one objective justification, they are not the only one. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is the oldest political party in the world and the largest Democratic Party by membership anywhere in the world. It is one of the two major parties in the world's most powerful country. Looking at page views, the next most viewed Democratic Party is the one in Italy. Let's compare the two: the American one was founded in 1828. The Italian one was founded in 2007. The American one has 44 million members. The Italian one has less than half a million.Kingmanatee (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not a disambiguation page, but a set index page. It would probably help readers find articles more easily if it was formatted like a dab page instead of being in tables, however. It might be worth considering a hatnote at the top of the page, or an intro paragraph that happened to include links to the most prominent (i.e. widely visited) articles from the larger list. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too many Democratic parties in too many countries...gotta be specific. The way it is now lets you know exactly which Democratic party you're looking at w/o messing around with disambiguations. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Numerous Democratic parties in the world; moving this one to the main title would be clear systematic bias IMO. Number 57 12:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support The oldest political party in the world, one of the largest parties by membership, and easily the largest and most notable party of this name. I believe this meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requirements. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per "Is there a primary topic?": "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." There would then be a hatnote in this article to the disambiguation page. While there are many parties called the "Democratic Party" throughout the world, most of them are minor parties not well-known outside their countries. The effect of a name change would be that when readers type "Democratic Party," they are brought here. That's very helpful, since the overwhelming majority of readers are looking for this article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Democratic Party was the ruling party in Indonesia until 2014 and its candidate (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) received 74 million votes in the 2009 presidential elections, the largest amount of votes received by any political candidate in history (he also received 69 million votes in 2004). No Democratic Party candidate in the US has got within 5 million of this. The current ruling party in Italy is also called the Democratic Party. Just based on these two examples alone, I don't believe the American party can be deemed the primary topic. Number 57 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Indonesia’s party has its own name based on its full name - it isn’t the “Democratic Party”. Italy’s party isn’t even as old as I am. The US party is clearly the primary topic. Toa Nidhiki05 16:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • But the criterion is whether or not this article is more likely to receive more hits than all the other articles ccomtined. The U.S. Democratic Party is the only one that appears on the first paper of Google search.[1] In fact, this article is the second hit after the party's website. This article receives an average of 6,225 views every day,[2] compared with 1,818 for Democratic Party (Italy)[3] and 82 views for Democratic Party (Indonesia).[4] Note that the views of the Italian party are higher because of the current election. In the month before the U.S. 2016 presidential election, this article averaged 18,193 views per day.[5] Also, neither the Indonesian or Italian parties are historic parties, they were founded in 2001 and 2017 respectively. Also, as Toa mentions, the Indonesian Party is actually called the "Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle," not the "Democratic Party." TFD (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Toa has failed to understand that the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (led by Megawati Sukarnoputri) and the aforementioned Democratic Party of Yudhoyono are different parties, so I think that point is invalidated. Number 57 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose, as there are many parties of this name of significance around the world. bd2412 T 03:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both for consistency with Republican Party (United States) (and The Republicans (France) is a severe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concern there), and due to the significant number of other (unrelated) parties of this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this as the English language version of Wikipedia is world Wiki, not an exclusively US-centric wiki.--Autospark (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:BIAS. RedUser (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Stating it's the primary topic isn't accurate. Of course it's the first and probably only thing that comes to your mind if you're in the United States, perhaps even if you live in Canada or the UK but know the American equivalents of Conservative/Liberal and Tory/Labour, but that's the first thing that comes to your mind. Admittedly, it's what I think of too, but there's a reason why Democratic Party redirects to a disambiguation page. There's over 80 "Democratic Parties" in the world active right now. This is an example of WP:BIAS in favor Americentrism. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are far too many Democratic Parties for any to be primary. If we move the American party then we should also move Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK) to the base names as "clearly" the most significant parties by those names. Obviously, we're not going to do that because that would be UK-centric bias and this falls into exactly the same category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the users above. --Checco (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox

FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

they are right winged

Democrats are right liberals, and, republicans are right conservatives. In usa there is no left (The only leftist were in prision in the XX cent) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.245.232 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. If you don't have a reliable source to make additions to the article, however, please don't.--Jayron32 16:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Gun Rights

Why wouldn't Gun Rights be considered a Social Issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.251.53 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

Under the democratic party history, it's pertinent to know the full dark truth of the Democrats where before the "big switch", the party on the Left had established and funded the Klu Klux Klan in order to create a nation of white supremacy; not much different from Adolf Hitlers version of supremacy. Km7217 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That is an unfortunately partisan analysis. The first Ku Klux Klan back in the 1860s indeed is closely related to the Democratic Party. The second Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, a much larger operation, was tied to the Republican Party in the North. The third, most recent Klan has generally not been partisan, except in Louisiana where it will as strong Republican connections, notably David Duke. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It is also partisan to only associate racism and fascism with the republican party. Both parties have dark histories and getting the truth of both parties' histories should be portrayed equally. For example as you said, the current day KKK associating themselves with the republican party while on the flip side, the democrat party believing that any non-white male is automatically oppressed or fostering a culture of dependency/soft bigotry of low expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Km7217 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

As Third Way (think tank) has been moved to Third Way (United States) (as a result of the former title's ambiguity with Third Way (United Kingdom)) and is being redirected to Third Way (disambiguation), can the links in this article be changed to the new title? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Task: Finally assign a position in the infobox using a compromise

As far as I'm aware, it's been over a year since this has been brought up, and since it's going to have to be done at some point, I figured that I'd bring it up again, and hopefully put the problem to bed for good, invoking WP:CCC, Wikipedia's commitment to a global perspective, and WP:BOLD. The Democratic Party has no political position set in the infobox, due to some rather contentious debates about exactly where they fall. Here, I will be laying out an argument for a position(s) which will hopefully be accepted, and will do the same thing soon on the Republican Party talk page (although by my rationale, their solution is actually simpler than the one for the Democratic Party). ^REMEMBER! This is an argument to place a SOURCED POLITICAL POSITION on the page. Not what you think it should be. All arguments should be clear and backed up with evidence.

Let's start with the first argument: Which political spectrum are we using?

This is an absolutely valid question that raises legitimate concerns. We can either use the US spectrum, or we can use the international one (which is tilted about one degree to the left of the US one-- such that a "left-wing" party in the US advocating for, say, social democracy, would be considered Center-left on the international spectrum. With my solution, I hope to take a little overlap from both, so we'll see if it can draw some support from all sides in an unbiased and civil manner.

Next, we must take into account what each position stands for in a general sense, so it will fit with the current characteristics the Party exhibits.

The Democratic Party as a whole argues for modern liberalism, as well as social liberalism in its main platform. This would fit into the Center-left category of the US political spectrum. However, a faction(s) of the Party (progressives) arguably support social democracy, which would be considered Left-wing by US standards, but Center-left by international standards, as also evidenced by the mention of social democracy as a common idea in the centre-left politics article, as well as the Europe vs. American political spectrum in other various web articles. Since the Party has two different factions (albeit arguing for somewhat different ideals) that can overlap in favor of a claim for Center-left (modern liberalism by US standards, and social democracy by international standards), placing at least Center-left in the infobox will eliminate the "which political spectrum" question. It can also be argued in this sense that moderate Democrats, who often tout Third Way solutions (they, at this point in time control most of the Party, although progressives are gaining ground) pose an argument to place Center in the infobox as well. By all intents and purposes, in the international spectrum, the Democrats as a whole would also be considered as a Center party due to their majority disapproval with social democracy (which is classified as Center-left), thus also avoiding the "which spectrum" question.

OK, so so far, based on the above compromise solution, the Democratic Party would be seen as Center to Center-left in the infobox. Now though, we have to ask if this includes all necessary ideas within the party, and their separate political positions.

In my opinion at least, the answer appears to be yes. Using an overlap of different meanings of Center and Center-left, they both appear to encapsulate both major parts of the party in all contexts regarding the spectrum.

"Wait! What about Blue Dog/conservative Democrats? They don't seem to fit into any position you have stated above."

The Blue Dogs are also members of the Democratic Party, and their ideas should and will be taken into account. However, I believe that a good job has already been done to include them, albeit in a rather roundabout way. Conservative Democrats, along with liberal Republicans, make up the centrist wings of their Party, and sometimes even have more in common with each other than the Party they belong to. However, I believe that using the compromise I crafted before, they can be included as well. As mentioned, they represent the centrist wings of their Parties, and by extension, the Center of the US political spectrum, but this would also put them roughly around the Center-right of the international spectrum.

"Why isn't Center-right included then?"

An excellent question. Center-right is not included in this specific context, because although the Democrats do not support social democracy like international Center-left parties, this is likely because the American political system and general government infrastructure has had and dealt with the current policies for such a long time now that no one is sure what impact changing them would have-- a fear that affects Democrats and Republicans as wholes as well. This is the reason why some Center-right parties in Europe (like the Independence Party in Iceland, for example, or to a lesser extent, the Conservative Party in the UK) support the varying "welfare state(s)" that their country has built and currently has, even though privately, they may want to do away with some inefficient or overgenerous policies, but either do not or cannot because of high public approval of them. So what is my point in this? Different countries and their respective spectra evolve based on what that country has had built/up and running for a long enough period of time to know that it works in at least some aspects. The conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are, in this case, excused from the constraints of what "Center" means or constitutes (a balance between Center-left and Center-right) because their beliefs revolve around a current system that despite being less progressive than those in Europe, for example, they can still manage to fit into a Center position because they do balance Center-left and Center-right ideas to an extent, but they do it within the confines of their specific country's political spectrum. However, in order to make absolutely sure that everyone is on board, a note will be included next to the "Center" in the infobox, in order to explain this point accurately. Like this short summary, or this more detailed explanation.

In addition:

I went on a little exploration mission across every Wikipedia that has an article on the party, and collected the current positions listed on the page if there was one. Here is what I found as of 14 March 2017. There seems to be a general consensus along the same lines as mine as to the position of the party.

With all of this taken into consideration, I feel that there is enough here to make this position the new consensus. Below, to judge public opinion, I will create a "Responses" section, where you can either Support, or Oppose this proposed change (type this in bold, followed by your reasoning). If you have any questions/concerns (including about my reasoning above), or are unsure, you can leave a Comment in the "Responses" section, followed by your question/concern. It has taken me a while to formulate this, so I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: an interesting/informative discussion I had on Reddit about the subject is located here.

TL;DR The Democratic Party is one of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox, and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. (See overall talk page section for more) HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you've had this RFC up for four months now and there's nothing close to a consensus. Probably time to give up on it for now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would, but my end goal was to just get it done. If it isn't it's bound to constantly be brought up in the future, so I wanted to avoid others constantly having to have this discussion repeatedly. If necessary maybe having some non-American or apolitical observers/inputs will help eliminate any biases and help reach a conclusion (regardless of what it may be, as long as there is a conclusion-- not no consensus again). It still boggles me as to the variety of reasons why a position has not been listed while it has for most other parties, so I wanted to change that. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Responses/Survey

Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else.

• Also as a heads up: Joobo seems to have been blocked for various POV violations ("WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV, etc" as stated on talk page), so take his comments with a grain of salt if possible if it looks like he is trying to push a certain idea.

Comment Broad consensus has been to have no political position, because both parties are big-tent right and let and the section is redundant anyway. Nothing you have offered here is new or hasn't been offered before. Moreover, discounting the influence of the left (the Progressive Caucus, which is left-wing, is the largest caucus in the party) is silly, especially given your proposal on the Republican page. There is no reason to add political positions to either page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not discounting the left-wing of the party-- it's just that the term Left-wing doesn't pass the test I set out to achieve above where it has to both acknowledge differences in opinion and eliminate the concern about which context the terms should be used in. Center can be used to both describe moderates in the party and the fact that the party doesn't fully support things that other center-left parties do like full government sponsored healthcare, longer family leave, an much stronger regulation of major corporations (i.e. on Wall Street). Center-left fits because it describes the majority of the party in an American political context (i.e. the Democratic Party is the center-left party in America) while also acknowledging that the progressives in the party share beliefs with other center-left parties regarding such things like I mentioned above. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no "international political spectrum". Saying Democrats aren't center-left because they don't support x position European parties support is silly, because it is vastly different to be a conservative, liberal, or socialist in Europe than in the US. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's partially my point. The US and the few other countries like it (i.e. Japan, S. Korea) are anomalies in a whole. It's not that it has a different meaning to be anything in Europe compared to the US-- it's the other way around. Most political parties worldwide tend to share similarities with the European structure, and for this reason, it stands that the position on the page should be comparative of the ideology it represents as a whole, and not the position in the country it is in (i.e. despite the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party or the Liberty Korea Party occupy the center-right of Japan's and S. Korea's political spectrum respectively, they are not labeled as such on their page). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The purpose of info-boxes is to provide meaningful information to readers. Basically we are providing information on how editors place the party's ideology on the spectrum which adds no information if we already provide the party's ideology. And the Democratic Party is not "social democratic." It did not develop out of the revisionist Marxism of Berntein. Major U.S. parties differ from parties in the rest of the world in that they have no official ideologies and literally anyone can join. TFD (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I never said the Democratic Party was social democratic, nor did I say anything about developing out of ideologies such as revisionist Marxism, etc. The progressive wing, if anything, holds similar beliefs closest to social democracy. Also, most parties don't really have ideologies set in stone, but they do have platforms to gauge where the majority stands, as well as seeing which wings have the most influence in the party today. Most other parties also have political positions listed in the infobox regardless. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Since both parties are more like coalitions, it makes more sense to look at them in terms of factions. The pages for the ideological factions (Republican Main Street Partnership, Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus, etc.) already have positions on the left/right spectrum listed in the infobox. So I don't see the point in adding a position to the pages for the parties. Maybe I'm missing something. I also don't see any compromise in simply using another country (or countries) political spectrum as the basis. Articles for parties in the UK are given a position on the left/right spectrum relative to the UK. So why should it be any different for American parties? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned regarding the same argument you posted regarding the Republican Party position, it is easier to look at the position on one page to gauge the average, rather than visiting five or six pages. Also, my compromise stems from the fact that positions vary by country, and as such (as I mentioned above in response to Toa, I believe that my positioning here solves the two main issues (as described above) which people have had in regards to their opposition to changing the consensus. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Why are we not using the political spectrum relative to the country of said party (like we do for UK parties)? I didn't see any compromise (I say we should use the American standard, you say we should use the a so-called international political spectrum), you're ignoring the faction issue, and a lot of what you said borders on WP:OR. I have to continue to oppose. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mostly because in most other countries, the center-left is signified by social democratic parties (of which the Democratic Party has a faction, but it is not the majority), and because even in countries where the spectrum is shifted (i.e. where this is not the case, such as in South Korea and Japan, which have no real large social democratic, fully center-left party, which is comparable to the US, which is in a similar situation), the position is similar to what I suggested here (i.e. the Democratic Party in Japan and in South Korea, parallels to the US one, are listed as center to center-left, despite occupying the center-left of their respective countries' political spectra). I hope I explained that right... HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Your survey is not really helpful because first Wikipedia is not a reliable source and secondly many foreign language articles are just translations of this article. Circular referencing is of course one of the reasons Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. If you mean to say that the Democratic Party is so broad, it includes centrist and center leftists, I suppose that is true, but it also includes fascists, communists, anarchists and all points from extreme left to extreme right. It is not like parties in the rest of the world that have stated ideologies and exclude or expel people who stray too far. George Galloway for example was expelled from the Labour Party,[6] which Lyndon Larouche contested the Democratic nomination for president. TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Support for the reasons above I think we should use the American left-right political scale, on which the Democratic Party would be overall "center-left", not "center to center-left". Ezhao02 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose — same reasons as given in GOP talk. Both parties are too big and unique to give them labels for position. Furthermore, it does not get clear to me at all why, as the user above me does, one should adjust the position of American parties to European standards. Not only is there hardly something like that, but even if there were, who in the world is saying that is the benchmark? Keep positions out of American party Infoboxes is the most adequate option.--Joobo (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I meant to say that we shouldn't use "European benchmarks" and instead use national benchmarks. If we use an American political left-right scale, the Democrats would be considered center-left. I apologize if that was confusing. I have changed my post above. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I believe rather than me using the standard of other countries to determine the position, it is just the fact that the US and a few other countries (that I mentioned above) seem to go against the general trend, which makes them exceptions to the whole, rather than a victim of an unfair comparison. Labeling the position in the way I suggested is comparing the party's position to the ideologies associated with that position as a whole, rather than those of a specific country. For example, I mentioned the Democratic Party in Japan earlier-- it is not labeled as Center-left despite occupying that position in the country of Japan (such as the Democratic Party does in America). Rather, it is labeled to compare (the majority of) its ideology to that associated with the positions selected to be on the page (Cente to Center-left). Most political parties seem to have this on Wikipedia (a general comparison to ideologies associated with the position, rather than the position the party occupies in its native country), so I don't see why the 2 main American parties should be any different. Position should also reflect what is generally associated with positions of that party. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I have with that is that putting the Democrats as center to center-left makes them equivalent to the New Democrat Coalition. The New Democrats are also listed as "center to center-left", so saying the whole Democratic Party is center to center-left makes it seem like the New Democrats make up most of the party. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's also why I suggested putting a note next to the position explaining the rationale. We could also place a rationale on their page as well if needed. It is also important to understand that just because a position is listed, it doesn't mean that others aren't viable or don't exist. For example, the position of the Democrats as a whole would align closely with the position of the faction that controls a majority of the party. In this case, it would include the rising center-left progressives, as well as those closer to the center such as moderates or modern liberals (as stated in one of my sources). This doesn't mean that other positions do not exist (you could say that the Blue Dogs would occupy the center-right, for example), just that they don't have the influence in the party that the dominant faction/factions does. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

So would we put a note explaining that on the American political spectrum, the Democrats are mainly "center-left"? Ezhao02 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- The fact that the Republican and Democratic parties control roughly equal numbers of legislative seats at all levels of government is a strong indication that (by the only measure that really counts) the political center of the country lies roughly midway between the two. All the controversy on this topic arises from politically motivated attempts to label one party more centrist and the other more extreme. In order to forge a compromise for the infobox position it needs to be done at the same time for both party infoboxes and it needs to place the two parties equidistant from the center. A simple "right" and "left" would probably be the easiest.

Comment -- The Clinton administration was third way, but the modern Democratic party is clearly center left. Tony Blair was an advocate for third way policies in the UK yet the Labour Party is still described as center-left because that is a representation of the party's core position as a whole. Sources, including social liberal ones like the Atlantic and international ones like BBC and The Telegraph, describe the Democrats as center left https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/ http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37930473 http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710273-american-left-danger-learning-precisely-wrong-lesson-defeat-democrats and given how both parties are roughly equal in influence in the US, it is fundamentally problematic to label one party as the "center" on Wikipedia as that is certainly not true in the US and questionable by the European standard (who made Europe the international standard anyway? Why not include Asian countries like South Korea and Japan?). Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should not list the Democrats as "center" because that really is not true in the United States.Ezhao02 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- We could do something similar to what is done on the page of the Liberal Party of Australia and say "The Democratic Party is mostly considered center-left in the United States" or something similar. Ezhao02 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There is actually no need to inculde the position —- as both parties R and D are center parties as they are both representing the center in their country. Only thing one could contemplate to implement is then saying D is center-left and R is center-right. But there is not much of a gain here neither. Basically these positionings are not in need for the two major US parties. --Joobo (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but anyone who says that the R`s and D`s are both centrist needs to take a long hard look at what has been going on the last few years (that and it conflicts with their much more opposite ideologies). I doubt you'd be able to find many people that think R`s and D`s are both centrist. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 23:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but he's right. In a two-party system, one side broadly represents the right and the other broadly represents the left. Both are "big tent" parties. There's no membership standard, no standard to run, and no standard to be nominated . Toa Nidhiki05 10:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - just do not see a need, does not seem something of WP:WEIGHT in usual discussion and subject to change. . Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - still not a viable proposal, given the range of people active in that party. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as that part of the infobox is supposed to be an oversimplified generalization anyways. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with User:Mr. Guye; acknowledging that there are right-wing democrats and left-wing republicans, it's generally true that Democrats are left and Republicans are right. Why not add those positions to their infoboxes? NickCT (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There is absolutely no perception among Americans or anyone else that the Dems are not broadly left-wing and the Republicans broadly right, even despite some weirdness in the last US presidential election (which is hardly the be-all and end-all of US politics, but mostly an afterthought; Congress is where it's at). There being some economically right-leaning Dems and socially progressive-leaning Reps is just a statistical blip, even more so now than every before because of the polarizing effect of the Trump election. I.e., the weirdness of, say, an unexpectedly high number of normally marginally Dem minority business owners voting for Trump out of economic concern is balanced by fiscally conservative anti-racists appalled by him and by the far-right theocratic politicians in Congress.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC is malformed. It needs to be rewritten to be more inclusive of previously non-involved editors who are viewing it for the first time. It needs to read: "Should the info box include the words 'Whatever' based on 'whatever sources' or exclude them based on 'whatever other sources'?". Without this info in the head of the RfC, too much work effort is being asked of editors new to the page (like me), who shouldn't have to trawl the meandering discussion in order to participate. That being said, there cannot possibly be a shortage of academic secondary and tertiary sources, which place political parties along a political spectrum. If they can be consulted, just throw in the links, let's all have a look at them and see if they yield any verifiable source material, which we can include in the article. Edaham (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Center to center-left is mostly right, there will always be outlying groups in a two party system, but even big tent parties in a de facto one party system can have a clear prevailing political orientation. Zellfire999 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I like the idea, and I like your reasoning. But why not just go one step further, and say "Center to Left-Wing"? It's not as if people would get angry at the infobox for being "too broad" especially considering, as some editors here have already mentioned, that political parties in America are more akin to factions or coalitions than centralized organizations a la other continents. Let's just satisfy people who want both the American and worldwide political spectrum to be considered. AwesomeSaucer9 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – The party as a whole is no more centre-left than it is centre-right (as the terms are understood globally). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - While it is true that center-right Democrats and center-left Republicans do exist, it is accepted that the Democratic Party is center-left and the Republican Party is center-right. We need to add these positions to their infoboxes for the articles to be accurate. Aelimian21 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)