Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Right wing to Far right

Someone else mentioned this too. Why it isn't labelled as right wing to far right? Trump has clearly criticized former Republican governance and has abandoned neoliberalism and globalism as party policy. Also Trump and Republican Party have associated themselves with parties and people which are labelled as right wing to far right such as UKIP and Farage, Fidesz and Orban. Republican Party position of political spectrum really needs to be changed to right wing to far right so people know exactly what Republican Party actually believes or is situated on political spectrum and not this erroneous identification. 86.124.126.108 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this? Regardless of our personal political views--I voted for Harris and agree with the Democratic Party on most issues--the fact Trump won the popular vote in 2024 means that roughly half the country supported his agenda. See WP:SOAPBOX, and there have been plenty of discussions on this. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a candidate who wins an election cannot possibly be far-right is just silly. Extremist candidates do sometimes win the popular vote. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of editors have argued that although the Democratic Party is not center-left by international standards, it should be called center-left because it is by U.S. standards. Accordingly, if 50% voted for Donald Trump, they must be center-right.

I notice too that Meloni's party is described as center-right. Considering that she the Fascist youth leader and her party is a successor to Mussolini's Fascist Party, the definition of center-right is pretty elastic. My solution would be to remove these labels as there is no correct answer and the fields provide no meaningful information. TFD (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's...not how it works at all. Winning 50% of the vote (which Trump actually fell just short of, but I suppose 49.9% is close enough) does not mean they "must be center-right". The notion that only the center-left or center-right can ever win an election is absurd. It's entirely possible for a party that's either far-right or far-left by its own nation's standards to win an election.

Also, since when is Meloni's party labeled as center-right? Its infobox lists it as "right-wing to far-right". You seem to be mistaking the "centre-right coalition" (an alliance of Italian parties ranging from center-right to far-right), of which Brothers of Italy is a member, with Brothers of Italy's own political position. — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I don't think we should determine position on the political spectrum differently in each country. TFD (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The alliance that Meloni is the leader of is called the center right coalition. It’s most likely in reference to that rather than her actual political position 2601:804:8700:17D0:EC66:5280:53A1:7D50 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The alliance that Meloni is the leader of is called the center right coalition. It’s most likely in reference to that rather than her actual political position 2601:804:8700:17D0:EC66:5280:53A1:7D50 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Nazi party got 30% of the votes I doubt you’d call them center right Natalieeeeeee (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, where's your reliable sources then? 220.245.162.215 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone winning the election and calling the candidate "far right" is not the same as the entire political party. There is far too much bias in these recent edits and in these replies.

Someone could easily argue that Biden, Harris, Obama were/are "far left", but does that mean the party is far left as a whole? Everyone knows that "far" in combination with left/right is a slur, and it is also entirely objective. To make this defacto claim on either political party's page is simply propaganda, unless either party officially announced that they hold that position on the political spectrum.

Additionally, the person who made all these recent changes (Kedamomo999) claims there was a consensus here. There was not, and the intent seems obviously politically driven. The sources cited by this person are left leaning, and it would be no different than citing Fox News as a source on the Democrat Party's page. 146.86.160.101 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"Everyone knows that "far" in combination with left/right is a slur"

I strongly disagree. Plenty of people would consider themselves "far left" or "far right" and believe that that is the logical place to land on the political spectrum. Joejoe1864 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a very strong difference between... What did Biden do again? Pardon federal prisoners convicted of simple possession of cannabis, reinstate DACA, have Medicare negotiate drug prices, impose a strict COVID response with stimulus checks... I struggle to find any radical positions from Biden. Not on the same level as withdrawing the US from international efforts such as climate change research and WHO, completely reversing LGBTQ rights, and greatly expanding the power of the president. It would be very difficult to seriously argue Biden is representing a political fringe, but Trump is acting much more aggressively with his executive orders, and that's why he's considered far-right. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

What's radical is held in the eyes of the beholder. I don't like getting in the nitty gritty of politicians and their views, but neither Trump nor Biden are extreme by any means. I guess it does depend on what you view as extreme though. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

All this argument is irrelevant. Wikipdedia doesn't care about personal opinions about what constitutes an extreme political position. It depends on what WP:RS say - and in this case that should principally be coming out of social science and humanities journals and books as the topic is well-explored in academia and those will likely represent the best available sources. And, having recently done the reading on this, I'll advise you that there is not a consensus in the academy about where the Republican party, as a party, lies in terms of political extremity. If we want a clear, concise, view of what to call the Republican party that is guided purely by academic best sources we call them right-wing. Not center-right, not far-right. Just right wing. Without adjectives. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Lol what academic best sources? 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has on it's page and website republican party members who are considered far right by Wikipedia itself and I gave a list at the bottom of this talk. Is wikipedia lying to itself like there is not far right faction in Republican Party when Wikipedia itself acknowledges there are far right members in it. Like why even call this members far right at this point no? Everyone is the same in the Republican party by your logic lol. Mindless robots 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I do partially agree, the GOP is center-right to right wing (mostly right wing). I personally do not think reliable sources exist regarding "far-right" and "far-left" as those terms are subjective, and are prone to human bias. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this mean that if AfD hypothetically wins 51% of the vote in the upcoming German elections, the "far right" label would have to be removed from their party? That makes no sense. Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Depends, if 50% of the overall population voted for said party, then by Germany's standards they would no longer be far right (going based on the concept of the Overton Window). If 50% of the voting population voted for the party, then they would still probably be "far-right" by Germany's standards, but not as "far-right". BUT if you view "far-right" as a consistent ideology (which I personally don't) then they will always be far-right. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

So should the NSDAP be reclassified centrist and all other Weimar Republic parties far left by comparison? I hardly think what parties are popular has much bearing on what's far right. We go by the Wikipedia page on far-right politics, which clarifies they make ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and nativism core beliefs. Trump has made his entire platform from anti-immigration, so that's at least one undebatably checked box. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

None of this matters. If sources call the party far-right, it is far-right, otherwise it is not.

Stating that a party can't be far-right because it got X percent of the vote is nonsense - fringe doesn't mean extreme or the other way around. Cortador (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that prior to the banning of other parties and that the Nazi Party did not have a majority above 50%, then by 1930s Germany's standards they would have still probably be far-right. Given our modern concept of "far-right" the Nazi party would be far-right as its the model far-right party. If you mean "far-right" as in political relativism then they would have also been far-right given the minority prior to the banning of parties. Regardless, the modern GOP is neither, by American standards the GOP is center-right to right when talking about American political relativity. If the GOP banned any other party from running, centralized power in the executive branch, removed all state and local rights, withheld elections, banned any form of immigration and kicked out all non-whites, then the GOP would be far-right! Hepatotoxicity (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00438200231176818

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162211070060

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-02-06-trump-supporters-and-extreme-right-share-widest-range-junk-news

Wikipedia can't do anything without people like me who searched for 1 minute such obvious sources of information for why Republican Party should be considered right wing to far right.

Oxford and Sage Journals are academic sources. It takes 1 minute to search very obvious stuff. If someone has the patience to research for more than 1 minute to find even more obvious sources to prove that Republican Party is right wing to far right I leave it up to them.

Ironically the oxford article is from 2018 Wikipedia is so lazy that it can't put such old information as source 86.120.162.98 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Please, for all that is holy and just - back this claim up with sources. Take five minutes to browse the talk page. This is a discussion we have had a million times. Carlp941 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why you don't do it yourself if it takes 5 minutes? 86.120.162.98 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

At the very least it should be labelled as "center right to far right". Even if we pretend that they still have a "center right" wing of the party, there's no possible way to deny that a significant portion of the party is "far right". Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, let's stop being dishonest with ourselves, we all know it is. Billie Lean (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

To back up your point, the Wikipedia page for Trumpism had the Ideology section changed to just say far-right a couple days ago as of 2/11/2025. Considering Trumpism's influence on the Republican Party, I do not think it is far-fetched or biased to say that the party currently covers that part of the ideological spectrum. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Support adding far-right in some form. As stated above, if Trumpism is fully categorized as far-right, then the Republican Party logically must at least have a far-right faction. I don't see why it's getting opposition, as "center-right to far-right" is an accurate descriptor of the party (if not a bit too moderate nowadays). LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yall, they’re throwing sieg heils on a regular basis, If we don’t have sufficient sources to call them far right then that’s a Wikipedia problem. Losasta (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If people like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Black_(white_supremacist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz all three Republican Party members, Elon musk Nazi salute and many other neo Nazi and white supremacist members in the Republican party are not enough reasons to include far right then it means nothing is far right anymore 86.120.162.98 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree because Trumpism, Trump, and JD Vance are all considered right wing to far right in the media. It is also the dominant strand of Republican ideology so it should be right wing to far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsija (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine?

I really don't know how else to describe it, given the 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy meeting. Foreign policy is done only at the federal level, and mainly by the President. It's extremely clear that Trump is a Russophile who opposes foreign aid and military security guarantees to Ukraine.

Title: The World Trump Wants; American Power in the New Age of Nationalism Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage

• Quote: "In the two decades that followed the Cold War’s end [1990-2010], globalism gained ground over nationalism. Simultaneously, the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks—institutional, financial, and technological—overshadowed the role of the individual in politics. But in the early 2010s, a profound shift began. By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization. ... The shift arguably began in Russia. In 2012, Vladimir Putin ended a short experiment during which he left the presidency and spent four years as prime minister while a compliant ally served as president. Putin returned to the top job and consolidated his authority, crushing all opposition and devoting himself to rebuilding “the Russian world,” restoring the great-power status that had evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union, and resisting the dominance of the United States and its allies. Two years later, Xi Jinping made it to the top in China. His aims were like Putin’s but far grander in scale—and China had far greater capabilities. In 2014, Narendra Modi, a man with vast aspirations for India, completed his long political ascent to the prime minister’s office and established Hindu nationalism as his country’s dominant ideology. That same year, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had spent just over a decade as Turkey’s hard-driving prime minister, became its president. In short order, Erdogan transformed his country’s factionalized democratic ensemble into an autocratic one-man show. Perhaps the most consequential moment in this evolution occurred in 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States." JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that individuals are now having more of an impact on policy in those countries than parties. Specifically, in the US, the Republican Party no longer really has a policy or, if it does, it's irrelevant. What Trump says and does is the only effective policy. I know we've always talked about parties having policies, but it really doesn't make any sense to say that now in the case of the Republican Party in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

So that's why at least 6 senators and over a dozen total members of Congress that are in the GOP have come out against Trump's tirade in the meeting? Get real. To claim that Trump = GOP is a flagrant violation of neutral point of view and is borderline an attempt to use Wikipedia to prove a point in the real world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You should take other people's comments in WP:GOODFAITH, instead of immediately attacking them for supposed and seemingly baseless WP:RGW EarthDude (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You can't take one person's opinion and express it as fact. I noticed btw that the text you quote at length does not mention the Republican Party, which is the topic of this article. TFD (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the point. In accepting Trump as their presidential candidate, the entire party has said that whatever Trump says and does is fine and IS Republican policy. If they don't really believe that, they should have said something earlier. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how WP:OR works, sources have to explicitly draw the conclusions presented in the article, editors aren't allowed to draw their own conclusions or to read between the lines. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not doing OR. My main point was how the Republican Party, with foreign policy mainly conducted by Trump as POTUS, has dramatically changed its foreign policy positions. The Republican Party is now pro-tariffs, pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine, anti-multilateralism and "America First," anti-interventionist, etc.

The quoted source is about this being a new age of nationalist leaders, who are destroying the old neoliberal/multilateral order that had lasted from around 1990 to the 2010s. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The lengthy quote does not mention the Republican Party. Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Your source does not say that Trump has changed the Republican Party and therefore what they write about Trump applies to the party. It does not matter if that happens to be true, but whether or not the source implicitly says that. TFD (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces The source was about the broader changes in global politics, of which Trump is part of. Its purpose was to characterize Trump and his foreign policy, not the Republican Party as a whole. Foreign policy is conducted mainly by the POTUS, as head of state and government. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case, it does not belong in this article. TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we can't. It is not NPOV to try and put the views of the current executive (the President and administration officials) on the party as a whole. There are at least 6 GOP senators that have openly come out since that meeting on Friday against the view of Trump/Rubio/etc. just as an example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"mainly conducted by Trump as POTUS, has dramatically changed its foreign policy positions" The organ grinder plays the tune, the trained monkeys dance to the tune. That is how party discipline usually works. The party members obey the policies of the party leader, or they will be kicked out of the party in the next political purge. Business as usual. Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Did they do any more than just talk? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many RS stating that just talk, and don't take action. They are just rubber stamps for Trump's agenda, which often wildly deviates from what was once Republican orthodoxy.

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/843b18e3-7f37-4a82-8c5c-c2875a49c2c8 ; The US Congress is missing in action JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

At least one of those senators (Lisa Murkowsi) voted for a resolution that falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, despite knowing there was no evidence for this. There is no policy that says Republican senators are beacons of truth. TFD (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That might be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The point of the source and quote was to put Trump in context, which is with nationalist leaders arising in the 2010s like Putin, Xi, Modi, Erdogan, etc. Regarding foreign policy, there are many RS that Trump has changed the Republican Party's foreign policy to be "America First" and clearly pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Magazine likely constitutes a reliable source, but the quote provided doesn't indicate that the Republican party has become more pro-Russia, instead it indicates Trump's election is significant as a movement in the United States toward nationalism. I know that there is academic material about the alliance between conservative political groups that drew out ties between the contemporary Republican party and Russia. Solar Politics by Oxana Timofeeva might have something about this although I can't remember off the top of my head how explicit she was. I'll look later. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The rhetoric has changed, but then both George W. Bush and Obama praised and helped Putin. I looked into his eyes and saw his soul. Mitt, the eighties called: they want their foreign policy back. Trump was more harsh on Putin in his first term than any other U.S. president. As for Ukraine, wars end. Biden ended the war in Afghanistan, returning the Taliban to power. Was that a change in foreign policy?

At present, we don't know what direction foreign policy will take. All we have are opinions. They are worth including, but none can be taken as fact. TFD (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

(short phone edit) John, I think there are issues with your recent edits. First, I didn't think we should say the party opposed aid to Ukraine. I think it's clear the president and his circle want to change/scale back support but that isn't the same as oppose. Also it's not clear if Trump is Russiaphile or trying to be conciliatory to end a war. Given we are dealing with unfolding events we should be very cautious about direct statements such as this [1]. Springee (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this. The current administration and the Republican Party as a whole has shown itself to be remarkably Russophile and Ukrainophobe EarthDude (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Solar Politics having supporting material. I also checked Tari's There is no unhappy revolution which also was a wash - odd as I was sure I read something relevant in one of those two books. Oh well, I suppose I misremembered. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that JohnAdams1800 has attempted to make these edits to change "is divided on" to opposes aid for Ukraine in the lead and also to explicitly add the term "russophile" to the article while this discussion is ongoing with non-insignificant opposition/concern. This article is about the Republican Party, not Trump, Vance, or any other individual. While it may be appropriate to report on individual members of the party (such as the President's recent meeting with Zelensky and the aftermath of that), it is not appropriate to try to shoehorn individuals' views into this article that are clearly strongly disputed within the party. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This issue is a hill I am willing to (figuratively) die on. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal under international law and Putin has engaged in crimes against humanity. Trump is engaging in historical negationism and Russophilia with respect to it.The only Republicans to whom foreign policy is applicable is at the federal level, and particularly the POTUS as head of state and government. (Unlike say abortion legislated at the state level, or tax policy written by congressional Republicans.) Trump is clearly a Russophile and a Ukrainophobe.

It doesn't matter what the views are within the party, rather it matters whose views actually carry out policies. Ronald Reagan opposed the Soviet Union and Communism, while Donald Trump supports Russia and right-wing nationalism/populism.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

me - Some individual Republicans may have expressed a different view, but the party has given Trump absolute power over party policy. Whatever he says simply IS party policy for all practical purposes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, sources should be found to back up each claim individually without having to fall back on the transitive property, i.e. "Trump's the party leader, he's against immigration, ergo the party is anti-immigration". Any of these sources describing Trump's personal views and policies can be included on the Donald Trump or the Political views of Donald Trump page/s, just because he's a prominent member of the Republican Party doesn't mean his views are synonymous with the party's views. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

But they are! The "party" as an entity is not displaying any position on anything that differs from what Trump says. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be difficult to find sources in support of JohnAdams' edits. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what John Adams has written. I am simply commenting on this discussion on the Talk page. You seem more concerned about another editor. To me, this is WP:BLUESKY stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The party as an entity is the sum of its members. If there is no official position, then it is not proper to assume that one of the positions supported by some of the members, no matter how significant those members' positions are, is the position of the party. That is inappropriate WP:SYNTH and very far from "the sky is blue". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Even when, for all practical purposes, it is? HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You're free to have that opinion. Unless it's their official position (which could be sourced to their platform under WP:ABOUTSELF), then you need reliable sources that say it's their position. Otherwise, it's inappropriate WP:SYNTH. The only sources presented so far are that Trump and a few others have a view, not that the party as a whole has that view as a whole. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, where DO I go to find the party's official position on things? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Should that be interpreted as a threat to edit war if you don't get your way? Regardless of your beliefs or how "wrong" it is, Wikipedia is not for you to try to right great wrongs in the world. This article is about the party, so it certainly does matter what the views are within the party. Not what the views of one or a few members only of the party are. And whether or not they have the legal ability to do anything about it, if they are a prominent member of the party, their views are a part of the party. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The editor-in-question has been page-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been working on finding some sources that might support this claim or one similar to it. Here's what I've found so far.

1. Betraying Ukraine Commonweal. Mar2024, Vol. 151 Issue 3, p5-5. 1p. Other figures on the Right have adopted Trump's admiring attitude toward Putin. In an interview with the Russian president, Tucker Carlson encouraged Putin to advance a deluded historical justification for the invasion and asked no questions about Russian war crimes or Putin's authoritarian crackdown on dissent. When questioned about his favorable treatment of Putin, Carlson said, "Leadership requires killing people." A few days later, news broke of the death in prison of Putin's most prominent critic, Aleksei Navalny. Asked to comment on Carlson's interview, Republican senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said, "Take things with a grain of salt, but a lot of the points that Vladimir Putin made are accurate."
   Of course, there remains an old guard in the Republican Party—represented by Nikki Haley, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, and Sen. Mitt Romney—that rejects MAGA isolationism and clings to the party's pre-Trump interventionism, but it has become a clear minority. Opinion piece. Should not be used without attribution.
2. How Putin Co-Opted the Republican Party. By: Elliott, Philip, Time.com, 24762679, 2/23/2024 And Republicans have gone along with all of it. They looked the other way on intelligence breaches, and failed to convict Trump during a record two impeachment trials. And, even in the face of evidence that their impeachment payback of Biden is based on an FBI informant now indicted for telling lies that he alleges started in Russia to hurt Biden, House Republicans say they'll plow forward regardless. The fact that the cornerstone of their case against Biden originated with Russian spooks and bogus claims of checks sent to Biden family members from Ukraine is inconsequential in their march to help Trump's chances of returning to Washington. And as Ukraine struggles in its fight against Russia, it seems those Republicans are ready to abandon the former Soviet republic because Trump has a grudge.
   It's quite an act of intentional forgetting on the part of the Republican Party to set aside their lionized legend of Reagan in service of another TV talent, one who seems to hold Reagan-era precedents in contempt and share little of his admiration for democracy. Yet this is the current work of a large cut of the contemporary GOP. For a lot of conservatives, it has not been easy to get over their first crush, but they have another charismatic figure at the ready. Or at least one refusing to retreat. Opinion piece. Should not be used without attribution.
3. This one actually contradicts the claim that the Republican party, rather than just Trump, is Russophilic - albeit quite weakly. No real pull quote that puts the hammer to the nail. I'm including it in the review to demonstrate there isn't a uniform consensus on this but don't think it's that useful as, despite the promise of the headline, it's quite ambivalent and doesn't end up saying much in any sort of assertive way. Republican Lawmaker Breaks Ranks to Defy Trump Over Ukraine. By: McBride, Courtney, Bloomberg.com, 2/20/2025
4. The Religious Right and Russia: Christian Nationalism and Americans' Views on Russia and Vladimir Putin Before and After the Ukrainian Invasion. By: Perry, Samuel L., Riccardi‐Swartz, Sarah, Davis, Joshua T., Grubbs, Joshua B., Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 00218294, Jun2023, Vol. 62, Issue 2 - this is a proper academic source. Its conclusion was that religious right support for Putin was curvilinear, dropping off both as people were less affiliated with Christian nationalism, then rising before falling again amongst the most extreme Christian nationalists. The hypothesis brought forward is that for Christian nationalists the promise of Putin to return Russia to an ethnonational state of Christian hegemony was seen as a good but for christian Nationaists, concerns over Russia as a geopolitical rival were more prevalent. On Republicans it says Despite long‐held suspicions toward Russia, certain political transformations in the former Soviet Union since perestroika have struck an ideological chord with many Americans on the cultural and political right. Especially since the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, growing networks of conservative actors in the United States and abroad have drawn together the potential political futures of both countries (Riccardi‐Swartz [31]; Stoeckl and Uzlaner [34]). Since the mid‐2010s, conservative support for Russia has increased, with polls showing that Republicans, in particular, had warmed toward Russia and Putin leading up to the Ukrainian invasion in February 2022 (Gallup 2022; Huang and Cha [16]; Pew Research Center [28]; Reinhart [30]; Swift [35]). Although Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has received bipartisan condemnation, several vocal leaders on the Christian far‐right have expressed support for Putin as they support other authoritarian leaders elsewhere (Olmstead [24]; Riccardi‐Swartz [32]).

I have to call it here for now because I'm out of time for source review for the day. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's that hard to find the sources are we really following consensus vs searching to emphasize what we feel is correct? This is the problem with contemporary politics. We have an absence of real inside knowledge information and certainly no historical view on with which to assesses these claims. I think this is the sort of thing that should be left out until we see some sort of clear consensus on the party (not just Trump). Basically, err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find sources. It's just time consuming reading academic papers and periodicals. I stopped because I ran out of time, not papers to read. Please, by all means, jump on Wikipedia library and have a look at what you can see. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I can cite policy and guidelines if required, but an article in a journal about religion is not an acceptable source for an article about the Republican Party. In any case, all it says is that Republicans "have warmed toward Russia and Putin" between 2012 and 2022.It doesn't go into further detail because the article is not about the Republican party's foreign policy and in fact does not mention it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm being rather completionist in sharing what I've read on the topic - I would concur that specific source is a bit on the weak side as it is principally about the religious right and its commentary on the Republicans is slim, being limited to the quote I shared. If we found sufficient due sourcing for the claim it might still be usable as part of a bundled ref. I'm sure you know humanities and social sciences sources aren't always perfectly clean in their delineations of religion, politics, and society as the disciplines see them as interrelated phenomena. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we cannot. The lede as it looks now suffices. We should be cautious in responding to current events particularly when they upend established orthodoxy in the way Trump is doing. It is best to wait and see what sticks – and note there is still a considerable number of Republicans who support Ukraine. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Note also that the reliable sources provided support what the lede presently states; this proposed edit would change the article text so that it less closely follows the sources it cites. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If trump were to start giving military aid and supporting Russia that would be feasible. There is such a thing as neutrality, Trump may have said absolutely nonsensical things regarding Zelensky, but he by no means is Pro-Russia. For the record I’m pro Ukraine but as long as Trump doesn’t support Russia he’s not a Russophile. If anyone watched the full Zelensky interview they would see that Trump wants peace so both sides stop sending young soldiers to needlessly die. Hepatotoxicity (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on infobox political position footnote

Should the infobox include the following footnote attached to the party's political position (described as right wing)?

Parts of the Republican Party have been described as center-right or far-right.

Will Thorpe (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support; a clear majority of editors supported the removal of 'center-right' from the 'political position' section of the infobox but there was some opposition and there were attempts to find a middle ground option.

Numerous reliable sources including from the past few years identify reasonably-sized sections of the Republican Party as being either center-right or far-right, and as both of these categories carry important distinctions in policy and ideological terms, and represent sufficiently notable contingents of the party (refer to the congressional membership of the Tuesday Group or the Freedom Caucus), this clarification is worth inclusion in the infobox.

Footnotes are used in the infoboxes of other Wikipedia articles to clarify arguably finer details than this of a party's political orientation, including on the articles for the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.

Both terms are widely applied enough to sufficiently relevant sections of the GOP to negate the criticism which may arise from WP:UNDUE – as does the fact this acknowledgment of the GOP's fuller ideological spectrum has been relegated to a footnote. This, I contend, ought to be an acceptable middle ground when all factors are considered, which does the best job at informing the reader at a glance of the party's political orientation/s whilst leaving further detail for the article body, and doing all of this in an appropriately balanced way reflective of reliable sources.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

it has been discussed and rejected many times, please see earlier discussions before opening another rfc 62.217.191.221 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not the same matter. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify – there have been discussions about what the 'Political position' section should read, but at least no recent dedicated discussions about a potential footnote. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: This would clutter the infobox too much. I generally oppose footnotes in infoboxes, but they are sometimes necessary for clarity. In this case, I oppose ur footnote because it is unnecessary and would add clutter to the infobox. EarthDude (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: As I've opened up a topic in the space down below, the Senate Republican Conference and House Republican Conference still retain their "center-right to right-wing" labels, which is understandable as people like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski still remain active in Congress. Even Trump supporting people like John Thune are not explicitly affiliated with Trumpism, noted by how he and actually many other senators are not in the list of politicians associated with Trumpism. The only reason why the GOP in this page and the "List of political parties in the United States" page had their ideology changed was only due to one man: Donald Trump. If both chambers of the Republican legislature are still deemed as "center-right," then I think that justifies enough reason to bring back (unless of course, we change those too). This has no need for sourcing; you can just go to their wiki pages and see what their positions say, and see that not ALL of them favor Trump the way Matt Gaetz would. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"opened up above" I mean DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@DougheGojiraMan Do you mean to support, then? Will Thorpe (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If it means putting center-right back, yes. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The info-box didn't have a position for both parties on the spectrum for many years. We should consider just removing them from both articles. I've frankly grown sick of the contentious discussions about them, particularly for the Republican Party's talk page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 that may be advisable. The ‘ideology’ section does a good job as surmising where the party stands, Will Thorpe (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be better IMO as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still banned from editing the article until March 18, which I don't plan to appeal. I have a source from The Economist titled "Hard-right parties are now Europe’s most popular." Right-wing populism is not just an American phenomenon, and according to the source, conservative (center-right), social democrat (center-left), and hard right parties each get about 1/4 of the vote among European Union countries. The hard-right in particular has made large gains according to the source.

Regardless of whatever we pick, and personally I prefer just removing a position, the trends in American politics are hardly isolated. For various debated reasons, conventional conservatism has been in decline in many Western countries.

Here are some quotes:

• "The origin of Europe’s recent hard-right surge is difficult to pin down. Some theorise that, beginning with the financial crash in 2008-09, voters were driven away from the mainstream and towards the extremes by economic anxiety. But the evidence for this is mixed. Europe is the richest it has ever been. And hard-right parties often win substantial support from the well-to-do. You could hardly look at the Netherlands—one of the wealthiest countries in the world, per person—and cite economic anxiety to explain its hard-right-led government."
• "Another often-heard argument is that the hard right represents a backlash against the migrant crisis that came to a head in 2015. Irregular immigration to some European countries has remained very high. Again, this theory is imperfect. In Germany, like many other countries, the hard right’s support comes predominantly from areas with little immigration. In fact, the association between immigration rates and support for the hard right is weaker than you might expect. Ireland has one of the largest foreign-born populations in Europe, for example, but no major hard-right party. The inverse is true of Poland (see chart 2)."
• "Instead, the rise of the hard right is probably the result of a mix of factors. A succession of crises from 2008 onwards have weakened confidence in European leaders. And although Europeans are getting richer, many feel anxious about their economic security and social status. This makes them more sensitive to cultural changes such as immigration—even when those changes are happening far away. These trends are compounded by changes to the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media. The hard right’s growing support also has a ratchet: each time the parties increase their representation, they are normalized in the eyes of more mainstream voters."

Link: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/28/hard-right-parties-are-now-europes-most-popular JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The party's position should be stated as 'Right-wing' with 'Factions: Center-right to far-right'. This seems to be how most sources portray the party nowadays and I think it's a very easy solution that I'm surprised hasn't yet been seriously proposed. I am also strongly against removing the position from the infobox altogether — I don't really understand what some editors think makes US political parties so unique that justifies not listing a political position when the vast majority of articles on parties worldwide have them without issue. This is especially the case considering how clear sources are on the fact that the GOP is right-wing. Loytra (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Loytra I would support this, thought it seemed to meet pushback in the 120-comment RfC above. I hoped this might be accepted. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support –– I think this provides a good enough compromise that also helps to illustrate the party's right-wing big-tent composition, naturally consequential of a two-party system. Additionally it acknowledges the historically developing- and continuing polarization of the party towards the right. –– Chat-qui-Aboie (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That would add too much needless clutter to the infobox. The simple label of "right-wing" already implies that the party is a broad right wing one, instead of either center or far right positions having too much influence over one another EarthDude (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I like the idea, but the whole point of an infobox is to be relatively robust, broad, and free from clutter. Asterisks like this and their discussion belong in the body. Just10A (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the exact position of the Republican Party (and for that matter the Democrats as well) is quite contentious, the position was omitted from the infobox of both parties for a long time and has lead to numerous RfCs at this point. I think we should place a moratorium on future RfCs as well. Aydoh8^[contribs] 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree on moratorium. Just10A (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy procedural close requested. There is a discussion about this. It's on this page. Please add this there. And for the love of all things holy, can we discuss literally anything else? Carlp941 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated previously. Cheers.DN (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - not needed as above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If we want to paint it with a broad brush, we could say for example Center-right to far-right and I would actually support this labeling. Or we could leave it as "Right-wing" as it is now to show it as a general right-wing party. If we did change it to my first suggestion, I would support changing the Democratic Party to Center-left to far-left as there are reliable sources that describe some members of the democratic party as far-left. Although I generally disagree that any members of the republican or democratic parties are far-right or far-left. And labeling the Republican Party as far-right would be very controversial obviously. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Trumpism as a far right ideology

As the Republican Party is now dominated by Trump, who is widely recognized as a far right leader, a classification of its political position as right-wing to far-right would he more than appropriate.

References

Mudde explicitly labels Donald Trump as part of the far-right populist surge in the United States.

Norris and Inglehart describe Trump as a key figure in the rise of far-right populism, linking his policies and rhetoric to authoritarian tendencies.

Bergmann explicitly categorizes Trump as part of the radical right, comparing his political style to other far-right leaders globally.

Kriesi discusses Trump's alignment with the radical right, emphasizing his role in the broader far-right movement in Western democracies.

Goodwin identifies Trump as a prominent figure in the resurgence of far-right politics, highlighting his anti-immigrant and nationalist rhetoric.

Ly.n0m (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Many sources even link him to historical fascist movements, just as a back-up for the far-right classification, I do not wish to add Fascism as an ideology.

References

Snyder argues that Trump exhibits traits aligned with illiberal democracy and authoritarianism, drawing comparisons to historical fascist leaders in terms of undermining democratic norms.

Müller discusses how populist leaders like Trump can exhibit fascist tendencies by rejecting pluralism and promoting a homogeneous national identity, which echoes themes seen in fascist ideologies.

Parenti examines the ways in which Trump's administration reflects fascist tendencies, particularly through its use of xenophobia, authoritarian governance, and attacks on democratic institutions.

Gleeson explores the overlap between Trump's populism and fascist ideology, focusing on his nationalist rhetoric and authoritarian tendencies.

Berlet analyzes Trump's personality and political style, arguing that they align with authoritarian and fascist patterns observed in historical contexts.

Ly.n0m (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That is original research. You are providing primary sources showing opinions of various scholars, assuming because you have provided ten of them that they represent academic consensus, asking us to interpret them to mean that Trump is far right and assuming that this label can apply to the entire party. TFD (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

While Cas Mudde is one of the most significant scholars in the field of political extremism and his opinion is likely due in the right page, TFD is correct that we cannot jump from Mudde calling Trump far-right to calling Trumpism far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment I take no position on this discussion, because I'm frankly tired of the debates resulting from these types of discussions. But I do have a link that Trump has de facto reduced congressional Republicans to rubber stamps.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/trump-republicans-congress-power.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion: characterizing the Republican Party as nationalist in this new age

Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage ; The World Trump Wants: American Power in the New Age of Nationalism

My ban on editing the article expires tomorrow, on March 18, 2025. Anyway, I've spent time reading sources and I am asking for feedback on characterizing Trump and the Republican Party's turn as emblematic of a new age of nationalism. Per the source, Trump fits in with other nationalist leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and Narendra Modi of India. These leaders espouse different ideologies and positions, but all are nationalist strongmen who have supported territorial expansion, espouse nationalism and have cults of personalities, and express disdain for the prior Post-Cold War international order.

• "In the two decades that followed the Cold War’s end, globalism gained ground over nationalism. Simultaneously, the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks—institutional, financial, and technological—overshadowed the role of the individual in politics. But in the early 2010s, a profound shift began. By learning to harness the tools of this century, a cadre of charismatic figures revived the archetypes of the previous one: the strong leader, the great nation, the proud civilization."
• "Trump and comparable tribunes of national greatness are now setting the global agenda. They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums. They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule. Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging."
• "But today, a major war rages in Europe, the Middle East is in disarray, and the old international system is in tatters. A confluence of factors might lead to disaster: the further erosion of rules and borders, the collision of disparate national-greatness enterprises supercharged by erratic leaders and by rapid-fire communication on social media, and the mounting desperation of medium-sized and smaller states, which resent the unchecked prerogatives of the great powers and feel imperiled by the consequences of international anarchy. A catastrophe is more likely to erupt in Ukraine than in Taiwan or the Middle East because the potential for world war and for nuclear war is greatest in Ukraine."

Fundamentally, my argument is that I want to include content about the Republican Party's transformation fits in with the international context, as that of this new age of nationalist strongmen operating with 21st century technology, espousing irredentism and expansionism, and claiming to represent their nations. And some of them are winning popular elections--Trump, Modi, and Erdogan have won the popular vote in elections. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Okay, so what changes would you like to make in the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I added some content to the "Factions" page on right-wing populism. International trends matter, like in the 1980s it was neoliberalism with Reagan and Thatcher, and in the 2010s and 2020s it seems to be right-wing populist and nationalist leaders. This isn't just an American phenomenon, and the international context with RS (i.e. "The strange death of the center-right," "The world Trump wants," and "Why the Maga mindset is different") are all useful. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"a major war rages in Europe, the Middle East is in disarray" So, what is new about that? The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and has lasted for 11 years with no end in sight. The Middle East has been in non-stop disarray since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, and I rather doubt that I will live long enough to see the end of that set of conflicts. The Americans have truly accomplished their mission of destabilizing the region. George W. Bush was not lying. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The point of the article is that globalization and neoliberalism have passed the point of no return, and the post-Cold War order from around 1990 to the 2010s is dead. Foreign Affairs is about international events and leaders. Events including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2021–2023 inflation surge, and the Gaza War are all points of no return (see side-note on wars). There is no going back to the pre-2020 world, and many of its prior political positions.

Donald Trump is merely one of a group of nationalist leaders that have arisen since the 2010s, and the source helps explain common characteristics of these leaders. Trump's victory was part of the global 2024 anti-incumbent wave.

• Some of these nationalist leaders have been popularly elected, and defy the conventional idea that authoritarian-inclined leaders cannot win majority/plurality support. Trump won the popular vote in 2024, Erdogan won a majority of the popular vote in the 2023 Turkish presidential election, and Modi's party has won the most seats in the Indian parliament since 2014.
• My favorite example of how American democracy has apparently gone haywire is that despite Harris losing the popular vote by a close 48.3-49.8% to Trump, all 50 states and DC shifted rightward from 2020 to 2024, for the first time since 1972 to 1976 (Nixon's landslide victory to Carter's narrow win) It's most likely simply due to inflation, but still see the link.

Side-note: The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest and deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II, while the Gaza war is the deadliest war in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Link: https://abcnews.go.com/538/americas-swing-2024-wide-deep/story?id=116639076 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800: John my friend, can you please just calm down? Your proposals are not concise, and few enjoy reading the blocks of text that you post on this page. Just calm down, and when you have a serious proposal, bring it forward in a succinct manner. Also, remember the policy on original research. Stop trying to synthesize information: just follow what most reliable sources say and let's go with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Remove "Centrism" from the list of ideologies

I'm not aware of any current members of the Republican party that would fit the definition of "centrist". I propose that either centrism be removed, or changed to center-right. Joejoe1864 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. Any ideology needs strong academic sourcing. A single news source is insufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Cortador (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: It has extremely weak sourcing, and some other sources contradict it too EarthDude (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It lacks adequate sourcing, and we have lots of sources saying that centrism in the GOP has declined or is almost entirely gone. There are still moderate or centrist members of the Republican Party, particularly at the state level (i.e. Phil Scott of Vermont). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 For the latter point, 'centrist' or 'centre-right' deserves to be mentioned as a faction. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. The current source is a single news article. Carlp941 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed centrism for now since this isn't a formal RfC, and there's no indication at all for a consensus to keep it. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

There are definitely a strong amount of moderate republicans in the party, it was ridiculous that the centrist faction was removed when it accounts for 10-20% of the party Brandon4433 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Move to centre-right; there are plenty of reliable sources to back this, some of which I have provided elsewhere on this talk page. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus – robertsky (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

---

• Republican Party (United States) → Republican Party
• Republican Party → Republican Party (disambiguation)

– This is by far the primary meaning of this concept, globally, and should be swapped with the current disambig (the latter should be at Republican Party (disambiguation)). No other Republican Party is near the importance of the US, and nearly all mentions of this term refer to the American party. See similar RM at Talk:Democratic Party (United States). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Do Americans not get international news? Moxy🍁 06:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Because there are already other political parties with this name,"Republican Party" is too ambiguous. Quinnly (talk)

Support--I agree with the proposal. The US Republican Party these days gets enormous attention around the world. Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Support – go on all you want about Americentricism, but the fact remains that this is by far the primary topic by views, long-term significance, and that Piotrus only beat me to the RM by a few days. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

normally I'd object on Americentrism grounds but I'm not seeing any other major parties with this name. lean support. But given that you copy pasted this one to the Democratic Party without documentation to support it, I'm inclined to believe you have done the same here. Please substantiate your claims. lean oppose. Carlp941 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose In fact this is too Americentric as a quick perusal of the sheer number of republcan parties around the world demonstrates. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose because this is Americentric and there are many other parties with the name around the world. The American Republican Party may be extremely old and well-known, but is not the only important party with the name. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The sheer number of parties of this name cast doubt on whether any of them is primary. Beware of US-centric bias, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose because this proposal is very biased towards the United States and does not reflect the worldview unless there is some evidence I'm not aware of that clearly supports the idea this proposal presents. ZergTwo (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support, yes, there are many Republican Parties around the world, but when people say Republican Party these days, it is usually referring to the USA's Republican Party.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You are repeating the same argument the original posted stated, including the lack of evidence. Show us the proof. ZergTwo (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The mere presence of more than 2 other Republican parties, especially the ~80 other parties with the same or similar names, necessitates the specification that this is the Republican Party of the USA. Regardless of what is currently being mentioned prominently in USAmerican news, there are, in fact, other Republican Parties. Quickiepedia User (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose: This is grossly US-centric. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not an american encyclopedia. EarthDude (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment/weak support: maybe we should consider moving Republican Party to Republican Party (disambiguation) and making "Republican Party" a primary redirect to this page. Very valuable points are made in this RM already; a compromise like this wouldn't be the worst idea. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  What??? This is not a compromise. This is literally exactly what the rfc is about. It doesn't address the issue of this rfc being completely US-centric at all EarthDude (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Incredibly generic name. RM is extremely US-centric with no evidence yet provided proving claim of exclusive relevance globally. Zinderboff (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Generic name. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong opose this is not the U.S. Wikipedia, and this party is hardly republicanist, nor part of a republicanist movement -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence for the claims made by OP has been provided. Even if the GOP is the best-known party called "Republican Party", the term refers to so many other entities that keeping "United States" is justified. Lastly, the article title is already as short and concise as it gets; there's no need to shorten it further. Cortador (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose no America Alone policy here in Wikipedia! Dozens of significant & major Republican Parties can be found throughout the globe, so it's not of course WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ahammed Saad (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose; too America-centric. There are other notable 'Republican' parties, such as in France. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose, there are many republican parties internationally. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, for all the similarly named parties across the world, is there at least evidence to prove such a bold claim? DankJae 13:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Republican Party" and "Republicans" are not commonly used, in English-language media by a clear large margin, to refer to the US party outside of the US. Yue🌙 02:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose for all the above opposition reasons. Alexander vee (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2025 (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.

Include centre-right or moderate faction under 'Ideology'?

I apologise to add to the endless discussions again, but should 'Center-right politics' be included in the list of factional ideologies in the infobox? Will Thorpe (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Will Thorpe (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Support; easily meets source requirements and is discussed both on this page and on the factions page. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

N.b. the provided sources could be updated with more recent ones quite easily. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we should remove factional ideologies from the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Soft support/comment, I'd prefer a different label be used for the ideology of the party's moderate faction, such as moderate conservatism or liberal conservatism or something similar. Of course these would need to be backed up by sources as well, but I generally don't like positions being listed as ideologies in a party infobox. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Just thought of a different potential ideology to describe the moderate republicans, bipartisanship, which I know for sure from some previous discussions is well-sourced, would just need to track down said sources should the label be added. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Does that even count as an ideology? Bipartisanism is just willingness to achieve political compromises, instead of having any particular ideological goal. For example, I have often heard people accusing Barack Obama of constantly seeking bipartisan solutions and never setting any clear goals for his party. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose See the related RfC EarthDude (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose have any of you who want to add support even watch the news or open the TV lately? How are the tarrifs and anything that Trump is doing so far center right? Nobody in the Republican Party is opposing his tarrifs or what is doing. If you meant far right should be added yea that would make more sense. JBlade73 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on abortion I have already a full topic about it which has been forgotten JBlade73 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Natalism, anti abortion and anti women's rights

Far right should be seriously discussed and included, because these issues, are serious reasons for authoritarian and fascistic characteristics and thinking which mark the policy of the Republican party.

Firstly, natalism has been criticized on human-rights and environmental grounds. Some reproductive rights advocates and environmentalists see natalism as a driver of reproductive injustice, population growth, and ecological overshoot. In politics, journalists have linked the pronatalist movement with far-right eugenics: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/04/first-thing-us-pro-birth-conferences-links-to-far-right-eugenicists-revealed https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/28/natalism-conference-austin-00150338 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/03/r-word-right-wing-rise

Secondly, criminalization of abortion in many states ruled by republican senators, a clear trait of authoritarian, fascistic thinking and anti women's rights: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/executive-summary https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-sweeping-consequences-of-the-far-rights-plan-to-effectuate-a-backdoor-national-abortion-ban-in-project-2025/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/trump-project-2025-abortion-rights-inauguration/

Elon Musk, Donald Trump and many other republicans have been very supportive of them. JBlade73 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support adding Right-wing authoritarianism to the list of ideologies, and changing the political position to read "right wing to far-right". Joejoe1864 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose for now. Neither of those sources directly states criminalizing abortion is a clear trait of authoritarian, fascistic thinking and anti women's rights, nor the Republican Party endorse far-right eugenics. Furthermore, far-right politics is a form of right-wing politics, so mentioning the former would be redundant. For such a controversial topic, material that will likely be controversial must be verified by many reliable sources, which the websites you used do not. In addition, WP:NPOV must be treated with special care in this article, which adding far-right as a political position of the Republican Party is not. Unless there is compelling evidence and arguments that justify this proposal, such a change would diminish the quality of the article.

Note: strikethrough an argument I raised to discourage future arguments from criticizing that argument. ZergTwo (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You can go look up on the Natalism page the same arguments are given. The sources are very valid, I don't know what are you talking about. How is making abortion a crime not authoritarian? You clearly didn't read any of the articles. It is literally against women's right I clearly mentioned women's right in my title. Abortion was legal in Texas, Alabama and many other states ruled by republican senators before how is that not a change? Abortion is a right it is enshrined in U.N human rights declaration https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/

how is that not authoritarian and fascistic it clearly goes against U.N and human rights only dictatorships support such behaviors. No other real democracy has made abortion illegal it is unprecedented. Only dictatorships do that.

Your argument was clearly done in very bad faith and I hope it isn't taken seriously by anyone. JBlade73 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is about including far-right as a political position of the Republican Party, as you stated in the first paragraph of the opening post. However, the post I am addressing, which is written by you, does not. Therefore, there is nothing worth criticizing that post because it does not address the proposal raised here. I will also strike the "criminalizing abortion" argument of my vote to dissuade further replies from addressing that argument. Also, please assume good faith. ZergTwo (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? That Joejoe1864's argument and mine to include right wing authoritarianism is not far right? I gave very valid arguments for why all I said is right wing authoritarianism. Right wing authoritarianism is far right there is no discussion about that. You want to argue that right wing authoritarianism is not far right or what? How is all I mentioned not authoritarian? Even you acknowledged yourself when I mentioned criminalizing abortion and women's rights and so on. Or you don't know what natalism means? You can go here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism#:~:text=Natalism%20(also%20called%20pronatalism%20or,and%20therefore%20advocates%20high%20birthrate if you don't understand what I am talking about. JBlade73 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I've stated before, with supporting reasons, that adding far-right as a political position of the Republican Party is a net negative for the article.

Natalism is not the subject of this proposal. Please stop mentioning it. Additionally, your argument also appears to mostly reason that right wing authoritarianism is far right, which is not the proposal of discussion. Also, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process because your edits could discourage future participants from engaging in this discussion. If you choose to respond to this post, please stick to the topic at hand—your proposal to include far-right as a political position of the Republican Party—and be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. If you don't, it would be a waste of my time to continue discussing with you. ZergTwo (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So you are asking me if I want to include far right? Or if my argument is to include far right? I literally started with the word far right. Or you want to say what I said is not far right? I really don't understand what you are trying to say? I said far right should be disscused and included? How is that not a discussion about far right? JBlade73 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing that the Republican Party should be labelled as far-right instead of right-wing? ZergTwo (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No I said that far right should be included. Right wing to far right means inclusion of far right. I don't know if it should be strictly far right but I said far right should be included and I leave up to the mods how far right should be included just that JBlade73 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

So you want the Republican Party to also be described as far-right? ZergTwo (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I clearly said that. JBlade73 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a right-wing to far right party for comparison Party for Freedom. 1101 (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea and? What you want to say? JBlade73 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump has supported UKIP and Fidesz and met with both of the leaders of the parties Orban and Farage and both are right wing to far right JBlade73 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like Britannica references "Trump’s far-right social positions and outspoken hostility toward immigrants", and given Trump has been the leader of the Republican party for years at this point, I think right-wing to far-right would be a fair analysis. But, unfortunately, we'll want a change like this, which may be viewed as controversial, to be well-sourced, and involve no opinion or own analysis, if that makes sense. 1101 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea I know it is very crazy this has been going on since last year. Every mod seems afraid to change it how it should be and you are right and everyone who said right wing to far right is the most correct position. Like I don't know why wikipedia is afraid like it would face backlash or something. Like who is going to backlash against them? The republicans? They hate Wikipedia. Elon musk hates Wikipedia. Republicans hate education, Republicans hate educated people, they hate smart people etc. It is no coincidence that educated people are more progressive like republicans don't stay on Wikipedia or anything related to education. They are defunding and terroizing the education system and you expect them to care about being knowledged. Yeah good luck with that and I am not even biased here it is just proven facts. I have given information without even showing a grain on bias. This have been proven and researched for years. So I don't understand how the information I have given and many other people have given are not enough. Like where is the bias in the sources I don't get it? Like everything is biased now? Even information which is very obvious? JBlade73 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You might want to check out the references in this section: Factions in the Republican Party (United States) § Trumpists. 1101 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The thing you brought up has been brought up here before and was deleted. So yea.... Wikipedia is very scared and they know far right should be included but they just don't want to. JBlade73 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

"pronatalist movement with far-right eugenics" I don't get this. First, natalism is not solely achieved by banning abortions. Look for example at the natalist policies of the Soviet Union: "the Soviet government switched to neo-traditionalism, promoting family values and sobriety, banning abortions and making divorces harder to obtain, advancing natalist ideals that made mockery of irresponsible parents." The Republicans are not promoting family values, and have not legislated anything about divorces. As for eugenics, the preferred solution for traditional eugenics was the forced sterilization for sections of the population which they deemed "undesirable", such as "black women in the South and Latina women in the Southwest". The American supporters of this ideology were not advocating for an increase in the birth rates, they just wanted to "curb the population rise of non-white citizens." Since Oregon ended its forced sterilization program back in 1981, no U. S. state has been particularly eager to resume the sterilization of their "undesirables". Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Say that to him https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Black_(white_supremacist)

He is republican you clearly didn't read any of the articles and what republicans Trump and Musk will want. Abortion was legal in Texas too before but now isn't. Your argument is not valid JBlade73 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Lol yea giving Soviet Union as argument which was dictatorship yea please come up with better arguments before talking ok? Thanks JBlade73 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A left wing dictatorship that is. Like you know the difference between left wing or right wing? How was Soviet Union a right wing dictatorship? Can you tell me? JBlade73 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I give up numerous evidence and valid sources from trustworthy sources such as Southern Poverty Law and they have studied and researched Project 2025 which Trump and republicans want to enact how is Project 2025 not far right? I like that Wikipedia deleted the Project 2025 argument too. JBlade73 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

This should be added too

While its American practice was ostensibly about improving genetic quality, it has been argued that eugenics was more about preserving the position of the dominant groups in the population. Scholarly research has determined that people who found themselves targets of the eugenics movement were those who were seen as unfit for society—the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, and specific communities of color—and a disproportionate number of those who fell victim to eugenicists' sterilization initiatives were women who were identified as African American, Asian American, or Native American. As a result, the United States' eugenics movement is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to demographic and population changes, as well as concerns over the economy and social well-being, rather than scientific genetics.

Far-right politics, often termed right-wing extremism, encompasses a range of ideologies that are marked by radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra-nationalism, and nativism

Nativism is part of far right/right wing authoritarianism

Nativism is on republican party agenda I gave numerous sources for it. JBlade73 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Like this guy ZergTwo started coming and saying strong oppose but all his argument were bad he even crossed some of his arguments because he didn't know what he was talking about and now he asked me if I want to include far right and he said absolutely nothing afterwards like what is this? You come and talk and argue and then say nothing after I destroy your arguments like what? JBlade73 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

People need to sleep. Anyway, your behavior is disruptive, your tone is aggressive, and you are continuing to bludgeon this discussion. Most of your comments do not address the topic you are proposing. If you do not stop this disruptive behavior, you may be blocked from editing. ZergTwo (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok do it then block me let's see how that helps JBlade73 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No my friend you are the one who did not address the topic you literally crossed your argument about abortion and criminalization of it. The cope is very hard in your words JBlade73 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

People have seen everything here they know let's see how good it makes it look when you will block me and threaten me. You literally are threatening me with block because I debate my own topic? And I am the one aggressive yea JBlade73 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose without adequate sourcing and consensus. The article mentions how the Republican Party generally opposes abortion. For what it's worth, opposition to abortion is strongest among White evangelicals.

Link: https://www.nationhoodlab.org/abortions-regional-divide/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Then by your logic Christian right should be removed too JBlade73 (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing against stating that the Republican Party opposes abortion and reproductive rights in general. But what I do not support is labelling the Republican Party as authoritarian and fascist without adequate sourcing and consensus.

See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. Particularly, it appears you want to "Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue," but that is simply not the purpose of Wikipedia.

One other thing is that the number of legal abortions went up after the Dobbs decision, not down. Long story short, it appears pregnant women are able travel to states where abortion is legal.

Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807017663/?bestFormat=true&k=after%20dobbs%20how%20the%20supreme%20court%20ended%20roe%20but%20not%20abortion&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k1_1_11&crid=2YSZIDM22QPMQ&sprefix=after%20dobbs JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes because Republicans don't have control over all states that should be pretty obivous. We are specifically talking about areas dominated or controlled by Republicans. But like I said there are a lot of members in that party who think otherwise. Do you understand now? I even gave numerous information about it. Like January 6 United States Capitol attack obvious signs of attack against democracy and so on perpetuated by Trump and his "followers" and I also gave a list of active white supremacists and neo Nazis like Don Black which are members of the Republican Party. Like what exactly are you trying to say? That Democrat's senators having autonomy over their states is a counterargument against right wing authoritarianism which is present in Republican Party, Republican States and is obviously wanted to be implemented by the Republicans? Btw even in obviously authoritarian states like China and Russia people can leave and go wherever they want I don't understand what you trying to say by that. I think you are confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism? Fascism doesn't necessarily have to be totalitarian, Fascist Spain was authoritarian not totalitarian. JBlade73 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've edited a lot of pages, including the page on Totalitarianism, where I personally labelled with sourcing Francisco Franco's rule of Spain (1936-1975) as totalitarian with sources.

Anyway, abortion and reproductive rights aren't even close to the top of voters' priorities, even among female voters or 2024 Harris voters. Roughly half of the weighted sample of this poll are Harris voters and women.

The top priorities for voters are mostly related to the economy, not social issues.

• The top priorities for voters in order are: inflation/prices (25%), jobs and the economy (12%), health care (12%), taxes and government spending (8%), civil rights (7%), climate change and the environment (6%), national security (6%), civil liberties (4%), education (4%), crime (3%), abortion (3%), guns (2%), foreign policy (1%), and criminal justice reform (0%).

Link: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_Uo7FRzc.pdf ; See page 33, Question 5 cross-tabs JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Is Fascist Spain considered totalitarian on Wikipedia? It doesn't matter what you said if it isn't consensus on it. Why are you changing the subject? We weren't talking about Harris and democrats voters??? What are you talking about. Please stay on topic. JBlade73 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible AI-generated

We keep getting alert after alert for possible AI-generated contact over the past week or so. This should be investigated. Moxy🍁 00:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ZergTwo (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: How should we frame the Republican Party's complete reversal on international trade?

In the span of a single decade, Donald Trump has turned the international trade order from free trade to one harkening back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, with reportedly average U.S. tariffs on goods at 22% after today's announcement.

A decade ago, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership free trade agreements were being negotiated. Today, April 2, 2025, Donald Trump announced 10% baseline tariffs on all countries, and varying "reciprocal tariffs" on some countries. Donald Trump has destroyed the international trade order that presidents Reagan and both Bushes had supported.

I've tried to incorporate this into the lead, but I think there's room to improve it. I cannot overstate how large this shift is on economic issues.

Link: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/04/03/trump-takes-americas-trade-policies-back-to-the-19th-century Link: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/04/02/business/trump-tariffs-liberation-day JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You should not add your personal opinions to the lead. Trump has introduced tariffs, he says, in order to get other countries to drop theirs. If true, that means he supports free trade. OTOH, some analysts believe the tariffs are meant to fund his tax cuts. Furthermore, Trump is not the Republican Party.

This is an encyclopedic article, not a newspaper. The reasons for current events may not be known for some time, if ever. We don't have to update the article for everything Trump says or does. TFD (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree Trump never rejected neoliberalism he literally copied the slogan of Reagan (M.A.G.A). Reagan also put tarrifs and nobody is calling him anti free trade. He literally is the pinnacle of neoliberalism JBlade73 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @JBlade73 I found the perfect way to describe Trump's economic policies--mercantilism. The Mercantilism article literally explains Trump's goals. Trump's obsession with imposing tariffs, reducing trade deficits, wanting everything manufactured in the United States, transactional approaches with other countries, etc. are all textbook mercantilism.

• Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade.
• The concept aims to reduce a possible current account deficit or reach a current account surplus, and it includes measures aimed at accumulating monetary reserves by a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods.
• Mercantilism promotes government regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting and bolstering state power at the expense of rival national powers. High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, were almost universally a feature of mercantilist policy. Before it fell into decline, mercantilism was dominant in modernized parts of Europe and some areas in Africa from the 16th to the 19th centuries, a period of proto-industrialization.

Long story short, Trump is trying to impose the global economic order that prevailed from roughly the 16th to 19th centuries back. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of sources portray the policies of Trump and Biden as mercantilism. But before saying the two parties are now mercantilist, you would need sources. Also, one substantial difference is that the U.S. does not have and cannot have extensive colonial possessions. TFD (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces In the past two days, all the major stock market indices (Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite) have crashed at least 10% as a result of Trump's mercantilist policies, namely his "Liberation Day" speech and "reciprocal tariffs." Trump is unfazed, because his goal isn't the stock market, but rather enacting mercantilism and ending American trade deficits.

Donald Trump's tariff policies aren't geared to help rich people, they're geared to satisfy his belief shared by his supporters that free trade, neoliberalism, and trade deficits are bad. Trump was able to win the Rust Belt swing states running on his tariff policies, not promoting conservative economic orthodoxy about cutting taxes for rich people and the wonders of free trade and neoliberalism. What other Republicans and the Democrats failed to understand is that White voters without college degrees fundamentally resent neoliberalism and free trade, because it has largely failed to benefit them. It's a fundamentally different economic mindset, one that is nationalist, anti-immigration, and pro-tariffs.

Link for stock market: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

Source for Trump: https://www.ft.com/content/ed994477-a23a-4f48-9019-917b5dc51041 ; Trump’s aggressive push to roll back globalization

Source for nationalism: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No reasonable analysts seriously believe that Trump's motivation is helping working class white people at the expense of big business. But you have ignored my two points: (1) Biden was also accused of mercantilism and (2) you cannot generalize from Trump to the party without reliable sources that do that. TFD (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Not having a college degree does not mean one is "working class," as you can for example be retired and not have a college degree. Anyway, Trump's voters are fundamentally resentful of the social and economic status quo, and have a parochial mindset. They want illegal immigrants deported, free trade eviscerated, tariffs placed on all imports, don't care about intergovernmental organizations (i.e. World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, NATO, etc.), etc.

In Trump's 2nd term, Trump is unbound and determined to exact the agenda he and his base want. Trump's voters in the Rust Belt fundamentally resent free trade, and got a President who wants globalization torn apart and burned to the ground, replaced by a halcyon age of mercantilism. This is fundamentally a different mindset, not rooted in helping the "working class" but attacking cosmopolitanism and liberalism, including on economic issues. Trump has used the term "globalist" as a pejorative for a reason.

Quote:

• "They are self-styled strongmen who place little stock in rules-based systems, alliances, or multinational forums. They embrace the once and future glory of the countries they govern, asserting an almost mystical mandate for their rule. Although their programs can involve radical change, their political strategies rely on strains of conservatism, appealing over the heads of liberal, urban, cosmopolitan elites to constituencies animated by a hunger for tradition and a desire for belonging."

The World Trump Wants: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/world-trump-wants-michael-kimmage

Trump’s aggressive push to roll back globalisation: https://www.ft.com/content/ed994477-a23a-4f48-9019-917b5dc51041 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

And how is that mercantilism? You probably meant protectionism or autarky and in that case if you really want to propose your topic seriously, Republican party should be right wing to far right or far right which you seem to reject. You can't propose what you said without adding or support the change of the ideology from "right wing" to "right wing to far right" or far right JBlade73 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@JBlade73

I'm open to including "right wing to far-right", the problem with that is a discussion of RS and consensus would need to be reached to include it in the info-box.

Protectionism is part of mercantilism, and autarky is more extreme than mercantilism. Autarky would be entirely shutting down international trade with the United States, which Trump hasn't done so far. The entire point of mercantilism is to reduce trade deficits, as Trump wants, and as the article states "High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, were almost universally a feature of mercantilist policy."

This link is behind a paywall, but here are relevant quotes:

• "But the series of shock decisions — not just the rhetoric — from Trump, vice-president JD Vance and Elon Musk are less brain-bendingly inexplicable once you realise this: their version of America is operating on an entirely different set of values from the rest of the western world."
• "Usually, analysis is done at national level, but by drilling down to different political parties in the latest raw data, I find that on everything from attitudes towards international co-operation, to appetite for an autocratic leadership style, through to trust in institutions and inward- vs outward-looking mindset, Trump’s America is a stark outlier from western Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. In many cases, the Maga mindset is much closer to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey."
• "A government seemingly driven by zero-sum ideology and a commitment to reducing international co-operation is one whose threats of a trade war you should probably take seriously despite possible economic self-harm. Likewise, a leadership team that believes geopolitics is a game of cards played by strong men and great powers is one whose support and co- operation other countries should quickly build independence from."

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/3046013f-da85-4987-92a5-4a9e3008a9e1 ; Why the Maga mindset is different JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh interesting I didn't even know protectionism is part of mercantilism interesting. Yes because I saying that in Europe parties which support protectionism are right wing to far right and far right such as Marine Le Pen National Rally she is a big supporter of protectionism. Now looking back at it kinda makes sense what you are saying since in UK Farage is pro imperialism and he would definitely want British Empire restoration if he had full control and British Empire was mercantilist. JBlade73 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

But also being a mercantilist means you engage in wars. So far Trump didn't engage in any wars maybe in the future we might consider it fully mercantilist if he does something like that. Like he is still a neoliberal by his economic policy. Like I don't think this trade tarrifs right now are enough cause to call him mercantilist. Like maybe a pre mercantilist phase? Like it isn't fully mercantilist for now. Like only partially JBlade73 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Like he has on Gaza for quite some time which if he truly does take control over Gaza like he said before, it would be definitely enough to call him mercantilist. JBlade73 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

JA1800, I think TFD is correct here. We don't know if Trump is doing this because he wants high tariffs long term or as a bargaining ploy to get others to lower theirs. We should be careful looking at the short term and presuming a long term goal, especially without clear sourcing to say as much. It really would be best if we waited to include this with a clear historical analysis, not bits and pieces provided by sources who aren't taking a zoomed out view. Springee (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ideology

"Trumpism" should be added to ideology 169.224.2.231 (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

See the footnote next to populism. — Czello ^(music) 10:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2025

change Right-wing to Far-right in ideology Spikedog9 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Note: All Republican party members are not always Far-Right, and I believe changing it will result in some debates... "Right-wing" implies all right sides. Thanks, Valorrr (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing you say makes any sense. So you think right wing to far right means majority of people are far right or what? Also what other right wing sides? There are no other than that. Center right and centrism doesn't exist in the Republican Party anymore. There has been given way too much information and clear analysis and facts so far for right wing to far right but none for the others not a single article nothing to support that Republicans are center right anymore. I have given 6 articles for far right and they haven't been taken seriously but apparently center right is takes serious with zero sources. This is just bias at this point from some people here JBlade73 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong support there have been given more arguments so far on here on this topic for "right wing to far right" than any other political spectrum. It is just the natural ideology of the Republicans for sure. JBlade73 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@JBlade73 I'm willing to consider adding it, though I would need to see reliable source labelling the party as such before doing so myself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong support with Trumpism as the majority position of the party and Trumpism being considered right-wing to far-right, it makes sense to label the party as Right-wing to far-right. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2025 (2)

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.

---

To protect this page from political bias, the Republican party position should be Center-right to Right-wing. It is unfair to label it as strictly right-wing as the political party is followed by anyone that leans politically right. Donjrmoder (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Note: All Republican party members are not always Center-Right, and I believe changing it will result in some debates... "Right-wing" implies all right sides. Thanks, Valorrr (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is center right in the Republican Party anymore so I don't know what you want to say by that. No right wing doesn't imply all right sides. It should definitely be right wing to far right. JBlade73 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong. Republican Governance Group has 41 republican seats out of 220 and its political position is centre to centre-right. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yea? Then why was centrism removed from ideology then? Centrism was removed last month.

How can you be centrist and center right and support tarrifs strong borders and so on. If that was the case they would have stepped up against Trump's policy which doesn't seem to happen. JBlade73 (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Some democrats support strong borders, and Obama expelled a lot of undcumented immigrants, and you woulld not describe this ass right wing. So a part of the republicans are centre right, a nd a minor part centrist. Biden was supported by a lot of politicians clearly more left wing than him. Borders and tariffs do not define something as right wing. Some republican do not buy all the Trump tariff stuff. A lot of classical liberals in europe were nationalist and protectionist, so these things doesn´t define political position. 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

would* 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

as*not ass, sorry 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can edit your original comment to correct spelling/grammar rather than posting addendums. — Czello ^(music) 17:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you but i don´t know how 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I´m not a native english speaker. I don´t know a lot of words, so sorry 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

and* republicans* Sorry I didn´t see well the tenses. 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah no sources or evidence to back anything you will get far with that bud. I don't understand anything you say either JBlade73 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

By your logic that all parties which include all right wing sides AFD should be considered right wing too and not far right JBlade73 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump in Truth Social congratulated and aligned with the german christian democracy, that is not far right, and called it the conservative party. 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yea no evidence or sources as argument right there bud. You will get far with your arguments for sure. That is why Elon Musk funded and supported AFD and got mad when they lost no? JBlade73 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following the logic here. You are saying that labeling a party right-wing is inaccurate when it includes everyone on the right. That makes no sense. If it includes both the far right and the center right, how is it incorrect to call the whole thing right-wing? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are not following any logic then it means your argument makes no sense. Case closed JBlade73 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you actually understand English? Because I'm not sure why you are directing this at me. I was obviously asking for an explanation because the original post makes no sense. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking explanation by rebuffing all my arguments. Yea nice one bud. Yes mister call center middle easterner I know English. JBlade73 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the evidence provided in your response here, no, you don't. Come back when you've taken a few remedial English classes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

You can go to India or the Middle East if you want. It won't get you any closer to me. And you just keep demonstrating exactly how poor your command of the language is. And exactly how much of a racist douchebag you are.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yea like you aren't racist saying that I don't know English and mocking my English right? Funny cuz you are not from Anglosphere either. We didn't communicate properly from the get go bud. You have zero evidence or proof to back your claims which I did in several of the topics here and you come and insult me and expect something different? JBlade73 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You will note that it was you who attacked my English first. I was asking someone else to clarify their statement when you butted in. Also, where in the hell are you getting the idea that I am from the Middle East? I've been on this site for many years and have made no secret of the fact that I am from North Carolina. Are you perhaps confused by my user name? It's a made up word from a comic book. As for the restrictions, I expect that your case is being taken to the proper venue right now. Your last post here about "your kind" and "your religion and culture" is absolute proof of your racism. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Where the f##k I attacked your English ????? Where I said your English is bad where???? Where I mocked your English understanding where??? You are form US for no reason it doesn't seem like you understand your own language and you are of middle eastern origins it is obvious. JBlade73 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Umm, the very first sentence you typed to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

????????? JBlade73 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

"I'm not following the logic here. You are saying that labeling a party right-wing is inaccurate when it includes everyone on the right. That makes no sense. If it includes both the far right and the center right, how is it incorrect to call the whole thing right-wing? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 8:23 am, Today (UTC−4) If you are not following any logic then it means your argument makes no sense. Case closed JBlade73 (talk) 12:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2025

The article is too long please condens it! 76.33.223.20 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

please condense it! 76.33.223.20 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Put again (re-add) centre (center) right to right wing

The republican governance group and a part of the republican study committee are clearly labeled as centre-right or even centrist (the first). Also centrism should be re-added as a faction ideology. 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment The only person in charge of the federal government these days is Trump. Trump commands congressional Republicans, and they basically let him do whatever he wants. Last week, he enacted tariffs on almost every country and crashed the stock market, and there was no opposition from congressional Republicans. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

But tariff do not define something as left wing or right wing 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In Argentina my country tariffs are supported by left wing kirchneristas 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You are mixing policies with ideology. The more left wing democrats accepted Biden policies, but they have a different ideology 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump has raised American tariffs to the highest rates in the world, crowned by a 104% tariff rate on China. These rates are so high I made Trump's "reciprocal tariff" chart the lead photo of mercantilism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose , none of the members of the republican governance group are doing anything to oppose the extremist actions taken by Trump. In order to fit the definition of centrist, you should oppose extremism on either side. Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment No Republican from any faction in Congress is doing anything meaningful to oppose Trump's actions. Trump only stopped his "reciprocal tariff" policy because Wall Street, both financial CEOs and the stock & bond markets, opposed Trump's plan since it would have crashed the global economy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Right-wing politics includes all positions on the right side of the political spectrum, so listing center-right would be redundant. ZergTwo (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: I'm trying to describe Trump's tariff agenda, need help

I'm really not sure how to describe Trump's tariff agenda, and while it almost perfectly fits the definition of mercantilism, I'm having trouble fitting them in context. These tariffs are a massive policy change, and I'm trying to figure out if they reflect a Republican realignment among Trump at least to help his base, particularly the "working class" voters in the Rust Belt who gave him the presidency.

Here are the facts I've been reading.

• Per RS, Trump's tariff agenda is popular among Republican voters but not among Democrats, economists, and even many business organizations, executives, and financial markets.
• I'm not sure who exactly benefits from these tariffs, and RS vary. They hurt businesses who import foreign goods, who have to pay them to U.S. customs; they likely increase prices on those goods paid by consumers. In fact, they hurt the largest businesses the most, particularly those with global supply chains.
• Trump is enacting tariffs because he believes that trade deficits are bad, believes that tariffs will help American manufacturing, and wants to collect tax revenue.

These tariffs are genuinely puzzling, because they are popular with Republican voters and Trump campaigned on them in 2024, while they are opposed by business organizations, executives, and financial markets. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Sorry, I can't be of help. But perhaps you would weigh in on the discussion I just opened below? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Actually, I am going to weigh in on this a little. I just read the paragraphs under Economic policies and Mercantilism and, particularly with the latter, they are too much about Trump. This is an article on the party as a whole and should reflect its historic position. If you have reliable sources that make a good argument that the party's positions have changed recently, that should also be added. But discussion that describes Trump's actions exclusively is unbalanced. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert on tariff support (Axiom poll)

As requested, I'm opening this for discussion. The original statement, "Polling has shown that Republican voters support Trump's tariffs, while Democratic voters do not" is inaccurate and does not reflect the Axios source content. It reads like tariff support or opposition are defining features of the two parties, whereas there is actually mixed support on both sides. I edited it to read, "Polling has shown that Republican voters overwhelmingly support Trump's tariffs, while Democratic voters generally do not"; DarkNipples objected and has accused the edit of violating WP policies ( WP:PLAG, WP:NEWSSTYLE, MOS:PUFFERY, WP:VOICE). I've attempted to resolve this with DN on the user's Talk page, but they will not discuss further there. Based on DN's latest edit, it doesn't appear they have reviewed the source material, and have attributed an inaccurate and unnecessary quote. Is my intention to return the statement to my original edit. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Would the two of you agree to this compromise sentence? ==> "Polling has shown that Republican voters support Trump's tariffs, while Democratic voters generally do not."

Note that the Axios poll is specifically about President Trump's tariffs, not an historical analysis of polls taken over time. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Markworthen Thanks for the input. I still find that misleading because not all Republicans support these tariffs. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And yet you want it to say: "Polling has shown that Republican voters overwhelmingly support Trump's tariffs." You contradict yourself. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Markworthen More or less—it doesn't have to be that specific word, but that is the language from the source. Is there a problem with that language? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want because you are saying contradictory things. I support what DarkNipples has written. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Markworthen What DN has written violates WP:QUOTE. How can you support it? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Markworthen Sorry—where is the contradiction? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the source provided. When adding the information, we should use a source that explains its relevance. Is it unusual for a party's voters to support its policies? TFD (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces This is why I don't understand why I'm getting pushback on my edit. I'm not suggesting anything that's contrary to Republican or Democratic policies. It's not accurate to state "Republicans support tariffs" because it's not universally true. I honestly don't understand the nature of the complaint, whether others think there's not enough support to describe it as "overwhelmingly" supportive or if there's so much support that others think the opposition shouldn't even be considered. (Note that support among Republicans for tariffs on Canada is only 57%.) Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The text is original research and biased. For example, "Tariffs are taxes on foreign imports...Donald Trump is a mercantilist..." It's assigning motivation to Trump based on the personal opinions of editors. It also lacks context in that Joe Biden kept Trump's tariffs from his first presidency. TFD (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces You're responding to the wrong section. This discussion is strictly about the Axiom poll. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The poll was about the tariffs. I realize that the narrow question was whether to use in text or in line citations, but it begs the question whether it should be mentioned at all. TFD (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Fair point. Have you looked at the topic immediately preceding this one? JohnAdams1800 is asking for help on the tariffs discussion. I do think these first sections under Political Positions need help. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)