Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Ideologies

I've been involved in a minor edit war so I've decided to bring it here. My suggestion is to change the piped Liberalism link (which links to Modern liberalism in the United States) to Liberalism (American) to avoid any confusion from international readers, and to remove Democratic socialism from the infobox entirely, as I've read the source cited and see no mention of a Demsoc faction within the party, only of an external demsoc organisation occasionally supporting the party. Open to discussion however. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral on the piped link change, In favor of the removing of demsoc. As much as it being a faction, there is no information in the body to back it up. And it appears to be just a few members of the House and Senate, not quite enough to be considered a faction. More or less just a group. Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of my reasoning for the piped link change is to match the Liberal parties of other nations such as the UK's Lib Dems, Australia's Liberal Party of Australia, & South Africa's Democratic Alliance (South Africa), another part is just to avoid the international readers' confusion like I said. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarify, I think you meant Liberal Party of Canada which is socially liberal and opposes the far-right not the Liberal Party of Australia which is liberal conservative and even in the past some of the politicians even hold far-right views Mhaot (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I did intend to cite the LPA, but LPC is also a good example of a liberal party that specifies in plain text that its definition of Liberalism is unique to its country of origin. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to clarify it as "American" liberalism. This is an American political party - what, are people expecting them to promote German liberalism? Of course not. A piped link is entirely acceptable for that purpose here, and frankly, should be required under WP:ENGVAR, which requires pages to be written in the English language variety of the subject - in this case, American English, where "liberal" has an extremely clear meaning. I strongly oppose an unnecessary, space-wasting "clarification".

As for Democratic socialism - I'm indifferent, to a degree, as socialists broadly fall under the progressive label as well. However, sources do indeed refer to a faction of democratic socialists in the House at minimum. It's worth discussing, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Given just how few demsocs are in the House (although I haven't seen any reliable sources about a faction of them for myself, but if you could provide some, I'd have a look), it seems WP:UNDUE to mention them in the infobox while the Blue Dog Faction (Fiscal conservatism) isn't. If anything, or if there must be 3 factions listed for whatever reason, I'd posit that fiscal conservatism should take Democratic socialism's place, since they are for sure more prevalent despite their dwindling numbers, but stripping the factions down to Centrism and Progressivism is still my preferred stance. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Dogs are a dying caucus, while the DemSocs are actually gaining. If the DemSocs aren’t enough to be included, the Blue Dogs certainly aren’t, either. Toa Nidhiki05 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well as I've said, I've seen no sources so far describing a significant demsoc faction in the party, and I was just using the Blue Dogs as an example of a faction since it currently has 10 seats, and there's no mention of a full-on faction of demsocs in the article, nor the factions article, just that there's some demsocs present in the house loosely or explicitly associated with the DSA. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering a self-proclaimed democratic socialist got second place for the party's nomination twice and that there are multiple members in congress that self-proclaim the ideology as well, I'd definitely consider it a faction. Though social democracy should also probably be listed, and progressivism should definitely be there. TheXuitts (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that a) Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the party, just someone who Caucuses with them, b) the demsocs in Congress aren't an organised faction, just a couple of self-declared demsocs who ran largely unrelated to eachother. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sanders did not run on a demsoc platform. Instead of running away from the description (he had belonged to socialist organizations in the past), he adopted it and defined it. While he probably is socialist, his campaign and his followers were not. TFD (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, since most liberal European parties have the label "Liberalism (country's name)" the Democratic Party should as well. As for democratic socialism, I would remove it from the infobox. There is no politican in the Democratic Party that promotes most of demsoc policies. Odideum (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, there's absolutely no organised demsoc Faction, a few stragglers at most. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, other pages do not matter. Are any editors going to be confused into thinking the Democratic Party promotes German or British liberalism? Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's what the readers understand. Saying that both parties are liberal doesn't help readers to understand what differences exist. Democrats are more likely to use the redistributive powers of the state, while Republicans prefer the coercive powers. But there is no sharp division or disagreement. TFD (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt editors will confuse them, as most editors of this page are from the United States. The term "liberal" in most countries generally refers to economic liberalism and classical liberalism. In Germany that includes the Free Democratic Party (Germany), which would be called libertarian in the United States. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is in American English, per WP:ENGVAR, and liberalism has exactly one meaning here. Clicking the piped link is enough to resolve any confusion. Toa Nidhiki05 04:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Ian Adams, Ideology Today, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been....The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manange; and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?"[1] Calling both parties liberal without qualification gives the false impression that there are no ideological differences between them. TFD (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ummm did you reply to the right discussion? This is about removing the false/misleading label of "democratic socialism" from the party's infobox. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to your original post at the top of this discussion thread: "My suggestion is to change the piped Liberalism link (which links to Modern liberalism in the United States) to Liberalism (American) to avoid any confusion from international readers, and to remove Democratic socialism from the infobox entirely."[15:59, 9 June 2024][2] I agree btw to removing democratic socialism entirely. TFD (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what you meant to be honest. What was your position on changing the piped link and how does the quote fit in? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't read your post correctly. I think the link should be to Modern liberalism in the United States rather than both Liberalism and Modern liberalism in the United States. Maybe you meant the ideology to read "Liberalism (American)" with a link to Modern liberalism in the United States. Did you know that your recommendation links to two articles? TFD (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware, I'm just confused what you meant by "Calling both parties liberal[...]". The practice of linking to both Liberalism and the article about Liberalism in the country of origin is in use in loads of articles, I just think it's an important distinction to make. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Position

Opening a new discussion on the political position of the Democratic Party. I am aware this has been discussed at length before. Maybe opinions have changed. I am opening this discussion as a consensus was reached on the Republican Party page to add a position! What are the communities thoughts? Can we reach a consensus now? Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was never a consensus to add anything on the other page. It seems like someone just added it. Regardless, I oppose changing consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been no new reasons presented to use this field and new discussion basically covers the same old points. Terms for the relative placement of political parties in the political spectrum are subjective, inconsistent and contextually defined. TFD (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The Political polarization in the United States over recent years may be indicative of increasingly contrasting political positions held by the two parties.

DN (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a political position (i.e. center, center-left, left-wing, or far-left) for the Democratic Party (United States). The party is a big tent, and its elected members hold a wide range of views--from the Blue Dog Coalition to the the squad. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I support adding whatever the consensus of reliable sources say the Democrats' political position is. I find the reasons for excluding one to be spurious.

The main arguments I see against it are particularly weak. I'll put what I see as the arguments in italics, and my reasoning against them in plaintext.

1. US political system is unique - US parties don't have a typical membership or primary system. This is a non sequitor. Every political system is unique. There is no political system that exists that transcends positioning on the ideological spectrum. We place political parties all over the world with different political systems, ranging from European-style democracy to puppet parties under dictatorships. To change my mind on this - I would need to see a reliable source that says the US political system is so unique that our political parties defy the left-right spectrum.
2. US political parties are big tent parties with many factions. Another non-sequitor. There are big tent parties everywhere - and we nearly universally apply left-right labels to them on Wikipedia. The Justicialist Party, a party with a massive tent spanning the center right to center left - has the label center left. Bangladesh Awami League, labelled center, with a note about its labelling. The Brazilian Democratic Movement, labelled center to center right. Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), labelled right wing. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, labelled center to center right - despite being an explicitly catch-all party. ANO 2011, labelled center. The only exception I can find is the Five Star Movement, and that is because reliable sources label it as syncretic - not merely because it has many factions. I cannot find reliable sources that say either major US party is syncretic.
3. The ideological spectrum is context dependent and prone to bias. Okay? Isn't this what reliable sources are for, to account for bias?

So I'd like to ask those that oppose the change a basic question. Shouldn't we at least be seeking out what reliable sources say about the political position of these parties? Let's see what they say, and try to follow them? Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some political parties are formed for reasons other than ideology. some hold their members through patronage. Your party comes to power and you get government housing and a job. Or, a group of fascists, conservatives, liberals and communists set up a separatist party, believing they can sort out left-right politics once they achieve independence. The fact that some Wikipedia editors think they can map these parties along the left-right spectrum isn't helpful. TFD (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The more we have been in this discussion, frankly the more confused I have gotten. I am not trying to cast aspersions or anything - I am genuinely confused. Is your argument that no parties should recieve a position on the left-right spectrum? Carlp941 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The field makes little sense for any party because position in the political spectrum is merely a judgment on where the stated ideologies fit into the system. So for example saying that a party is communist explains their ideology. Whether or not we then call the party left-wing, radical-left, revolutionary left, far left, etc. has nothing to do with how we perceive the party, but how we perceive its ideology. So there are countless arguments about this in articles about hundreds of different parties.

U.S. parties present a special problem because they have no stated ideologies or party discipline. If you show up at any mainstream party in Europe wearing an SS uniform for example, you will be denied membership. But both Dems and Reps would let you in. You could even run in a primary to become nominated. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

this seems like dubious reasoning to me. so because US parties have to let anyone registered to that party run they dont have a political position? this falls under argument one for me, and i would need to see reliable sources that support your line of reasoning. Carlp941 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You are providing an argument for inclusion and I am merely showing your argument's flaws. You say for example the two main U.S. parties are the same as parties elsewhere in the world, but in fact they aren't. TFD (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Again... I need to see some reliable sources that say the US political system is so unique that our political parties defy the left-right spectrum..

I never claimed the two main US parties are the same as the world's - I merely claimed there are similarities that merit our consideration. Carlp941 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In the American system there are two big tent parties, one of the left and one of the right. We need to be aware of potential bias however or illusions of bias and so for the two American political parties I would motion to place "Left-wing" for the Democrats, and "Right-wing" for the Republicans, however a more personally preferable labeling would be big tent or catch-all for both. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on this topic at the GOP article.[[3]] As the US has just two major parties I think it makes sense to add "left-wing" here if "right-wing" is added to the other article. Alternatively, it should be kept out of both articles. Springee (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is by all means not a left-wing party. There is not a single big socialist politician in the party. Odideum (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would have to disagree here partially. The Democratic Party does have some notable "socialist" politicians such as Bernie Sanders and AOC, however we need to be careful here. What these two advocate is more along the lines of European social democracy, which even itself is considered a socialist movement, however the least radical kind. The two openly identify as democratic socialists, and not social democrats, and I am unaware if they know what they are actually advocating for or if there is a more radical side to there beliefs hence why they identify in that way. Either way there are "big socialist politicians" within the party. Completely Random Guy (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about an American political party, not a European one. Whether they would be socialists in Europe is fairly irrelevant; Sanders and the 8-10 DSA-affiliated Democrats in Congress are definitely, unequivocally considered socialists in the United States, and define themselves as such. That being said, 8-10 isn't an especially large number - but it's as large or larger than, say, the Blue Dog caucus (which itself has trended left in recent years). Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Socialism is strongly defined and what you call "socialism in Europe" is the true understanding of socialism. American politics are more right-wing than the European ones, hence the misunderstanding of the meaning of socialism. Absolutely no politician in Democratic Party advocates for a planned economy or anti-business policies. Odideum (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article on a European political party, and Europe is not the center of the world. In fact, Europe is, frankly, irrelevant to the American political system, which evolved separately from Europe. To overweight Europe in a page about American political parties is, frankly, ridiculous.

Regardless, by your standard, most European socialist parties aren't socialist, either - even if they define themselves as socialist, are understood to be socialist in their countries, and are members of the Socialist International. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Bernie Sander is aware of his own beliefs. The problem understanding socialism is that some see it as a basket of policies rather than a belief system. When local utilities in the UK fell into disrepair by the end of the war, Labour nationalized and rebuilt them with public money at a time when private capital was unavailable. It was a specific policy developed to solve a specific problem. It doesn't mean that nationalization of local utilities is part of socialist doctrine.

In any case, there is no socialist caucus within Congress, just a handful of self-described "democratic socialists." They caucus with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. TFD (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support adding a position, whatever is determined by the sources. — Czello ^(music) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Should I reach out for a third party opinion? I still haven't seen the old consensus presented, this discussions seems to have stalled out, and I'd like this closed out, if possible. Carlp941 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support adding a position that is cited Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support adding a position that is backed up by sources. I believe the center position that was previously added using the Manifesto Project Database was a good source. BootsED (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The center position is not backed up by the source. I've looked at the datasets, and they show the GOP and Democrats as opposites on a left-right scale on economic, social, and right-left axis. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A better source is probably needed. However, (WP:OR) I don't believe calling the Democratic Party left-wing, which is also what the Green Party of the United States is labeled as is accurate. I think to Americans the Democrats are left-wing, but for an international audience and among scholarly works they are broadly centrist with some left-wing elements. But again, a better source is needed for this. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer we gather sources before trying to decide a consensus; at the very least, the Manifesto Project indicates the two parties as direct opposites, not one being on the right and the other the center. Deciding what we want to say and then finding sources is the exact opposite of how consensus should work. I also question the logic of judging an American party by German standards or vice versa. Toa Nidhiki05 14:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Copying the image from the Database that Toa uploaded to Google Drive in a separate conversation about this topic on the Republican Party page. As the image shows, the Democratic Party moved towards the right in the 1980s and 90s under the Third Way, then moved back towards the left around '08. However, they still fall beneath the 25 score, meaning they are still center/center-left as a whole. BootsED (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Longer comment for those interested that I previously posted on the Republican Party page about the MARPOR score for the Democrats and Republicans:

According to the RILE score from the dataset, the 0 is pure centrism, while if you go up in the positive you're more right-wing and if you go down in the negative you're more left wing. Both parties are below a score of +/-50, so they're definitely not far-right or far-left. I assume the scale would go to +100 to -100 as we have a historical party, the State's Rights Party that is above +50. The table itself is not symmetrical but zoomed in, the y-axis at the top goes above 50 while below it does not. So the difference between the right and the left looks large, but if you look at the y-axis the Democrats are still closer to the center than the Republicans are.

I downloaded the dataset, and the Republicans as of 2020 are above 25 at 32.969, while the Democrats as of 2020 are just below -25 at -24.662. So obviously, the Republican Party per this dataset is definitely not "far-right" as they are still less than the 1948 segregationist State's Rights Party which was at 52.459; and they are definitely not equivalent to the Nazi Party which Wikipedia also states is "far-right." While it isn't in the dataset you shared, common sense would suggest the Nazi's would be well above +75. It would be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Nazi's are a far-right party and that the Republicans are also a far-right party on both pages.

In that same vein, it would also be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Green Party of the United States are a left-wing party and that the Democrats are also a left-wing party of the same sort. I believe the dataset you have should also list where the Green Party would fall on a left-right scale, and I would bet that they would be further left-wing than the Democrats at around the same place the Republicans are but on the left at around -30 to -40. Likewise, the Democratic Socialists of America are listed as left-wing to far-left, which if it is in the dataset, would most likely put them at someplace around -50 to -75.

So 0 to +/-25 would be centrist, +/-25 to +/-75 would be right-wing/left wing, and +/-75 to +/-100 would be far-right/far-left. Scores at the edges would be determined by what reliable sources describe them as. BootsED (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like center-left is the best descriptor, then? It's right on the line. Toa Nidhiki05 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree it averages out as Center-left as the New Democrat Coalition and Blue Dog Coalition page is listed as Center to Center-left whilst the Congressional Progressive Caucus page, it is listed as Left-wing. Mhaot (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the center in the chart defined as the mid-way point between the Democrats and Republicans? In that case, the two parties would be center right and center left because they are closer to each other than either is to the fascists and communists at the two extremes. TFD (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what's confusing me. It clearly shows them as basically symmetrical on the spectrum, which makes sense as the broad parties of the entire left and entire right. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this source is good as an additional reference rather than a primary one. I am not a fan of these scores own their own when better sourcing likely exists. I'd prefer a subject matter expert making a direct claim than our interpretation of the scores. I'll look up some more sources later. Carlp941 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds great Carlp941. I agree with your analysis. In this case, center to center-left, as some people have previously stated, would sound like the best descriptor. BootsED (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we have sources establishing them as centrist? Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there are 2 dominant positions in the talk page. They are:

1) 'Centre-left'

2) 'Center to centre-left'

Can we have a poll to determine which position fits the party better? Even if either position is chosen, the page can have a footnote to mention the position of factions within the party. Guotaian (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think from the citations that were cited it's abundantly clear center-left is the appropriate tag. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If someone starts an official poll I'll vote! Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support adding "Center-left" with citations Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The main article defines centre-left politics by grouping together social democracy, social liberalism, progressivism, and green politics. Do the Democratic Party's policies have any relation to these ideologies? I thought the party was more closely associated with Bill Clinton and his fiscal conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick

1) Placing Green politics is as one of the most important criteria is questionable given for example the Australian Labor Party and Labour Party (UK) is still listed as Centre-left but not considered a green party which would be The Greens (Australia) and Green Party of England and Wales respectively

2) It well known that Democratic Party is adhered to social liberalism and progressivism

3) Even most New Democrats agrees and attempted to implement policies such as "Taxing the Rich more", Stronger Unions, higher Minimum Wage etc.

4)Bill Clinton is a Third Way which synthesising a combination of economically liberal and social democratic economic policies but Australian Labor Party and Labour Party (UK) also adhered to Third Way at various times. Mhaot (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel section

I suggest a major change to the paragraph regarding Israel and the Democratic attitudes towards it. Whilst the Democratic party, as the article reads, was a stronger supporter of Israel historically, that's clearly not the case anymore and there are billions of sources citing this, which I will link below. Accordingly, I'd suggest the new look of the paragraph to focus on the young democrats' high hostility to israel and much higher sympathy towards palestine, the monolithic and rocksteady approach of the Republicans (who have become near zealously supportive of Israel) etc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/29/palestine-democrat-support-election-voters-israel/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/472070/democrats-sympathies-middle-east-shift-palestinians.aspx

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/12/democrats-generational-divide-remains-as-israel-battles-hamas-00121307

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/polling-democrats-divided-israel-palestine/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/17/democrats-israel-polls/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-dogged-by-democrats-anger-over-israel-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-02-29/

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4710850-netanyahu-speech-boycott-democrats/#:~:text=A%20growing%20chorus%20of%20House,the%20conflict%20%E2%80%94%20demand%20a%20show

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/14/democrats-boycott-netanyahu-speech-congress

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4724502-khanna-says-he-will-not-attend-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/06/14/congress/democrats-netanyahu-speech-house-senate-boycott-00163554

Clearly, the present state of the section is outright false, and the democrats ARE NOT stronger supporters any more.

Any takers?? daruda (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED

@Muboshgu daruda (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I included your edit about parts of the Democratic base being more skeptical of the Israeli government as a result of the war. The party as a whole, however, still supports Israel. BootsED (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. However, the 'historically' sentence is still rather obviously untrue as they clearly do not support Israel more than the Republicans unwavering commitment to Israel. daruda (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. What source specifically says "the Democrats do not support Israel?" What is the text of your proposed edit? Your sources reveal that parts of the Democratic base are upset at the Israeli government and that several Democrats dislike Netanyahu and say they will boycott his speech, but they do not make the claim that the Democrats do not support Israel anymore. BootsED (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, though I would base it off the actions of elected Democratic officials, such as Biden. The college campus protests were denounced by Biden, and weren't affiliated with the Democratic party.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

Political position should be Center to Center-left and political ideology should be Social Liberalism, Third Way and Faction: Progressivism 2600:1700:DB70:3750:64C4:DD0C:49A7:E7D3 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Discussions are ongoing literally right above this request. Join them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Political position

I believe that 'centre to centre-left' is a fair and unbiased position. There are many sources which mention both centrist and centre-left ideologies in the Democratic Party. Any other position is very rare to be supported by a party member. Andrijator (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your definition of centre-left? (And don't just say it lies somewhere between center and left.) TFD (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Centre-left politics support government intervention to a state in which there is still a mixed-market economy, however with social welfare programs. The strongness of those programs varies in different ideologies, e.g. social liberalism and social democracy. Andrijator (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

All major parties in Western democracies support this. The Democrats however are less supportive than right-wing parties in other countries. TFD (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. The previous RfCs on this topic haven't been particularly persuasive, especially when put into context of similar discussions of other political parties. The US isn't "special" in this regard. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. actually is special. It has two parties, neither of which have a statement of ideology or enforces ideological conformity. IOW you cannot be expelled from either party for any reason and you cannot be stopped from running under their banner. Furthermore, state governments are involved in the nomination process by running "primary elections." Can you name any other country in the world that has this system? TFD (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

how does that make it special? Lots of countries have unique political systems. Lots of parties don't state an overriding ideology and have factions. That's why we rely on secondary RS Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue with the US is that its media is incredibly insular so they make their own definitions of the political spectrum Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Every country has its own political spectrum. There is no "global political spectrum". There's maybe regional ones - like, say, in Europe, or to some degree the US and Canada - but there's no global spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that other regions have different political spectrums with the centre being at the top of the bell curve, but there is a global one regarding ideology Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The position on the spectrum parameter is there to make cross country comparisons easy for the reader Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, WP:OR and my impression, but on the worldwide political spectrum, the democrats are centre-left to centre-right, and the republicans are right wing to far-right Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not, in fact, center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They certainly are from a European perspective. Economically they are centre-right. Socially idk, I’d say centre Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Not even from a European perspective, but why is Europe even relevant here? Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The European spectrum seems to be used as the ‘global spectrum’ on Wikipedia when looking at other regions’ political pages. Neo-liberalism is centre-right in Europe, which the democrats champion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of this, but even if it was, they aren't a center-right party, and this article isn't about a European party. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not the U.S. specifically. Second, although Americans use the terms left and right, liberal and conservative, in a different way when describing their politics, academic literature in the U.S. uses internationally understood definitions, even when describing U.S. politics. So for example U.S. conservatism is normally categorized as a sub-branch of liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s good academics use internationally recognised definitions, I didn’t know that. Surely that makes it easy to put something in the political spectrum parameter? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

When looking at the tax cuts for billionaires alone that democrats demand, they are larger than every other party proposal except the far-right republicans. 2603:8000:A301:1A0:510:AAFF:ABF:843B (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

See for example,"Liberalism and Modernity" in The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times (John Schwarzmantel NYU Press, 1998), p. 68: "Liberalism,in its broadest sense, was a philosophy or set of ideas that gave primacy to the idea of individual freedom, the freedom of the individual as the supreme social unit, untrammelled by interference from the state, other individuals or society as a whole." Conservatism is described as either "to deny modernity and return to a premodern society" or a "criticism of modernity and its features." (p. 64) Premodern means before 1500.

So there's a book from a U.S. academic publisher using the same terminology as people outside the U.S. The debate in the U.S. is not about whether or not to accept liberal principles, but how they should be applied. The term conservative entered usage when FDR used the term to defame his opponents.

TFD (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree if it weren't for Trumpism which is illiberal, it seems liberal principles are wholly accepted among academics but not the population. I was under the impression conservative meant conserving/preserving tradition and generational commons to preserve perspective which make up an ethnic identity/nationality, so it's about managing change rather than opposing it. Trump is a regressive, not a conservative Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Bigotry is very useful for lots of people, it props up their ego, there needs to be an alternative for individualist and egoist societies rather than just imposing liberalism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

The ideology says "center-left", which is inaccurate. The Democratic Party is in total support of capitalism. They are a center to center-right ideology. Alextitmier (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024

This political party is listed as center-left. It would be more accurate to claim this institution is center-right.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746.amp 2603:8000:A301:1A0:510:AAFF:ABF:843B (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. your link does not mention the Democratic party or even the words center or right Cannolis (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

To be considered left wing, you have to be anticapitalist. Both American political parties are owned by corporations. They are directly responsible for following the views of those who give them donations. That is how freedom of speech works in the United States.

The left starts at anti-capitalism. At bare minimum you have to side with workers over corporations. Alextitmier (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1). nobody is suggesting that the majority of the Democratic Party is “left-wing”; there is a substantial difference between “center-left” and “left-wing”, and discourse on this talk page has made that clear.

2). while there is a significant amount of corruption within our government, most, if not all, of it is consolidated in factions that are pro-business, such as the NDC, which adheres to “third way” liberalism. corruption is not particularly common in a faction such as the CPC, which adheres to “social liberalism” (considered to be a “center-left” ideology) and fits your “bare-minimum”, obtuse narrative of anti-capitalism (simply siding with workers over corporations).

3). although you believe the Democratic Party should be listed as “center-right”, you can’t provide a reliable source (or any source, really) that supports your claim. even if factions such as the BDC and NDC are capitalist and adhere to “fiscally conservative” policies on the economy, that doesn’t necessarily make them “center-right” in political science.

4). it would be better if you could actually defend your argument instead of making two different threads to push your narrative. 71.254.80.96 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

thoughts on ideology/position

I understand there is discourse on both the Democratic Party and Republican Party Wiki talk pages over their respective ideologies and positions. Because there are a lot of factors in this discussion (including personal bias, political affiliation, and overall coherency), it’s no surprise no one can seemingly agree with each other. With that in mind, I believe it’s important for a party’s ideology and position to be labeled generally but also correctly on Wiki. Analyzing the Congressional House caucuses of the Democratic Party, it’s fair to label its “ideology” as “progressivism” and “liberalism”; this takes into account the fact there are two major caucuses that disagree with each other over economic policy (“third way” in the NDC and “social liberalism” in the CPC) yet still adhere to the tenants of “liberalism” and “progressivism”. However, factions such as PSC (“centrism”) and BDC (“fiscal conservatism”) shouldn’t be ignored either; therefore in the “factions” section of “ideology”, it’s only fair that “centrism”, “fiscal conservatism”, “social liberalism”, and “third way” should be listed. As far as the Democratic Party’s “position”, per analyzation of the caucuses, it should be “center to center-left”. While many argue that it should include “center-right”, many also forget that the BDC no longer adheres to “social conservatism” and that no faction of the Democratic Party adheres to an economic policy that is explicitly on the right (“fiscal conservative” policy is usually referred to as centrist and is derived from “economic liberalism”). While many argue that it should not include “center”, many also ignore the fact that the largest caucus (NDC) barely touches the Left. I hope this helps the discussion. 71.254.80.96 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's too much detail for the info-box and belongs in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

“Please change Democratic Party to Democrat Party”.

Reasoning:

There is a Republican Party (not a Republic Party) which consists of individuals dubbed Republicans (not Republics) There is likewise a Democrat Party (not a Democratic Party) which consists of individuals dubbed Democrats (not Democratics). 2600:1006:B115:E801:51DE:FFA4:C67A:6D1B (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Incorrect, the party is called the Democratic Party. — Czello ^(music) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

More to the point, that's a pejorative epithet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems right-wingers think democrat sounds bad, democratic sounds good. If the use of “democrat” as the name is wrong, there should some discussion of this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:CDF3:43A:6271:51B9 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just silliness. Several years ago, they almost renamed the Democrats the Democrat Socialist Party. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

I believe that the political position of the party should be changed from "Center Left" to "Majority Center to Center-Left" With Factions listed as Center-Right and Left Wing. The Democratic party is a big tent party and this is widely known and established. The prominent policies and economic views reflect social liberalism and third way politics, and the party does not resemble other center-left social democratic parties. The party's RILE score is also sourced as placing it as a center to center-left party. Listing it as center-left is misleading and assumes the idea that the Democratic party has a prominent view of social democracy, which is untrue. BH018123 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV; the "diploma divide" affects us as editors--do you have a college degree?

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.

---

It appears the diploma divide has only grown stronger, per Pew Research data. I'm a graduate student applying to PhD program in statistics this fall, and recognize the irony.

For those with post-graduate degrees--63% Harris, 32% Trump. For those with just a Bachelor's or Associate's--51% Harris, 41% Trump. For those who attended but didn't graduate--44% Harris, 46% Trump. And those with HS or less--38% Harris, 53% Trump. This is a monotonically increasing trend between education and support for the Democratic Party.

Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/08/14/the-presidential-matchup-harris-trump-kennedy/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to ensure that articles reflect reliable sources, not their personal opinions. I would point out that most sources, especially academic literature, are usually written by people with college degrees as well. While that may cause a bias in reliable sources, it's not something that Wikipedia articles are supposed to question. Basically, if someone comes here, they want to see an article similar to what they would see in an introductory polisci textbook. TFD (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, my point is the lead of this article on the Democratic Party is written in a more favorable tone, and fails to mention the 2021-2023 inflation surge--instead describing an "increasingly progressive economic agenda," which likely violates NPOV. The policies may be ideologically progressive, but the price increases and polling point to the contrary in terms of effect.

Also the sheer number of discussions on Talk:Republican Party (United States) over the party's ideology and place on the political spectrum, and thinly-veiled disagreement over many of its positions, is likely because most editors have college degrees. See actor-observer asymmetry, where we are less able to recognize that the trend (educational polarization) affects us as well.

Side-note: I'm not a registered Democrat or Republican. But being graduate student and seeing the statistics on educational polarization explain a lot. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the sources say the Dems have an "increasingly progressive economic agenda," The first source, which argues it does, says that the consensus is it doesn't. The second source says that the neo-liberal paradigm, pursued by both parties, has been challenged by Sanders on the left and Trump on the right.

This seems like a case of deciding what the article should say, then finding sources rather than identifying the best sources and summarizing what they say.

It's a lot easier to challenge text on the basis that it is unsourced or wrong than to argue NPOV. TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 August 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.

Woodrow Wilson has an RfC

Woodrow Wilson has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren has an RfC

Martin Van Buren has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Final Reference to Consolidate

I consolidated most of the references that were duplicated except for the NYMag.com one. This particular one has one source with no quote and another with one. Should they remain separate or should they be consolidated in some way? Ztormtrooper (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Biden's presidency in the lead

I'm looking for a consensus on whether to change or remove this sentence in the lead. I support keeping the sources.

• "During Joe Biden's presidency, the party has adopted an increasingly progressive economic agenda."

Reasons:

• Biden withdrew from the 2024 election, and he will serve only one term. This itself is extremely notable, and may be worth putting in the lead instead.
• The sentence fails to mention the 2021-2023 inflation surge, or that Biden ended 2023 with a job approval rating of 39 percent, the lowest of any president since 1979. Biden's presidency has not been viewed favorably by the public, even if the party's agenda is ideologically increasingly economically progressive.
• Biden is still the incumbent president, and there are other events that could be mentioned. Also, Biden's presidential legacy will almost certainly be affected by the winner of the 2024 presidential election.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Being forced out of the 2024 race publicly by members of your own party & donors, because it's believed you've no chance of winning re-election, isn't an overly good legacy. I'm not certain how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Remove The statement isn't supported by sources, is an extraordinary claim and happens to be false. TFD (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)