Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn; nominator was unaware of recent page vandalism.

Security Oriented

Security Oriented This faction of the Republican party emerged after the September 11th attacks. This group includes people who, regardless of other social or economic views, are very alarmed at threats to the USA. This current has usually been satisfied with President Bush's policies, but recently has criticised him regarding the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. They probably support gun ownership rights for self-defense.

As it stands this seems to be another faction which seems to exist more in the mind of the observer then in reality.

Now I will readily admit to the existence of "Security Moms" but these are largely traditionally Democratic voters who have adhered to President Bush in light of 9/11 and are thought to be some of the same "Soccer Moms" who voted President Clinton in for two terms but have had to place "Women's Issues" in the backseat given their more pressing concerns for the phyisical safety of their families in the face of terrorism. It is generally believed that as the threat of terror decreases or as the Democrats gain credibility in dealing with it, the Security Moms will revert back to their Democratic voting patterns. Given that most of these women are probably still registered Democrats, they could not be said to represent a Republican faction anymore than the Reagan Democrats could.

There does not seem to be any faction of Republicans devoted to security above all else. This does not mean that tensions do not exist. For instance Republican libertarians (and what the article is calling neo-libertarians) hate most provisions of the Patriot Act as much as Democrats do. They just have to hold their nose because they agree with their Republican compatriots on so many other issues. Carambola 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals

This section really needs to be cleaned up. The definition of liberal is too vague and is fact dehistoricized. If you used liberal to describe Teddy Roosevelt you might be right then and now when discussing his desire to take very, very, aggressive measures to restrain big business. But this proposal by Teddy Roosevelt in his 1906 State of the Union Address would hardly meet the definition of liberal but would instead warm the heart of NRA members everywhere:

" We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of rifle clubs throughout all parts of the land. The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in all matters connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery."

If you are going to use the modern definition of liberal then you need to apply it consistently. The vast majority of Republicans would certainly object to party icons Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt being described as liberals, and it would not be productive to try and explain the difference between a nineteenth century liberal/early twentieth century liberal and a mid twentieth to early twenty first century liberal or for that matter, between a nineteenth/early twentieth century conservative and twentieth/early twentieth century conservative.

Furthermore, 'progressive' positions on racial and gender equality have become as much conservative as they have liberal. The debate is no longer whether say, racism is wrong but rather to what extent the government should try to adjust for latent racist tendancies in society by using quota systems or affirmative action.

You can certainly write an excellent section on liberal Republicans but clear in what one means and if one intends to credibly go back farther than Neslon Rockefeller then one needs to do some research.

As a final note, one might ask whether liberal Republicans even exist anymore or if they do, whether they are not actually mislabelled as moderates. Is Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island a moderate or a liberal or simply a moderate liberal.

- good points and I tried to clear up the section. "Liberal" in US politics means pro-New Deal and sates from the 1930s. Rjensen 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rjensen I'll agree that "pro-New Deal" is the genesis of modern liberalism and certainly of fiscal liberalsim but the social liberalism came not too long after and is just as important to the definition of liberalism. After, Bill Clinton famously declared "The era of big government is over." and yet many conservatives can call him a liberal with a straight face and point to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his gun control positions. Carambola 01:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate Conservatives

Compassionate Conservatives do not really represent a distinct faction within the Republican Party. Compassionate conservatives simply emphasize their desire to help all Americans using conservative policies. In short, it is about putting the proverbial silk glove around the gauntlet than anything else.

President Bush's "faith based" initiatives are a good example of this.

But because compassionate conservativism is more (for good or ill) a matter of style rather than substance, most liberals ridicule it as the rhetorical equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Few conservatives feel the need to call themselves compassionate conservatives anymore and one wonders whether this is because the label has been discredited or whether this is because it has worked so well that conservatism and cold heartedness are no longer so closely linked in the public mind. Probably it is a bit of both. Nonetheless, compassionate conservatives do not really represent a faction in the Republican Party which pursues its political agenda in opposition to other Republican factions with different interests. Few conservatives are or would admit to being lacking in compassion for the disadvantaged. All can choose or choose not to couch their agenda in the language of compassionate conservatism as befits their inclination and interests. Carambola 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and just axed the Compassionate Conservative entry altogether. You did such a good job of paring it down to the essentials that I figured that this entry does not really even belong in the article at all-except perhaps in a section entitled popular labels for republicans that do represent a real faction within the Republican Party. I had tried to save the section but it just wasn't worth the effort. Your revision proved that. Carambola 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved from the Republican Party (United States) page. The main page was over the size limit, plus is in the middle of a NPOV dispute. Hopefully any NPOV issues in this section can be ironed out seperately. In addition, I can see this page incorporating historical factions of the GOP, including the Rockefeller Republicans vs. the Goldwater Republicans. --BaronLarf 23:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

What about Young Republicans and Green Republicans? Rmhermen 00:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Young Republicans are a "faction," just like College Republicans wouldn't be. I would argue that they are just an organization of Republicans of all sorts of viewpoints.

I'm not really familiar with the Green Republicans, and you don't really hear about any Green Republican faction warring within the party, but if you have a good source to attribute then go ahead. --BaronLarf 01:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Religious Right is not just anti-gay-marriage; they are against gay rights (and arguably the existance of gays) in general. Many of them go so far as to class gays as subhuman or state homosexuality is a disease. Also, though neocons are said to be the most militant in the article, I am unsure of that, especially in light of terrorist anti-abortion and anti-gay groups. Obviously they aren't MAINSTREAM even in this faction, but I would argue that the Religious Right is arguably more militiant than the neocons. Titanium Dragon 14:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um, it's not really "arguably"... the standard Christian mantra is "love the sinner, hate the sin". So any member of the Religious Right who classes gays as subhuman should be accused of not being a member of the Religious Right because they are not religious.

I'd like to see inclusion of the thinktanks, i.e. Cato is libertarian. Hoover, Heritage... what others.

Some objectivity

There is a recent study [1] that broke the parties into factions, commissioned by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This would be a good foundation for describing "factions".

AdamRetchless 14:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

Why is this tag on this page? I believe it should be removed because nobody here seems to think it's not NPOV. --Quasipalm 19:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's 'neutral'. Under the description (& naming) of 'Neo-Conservatives', why don't they just put the word "Jews"? That's typical of the distortions.

Achilles 16:43 6 May

I believe the reason for the NPOV sign was because of how some descriptions were opinionated. I noticed, particularly, the Religious Right description read like something written by a Religious Rightist - defining the views as "traditional moral values", almost outright dismissing the legitimacy of the separation of church and state, etc.

I've heavily edited the article - cleaned it up and made it more accurate and much less biased. Should we remove the sign or do a little more editing? Folks, your call.

Dr. K

I see what appear to be two posts in favor of removing the NPOV tag. I am removing it, if someone believes biased wording remains perhaps they could reword the offending text or post some discussion as to what they believe would be less biased wording. Thane Eichenauer 08:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"pro-liberty and pro-personal property"?

Most Republicans, in fact most people, would claim to uphold this. Would someone who is more familiar with American politics like to "neutralise" the page, before I do?

BillMasen 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

I merged Neoliberals and neolibertarians -- the article does not really distinguish them. A few more names would help. Should CATO and think tanks be mentioned here? Rjensen 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Street " Republicans

This is an old term, but would now seem to have contradictory meanings. It was originally used to distinguish small town and small business Republicans from the "Big Business" Wall Street faction, implying that the Main Streeters were more socially conservative whereas the Wall Streeters were just interested in "getting business off of our backs" — lower taxes and less regualtion for business with fewer social concerns. Now, groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership are attempting to redefine "Main Street" as being more socially moderate, far from the Christian right. Would like input on whether this should be integrated into the article, and if so, then how. Rlquall 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This articles needs to be referenced properly. What books reference what claims? Arbusto 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact almost all the material is common knowledge to people who read the press. The listed books cover all the groups as well, and each book has an index that aids the user. Putting page numbers in is unnecessary for people who have the bnooks and unnecessary for people who do not have the books. Rjensen 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how citing works. What claim is being used by what book? Arbusto 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Common knowledge" does not apply here, and removal of the 'sources' tag should be treated as vandalism from here on. --InShaneee 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, people who read the media are familiar with the material. If someone needs more help on a specific point, please ask, rather than demand help on all 400 points in the article. Rjensen 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy on sources is VERY clear on this issue. --InShaneee 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost of Goldwater

    Before I get started I've got a couple of points to make:

1) I wouldn't say that all of the religious right want to eliminate the separation of church and state. A lot do, but most probably just want to blur the line between the two. That doesn't make them moderates, that doesn't make it right, I just wanted to clarify things. It's a lot like the secularist faction of the Democrat Party, not all secularists want to ban all religion, many just want to ban any public display of religion. 2) The neocons are in the mainstream in the Republican Party. So are the liberals in the Democratic Party. Being mainstream is a matter of numbers not agenda. 1/3 of the American People are Conservative, and the neocons clearly dominate the Right wing. 3) a good example of a liberal Republican is Lincoln Chafee. He has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. The only reason he hasn't been completely ostracised from the party is because he votes for the Republicans on control issues such as who gets to be on what committee. But he always votes liberal on political issues. 4) A good example of a RINO would have been Mike Forbes before he switched parties. Another example of a RINO is anyone who constantly sides with the Democrats and/or bashes other Republicans at every opportunity. But because neither of the two parties is programmatic, voting against the majority of Republicans on political issues isn't the best determinant of who is or isn't a RINO, after all the party is a coalition of various factions. An accurate definition of a RINO would be: a member of the Republican Party whose actions are harmful to the Republican Party (and not harmful to the majority political agenda).

    Here is my major issue, why the hell have libertarians been relegated to the loser table. We deserve to sit at the cool kids table, just as much, probably more so than the paleocons(seeming as how the only paleocon left is Pat Buchanan). We libertarians revitalized the Republican party from it's marginalized status of the Post-New Deal realignment where it was suffocating to death as Democrat-lite into the powerhouse that is the Party of Limited Government. The last Realignment may have been called the Reagan Revolution but it was Goldwater that started it. Reagan acknowledged libertarianism in forming the party's modern image with this quote I found in the wikiquote article on Ronald Reagan:
       " 'The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government 
       interference or less centralized authority or more individual
       freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what
       libertarianism is.' 
        -from an interview published in Reason (July 01, 1975)"

Even Neoconservatism is just a synthesis of libertarian and religious right ideas. The libertarian Republicans may often be sounded out by those damn religious fundamentalists, we still make up a crucial part of the backbone of the party. The point is we aren't dead yet and we still represent an influential faction.

         Also, further subdividing the conservative movement into social conservative, fiscal conservative, compassionate conservative, and every other conservative position one could take on any given single issue is just splitting hears and they should be deleted. The factions should be re-organized as:
        Core factions:
           -neoconservatives
           -paleoconservatives
           -Religious Right
           -libertarians
        minor/pariah factions:
           -moderates
           -liberals

I will wait for feedback before I go making any alterations to this article. We might not support the Bridge to Nowhere or government video cameras in our showerheads but without us, the Republican party couldn't honestly call itself the party of Limited Government; so we don't belong lumped in with liberals. And we're certainly filled with too much piss and vinegar to be lumped in with the moderates.

                           -Mike Reason

Santorum

I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but as it stands, the Religious Right section needs to be changed. Rick Santorum, thankfully, is no longer a Senator. I shall leave the decision of whether to remove, replace, or relabel him to wiser heads than mine.