Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Seeing as Democratic Party and Republican Party have actually only a few links to them, unless anyone objects within the next few days, I want to make them redirects to Democratic Party (disambiguation), and Republican Party (disambiguation) respectively (or just move the disambig pages there). I've posted this message at talk pages for both the US Dems and Reps, please continue it at Talk:United States Democratic Party. Comments welcomed... Morwen 00:40, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Party Ideology

Speaking of POV, thanks to Radicalsubversiv for getting rid of that paragraph of POV drivel that was posted anonymously on June 13th. That cracked me up, I wonder if the author could have possibly thought that (s)he was actually posting non-biased, appropriate info. I'm pretty new here, I suppose those of you who watch and maintain articles like this (and the various Republican articles) have to deal with partisan vandalism a lot, huh? Since I got a good laugh from what that user posted, I wanted to post it here to see if anyone else wanted to chuckle at it with me. - Eisnel 04:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Today its primary belief is in state socialism heavily tempered by state capitalist beliefs along with some anti-nationalist, anti-religious, and pro-environmental tendencies. They favor control of the government by two parties, that way they can have somebody to blame when things go wrong. It enjoys block votes from gays, teachers, African-Americans, immigrants, welfare recipients, members of mass media, NAACP members, environmentalists, abortion supporters, labor union leaders, and people who hate Republicans.

However, that user did seem notice something that seems to be missing: This article doesn't have any section that attempts to explain the various political stances taken by the Democratic Party. Rather, you have to dig through the "History" section to find that stuff. In the History section, the paragraph that starts with "The Democratic Leadership Council organized by..." makes an attempt to sum up some of the party's political stances, and isn't really about history. I think that paragraph could be moved out of History and used to start a new section describing some of the issues that the Democratic Party (as a whole) takes a stance on. It wouldn't have to go into depth about those, since it could tend to get biased, but rather it could provide a bunch of links to articles about those issues, allowing readers to springboard from here to articles about welfare, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, etc.

Astonishing, really, that there is practically nothing about the ideological progression of the party. This whole article needs padding out.

Vincent-D

I would simply point out that it is difficult in the United States to trace ideological progression of either political party as a whole, if only because both parties represent such a wide spectrum of views. While there are national platforms, and certainly there is an ideological history of both parties as a whole, even elected officials are free to establish their own beliefs which contradict these platforms. For example, there are many pro-choice Republicans and many pro-life Democrats. --Xinoph 16:19, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

This is true up to a point. Certainly, until well into the 20th century, both parties were relatively lacking a coherent binding ideology; but this does not mean that either party attracted specific beliefs either the economy or social issues before that time. We are told in the article, for instance, that Southern Democrats during the time of the ACW were dogged supporters of slavery - well, there is more in terms of the issues in the 19th century Democratic Party than that.

Even so, there is practically nothing on the more ideological character of the party since the 50's - Why?

Vincent-D

Party History/Relationship to Jefferson

As I have understood the issue after several years as a Political Science major, I believe the modern Democratic Party is generally considered not to be a direct descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party, as presented in this article. Instead, the modern Democratic Party is considered to have been founded after the Civil War. This is why the Republican Party is often referred to as G.O.P. - this stands for Grand Old Party. I'd love some other comments on this. --Xinoph 16:07, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully (and as an American poli sci major myself), I have no idea what you're talking about. What the article says is accurate -- the Democratic Party is a direct descendant of the Jacksonian faction of the Democratic-Republican Party. I don't think anybody really knows how the Republicans got to be the GOP. RadicalSubversiv E 17:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Did some research. We're both kinda right and kinda wrong. First of all, certainly people "really know" where the term came from: G.O.P. was created by the 19th century media, and has stood for various things over the years - it started out as Gallant Old Party. Both parties trace their official heritage back to the Democratic-Republican Party; the Democratic Party literally arose from a faction of the party, while the Republican Party merely drew their principles from another faction of it. So technically neither party is a direct descendant of the whole party, but both were certainly inspired by it, one more logistically and one more philosophically. After doing this bit of research, it's probably a more technical issue that is better off just being dropped. Sorry I brought it up.--Xinoph 23:11, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

What is a party in the United States?: Organization and role of DNC

Please see comments on Talk:United States Republican Party about party chairs and the term "leader." I'm not reverting it here because it's not totally inaccurate, but it needs clarification. -- Radicalsubversiv 03:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am also deeply concerned, again as a Political Science major, that Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee simply redirect to the pages for the Democratic and Republican parties. In the U.S., unlike in many countries, national political parties are not really this highly centralized - the National Committees are not really governing bodies, per se, but organizational bodies (see the talk page of the Republican Party for more on the leader/chairman issue). --Xinoph 16:06, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I was responsible for raising that on the Republican talk page, when there phrasing which didn't mention the national committee, but simply that "McAuliffe/Gillespie is the leader of the party." IMHO, the best solution to all of this is an article on the structure of American political parties which explains the role of the various campaign committee, the national committee, the legislative caucuses, etc. RadicalSubversiv E 17:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

It's on my "To Do" list. :-) --Xinoph 23:11, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I gave it a go here -- Politics_of_the_United_States#Organization_of_American_Political_Parties Acsenray 14:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DFL and NPL

IIRC correctly,

However there are two states that have slightly different names, for example the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.

is out of date, DFL having finally dropped the FL in the last 10 years, probably last 5. I'll confirm this eventually & fix, if no one w/ a more active interest in MN does so. The history could still be reflected in this article, IMO, and has national significance, tho not yet reflected in the MN DFL article; i've addressed this on that talk. (DNPL should perhaps also be checked.) --Jerzy(t) 20:23, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Nope. Follow the "official site" links from both articles -- FL and NPL are still there. RadicalSubversiv E 21:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I heard something, but it looks far-fetched that it's what i thot i heard! I may pursue a little further, but IMO the article is fine on that. [blush] --Jerzy(t) 22:46, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

As a native of the region I can assure you they are still referred to as the DFL and the Dem-NPL. --Alexwcovington 04:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Donkey symbol

I think the donkey has been adopted in some form, notice the DNC logo on the webpage has a bucking donkey next to it... - Aaron Hill 05:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know where the line between "official" and "unofficial" lies in such a case, because, as discussion above reflects, there is no real central party organization that has the power to make a symbol "official." It seems the DNC has certainly adopted it. However, for example, in Indiana, the ballots still display the Republican eagle and Democratic rooster instead of the elephant and donkey. (Indiana might be one of the few states that still uses party symbols on ballots.) To that extent, anyway, the rooster seems to be the "official" symbol in Indiana. I wish there were someone who knew more about this. Acsenray 20:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

On 1870 January 15 a political cartoon appearing in Harper's Weekly titled "A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion" by Thomas Nast, for the first time symbolized the Democratic Party as a donkey. Since then, the donkey has been widely used a symbol of the party, though unlike the Republican elephant, the donkey has never been officially adopted as the party's logo.

This claims the donkey symbol came into use as a result of the cartoon, whereas the reference at [1] claims it had been in use since the 1830s, and that Nast only built on it. Perhaps this stems from confusion about the Democratic-Republican party?

This page [2] (apparently an official DNC website) links it to Andrew Jackson in 1828. Jason 18:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, one would assume an 1870 magazine publication is public domain by now, and the image available for this article. Whether to include it may depend on the resolution of the above. - toh

-- Removed this, "(Missourians are said to be stubborn; it is the "'Show me' State")". pamri 04:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Democratic-Republican" vs. "Republican"

I can understand using the anachronistic "Democratic-Republican" for the sake of convenience (even when "Republican" is technically the correct term) for the party founded by Jefferson. However, in an article that describes the history of the party, I believe it's essential to make the actual evolution of the terminology absolutely clear. In actual history, there was no "Democratic-Republican Party" until Jackson, and in an article giving the history of the development of the party founded by Jackson, I think we ought to be precise regarding the terminology. Acsenray 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm one of those who prefer to extend the use of Dem-Rep to the Jeff Reps. I concede the point, however, that's it best to use the contemporary term when discussing the history, perhaps with a disclaimer noting that today the Jeff Reps are called by another name and not directly connected to the modern GOP. Khanartist 19:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see you took my advice before I gave it :). I support the changes. Khanartist 19:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How notable is notable?

I might cross-post this to the Rep article, since it applies there as well. I'm fairly well-versed in American history, but I have to admit that some of the historically notables here had me stumped. Obviously, if we have no criteria for this, the list is wide open and we could conceivably fill pages with unknown Democratic mayors and state represenatives and governors. I'm just happy that Lyndon LaRouche hasn't been thrown in yet. - Anonymous

I suggest the following criteria for "other currently notable" Democrats: 1. They should have been nationally prominent at some point. This standard should be interpreted narrowly, to make inclusion on the list fairly exclusive. 2. They should still be active in politics - if not they should go to the historicaly notable list. 3. They should not be duplicated on any of the three other lists. The word "other" implies that this is a catchall for persons who don't belong on the other lists.

Comments? Schmeitgeist 14:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Question... I just edited the Clinton P. Anderson Article, and I am about to fix the wiki link here on this page. However, does Anderson really belong in the former notable Democrats section? I'll let you guys decide this, because I am not a Democrat and I have no business deciding who Democrats think is notable in their history, but I am glad a New Mexican is on there. :) Thank you! YourNickname 02:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What!?

WHY was this moved? No discussion (That I can see; is there something going on in some Wikiproject somewhere?), no nothing, on a major and timely page. There is no reason to break the standard now. I'm bringing this up elsewhere if this isn't justified very soon. --Golbez 03:01, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Why was what moved? What are you talking about? Acsenray 16:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because it was moved back in the 5 days between my comment and your's. Check the history for User:Puca's last edit. He took it upon himself to declare the party name to actually be the Democrat Party, so he moved the page to United States Democrat Party. An odd little crusade. --Golbez 16:59, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Very strange. Acsenray 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Led by Bill Clinton, the Democrats championed a balanced federal budget

This statement is inaccurate, as it was the Republican Party which championed the balanced federal budget in the 1990s. This was part of the 1994 Contract With America.

No, it's not. Clinton ran on a balanced budget in '92 and began pursuing it early in his administration. That the Republicans did the same in '94 is irrelevant. RadicalSubversiv E 19:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Democratic" vs. "Democrat"

I think it's worth noting that Republicans are much more likely to use the form "Democrat party" as opposed to "Democratic party," whatever the proper NPOV language for this might be. Acsenray 16:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's seen as a term of abuse, though. It should, perhaps, be noted that Republicans say that, but not as though this is a proper alternative name for the party. john k 19:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's my point. Originally, I had noted that the form "Democrat" is often seen as derogatory, but someone changed it. I thought, perhaps, because my wording was seen as NPOV. My point is that "Democrat" is more likely to be used when dissing the party Acsenray 21:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The party itself names it the Democratic Party, so why is there a discussion. --Gangulf 18:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The point is that people will hear the form "Democrat Party" quite often. I think it makes sense to note that usage and its subtext. Acsenray 14:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, they will not, especially in the press, which never uses this bizarre form. This is a minor footnote at best, and seeing as how no one provides any citations above, I'm adjusting the language in the article to reflect reality. RadicalSubversiv E 17:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I'll accept the current version. However, I think if you pay attention to Republican speeches, you'll find that the Republicans habitually use "Democrat Party" more often than "Democratic Party." I seem to recall that this was intentional, starting sometime in the 1980s. Acsenray 14:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See, for example, this article: [3]:

The Republican congressman beamed as his face filled the television screen. "Well of course we expect to heal the wounds brought on by the last election with our Democrat Party colleagues." I almost popped a rivet. "The proper and official name is 'Democratic Party.' A person is a Democrat but votes Democratic!" I intoned in my mind. For years, very conservative Republicans have used the term "Democrat Party," instead of the correct name, certainly without bothering to ask anyone's permission, and now it has gained wide acceptance in their ranks, even among their few remaining moderates. Some supposedly neutral media people have also begun to use this wrong designation.

And here[4]:

This is a subtle tactic, but over time, it will diminish Mr. Bush. Look at what the change from "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party" has done to the tone of the dialog. Republicans, not Democrats, understand that language really counts."

A quick Google of "Democrat Party" shows extensive use on Republican blogs. The point is that "Democrat Party" is something that most people are going to hear (especially from the mouths of Republicans) and I think the issue is worth a little bit of explanation in the article. Acsenray 14:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not just "Democrat Party". Republicans generally tend to use "Democrat" as both a noun (which is correct) and an adjective (which is incorrect). You'll hear phrases like "Democrat proposals" from Republicans. During the primaries, one of the Democratic candidates' debates was hosted on Fox; Fox, being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, used an on-screen title in the Republican style, something like "Democrat Presidential Debate". JamesMLane 18:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Democrats for Bush

Should we really include a link to a site which hasn't been updated in so long that it continues to claim that Rodney Alexander is a Democrat? john k 21:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Naming Style

Regarding the reverts by Radical Subversive -- I'm not going to revert here, but I do want to point out that the naming convention applies to article titles. In this case, the proper links to "commonly known" names were all there. All I did was add more complete names for display purposes, e.g., "Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill," instead of just "Tip O'Neill." I don't think this detracts from understanding (especially since the link is still to "Tip O'Neill") and may, in fact, be slightly more informative. If the general preference is to keep the article with the names they way they are, then I accept that, but I argue that it's not a matter of violating the Wiki naming convention. Acsenray 14:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) Also, when there are two Adlai Stevensons in the list, it seems to make sense to me to specify "Adlai E. Stevenson I" for the vice president and "Adlai E. Stevenson II" for the presidential candidate. Acsenray 15:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the example cited above could in fact detract from understanding at first glance; in other cases, your changes absolutely made the matter less clear (e.g., changing Dick Gephardt to Richard Gephardt). Either way, I think Wikipedia:Proper names makes the matter fairly clear, but even if you disagree, I think you'll see that widespread practice is to use the most common name as a link. This might be a good matter for an RFC to clear up. (Oh, and your point on Adlai Stevenson is well-taken.) RadicalSubversiv E 17:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(today, this party is usually referred to as the "Democratic-Republican Party" for the sake of convenience; but such usage is anachronistic)."

Can one say that something is usually referred TODAY as something and then state that the name is anachronistic? I'd recommend changing it.

Why couldn't one say it? It's perfectly true and it's not self-contradicting. Unless you're arguing that it's redundant. In that case, I'd say it's just more clear the way it is. Acsenray 20:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right.

Move?

Why was this page moved without any discussion? This seems like a clear issue where this should have been brought up on the talk page several days before any action was undertaken. What's the deal? john k 08:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would agree. That having been said, I think the "United States <blank> Party" convention is an odd one, which goes against all other naming practice. Regardless, this ought to be resolved as a matter of policy, so we can be consistent one way or the other. RadicalSubversiv E 18:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), Whig Party (United States), &c., except in cases where the country is included in the name of the party, like Socialist Party of America. john k 18:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right now it seems we have United States Democratic Party and Republican Party (United States), which is clearly wrong. I agree with resolving it as a matter of policy and being consistent. The names that have been in most common use, and therefore have the most links to them, are United States Democratic Party and United States Republican Party, so I'd favor going with those names rather than redoing numerous links. There's no deviation from other naming practices that troubles me enough to outweigh my inclination toward laziness. JamesMLane 18:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the need to redo the links? Can't we just use redirects? RadicalSubversiv E 20:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you see the naming conventions in general we should use the official name Democratic Party and because there are more Democratic Parties, it would result in Democratic Party (United States) --Gangulf 18:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. We should favor natural titles (without parenthesis) over unnatural ones (with parenthesis). Neutrality^talk 17:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

If that's the case, you're talking about a Wikipedia-wide policy change, because using parentheses is the standard practice for disambiguating article titles. RadicalSubversiv E 22:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are there any further comments, or can this page be renamed to fit with the others? RadicalSubversiv E 03:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've renamed it from United States Democratic Party to Democratic Party (United States). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, why was this page moved back? The consensus on the talk page seems to have been in favor of the Democratic Party (United States) form. john k 06:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it back. My best guess is that Neutrality missed this discussion and noticed the article title had changed. I've left him a message pointing here. RadicalSubversiv E 09:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Objections to changes by Libertas and Old Right

• Oversimplified history pinning the entirety of American racism on the Democratic Party does not belong in the lead of this article, which already accurately discusses the Democrats' Civil War-era position.

• This is part utter nonsense and part sheer POV: "Led by President Bill Clinton, the Democrats implemented Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich's proposals for a balanced federal budget, welfare-to-work reforms and job growth." Clinton started pushing for a balanced budget almost as soon as he was elected. The welfare reform bill he signed was a consensus version (and it should not be referred to as "welfare to work" without placing the term in quotes). And everyone in politics believes their proposals will lead to job growth; the only NPOV thing to be said on the matter is that many jobs were created during the Clinton years, which Clinton takes credit for and Republicans object.

• Characterizing Nader voters as "extremists" is POV.

RadicalSubversiv E 09:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, the statement about racism by Libertas and Old Right was overly broad and had a drastic POV conclusion. To simply say that the pre-Civil War Democrats supported slavery is untrue; the party as a whole was trying to protect a voter base that spanned North and South, and was therefore reluctant to take any firm, party-wide position on an issue that would definitely alienate one half of its voters. So the their national platform's only position on slavery was that of compromise (see Wilmot Proviso, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act). The Whig party was actually destroyed by being internally split on the slavery issue. The Democrats had their own split on the issue, and the newly formed Republicans, who had taken a definite pro-North stance on the issue, managed to win the Presidential election with no support from the South. Even though the Republicans were no friends of slavery (neither were many Northern Democrats), almost everyone at that time was a racist, and there was no support for equal rights, so it certainly wasn't just the Democrats that were oppressing African Americans after the Civil War. For a long time the South was the Democratic base, and that area was certainly much more opposed to desegregation that the North. But we mustn't forget that the pro-segregationist Southern Democrats later jumped ship and joined the Republican party. It's a complicated story, so saying that the Democratic party has been a key oppressor of black people is ignorant of many facts, including the fact that for much of the country's history all white people were oppressors of black people. Kudos to the people that caught and removed those POV remarks. - Eisnel 10:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factions

I suspect the new factions section may be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about the factions section in the GOP article, but it probably ought to exist. However, much of the initial content was wildly inaccurate. Two of the "factions" name are not, in fact, factions in any meaningful sense. "New England liberals" do not have an agenda or a leadership that is distinct from other elements of the party, and most of the people mentioned would not even cop to the term. "Moveon.org" is not even officially a Democratic; it is a unique kind of player in American politics, but it is just one organization, without any kind of presence in Congress or in party organizations, so I can't fathom calling it a faction. "Neo-conservatives" is controversial even when applied to Republicans, but it's downright inaccurate when applied to most Democrats (many neo-conservatives were originally Democrats allied with Scoop Jackson, but that's another story). You might be able to get away with calling Joe Lieberman a foreign policy neocon, but he's not on domestic policy, and I can't think of a single other example. RadicalSubversiv E 23:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The factions section is difficult, I agree with your changes. It isn't disruptive though to point out the different groups, it's just there are so many and they are very fluid. Same problem arises on the Republicans. I think New England liberals is definitely a group, in fact liberals generally are as well. Plus DNC leadership, based around McAuliffe and his staff. Plus the feminists and the ambition faction (the biggest) and the gratitude faction (the smallest)... Plus I think people from rural areas tend to have the same interests. There seem to be many factions unlisted. Moveon I think is clearly Democratic, clearly a faction operating within the party as faction is defined. Does it support Republicans? Maybe Rudy. Maybe not. I thought Lieberman qualified as a neo-con according to its proper definition also. I won't change your change except for Moveon which I think qualifies. Could you think about it and see if it qualifies. I think it might. Salazar 05:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With the number of Progressive groups trying to make a difference in the Democratic Party all around the country, I believe it is time to put in a Progressive faction on the list. Any suggestions on how to do this? Chadlupkes 23:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dislike the current state of the factions section -- it is the opinion of amateurs and not based on anything reliable. There is a recent study [5] that broke the parties into factions, commissioned by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This would be a good foundation for describing "factions". AdamRetchless 13:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree with you about the current state of the section, but I don't think the link you're providing helps much, as it's not so much about factions within the leadership of the party as it is about different demographic groups in the Democratic electoral coalition. As for Chad's comment, virtually everyone in the Democratic Party describes themselves as "progressive" -- I think more specificity is needed. RadicalSubversiv E 14:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To OlliePlatt

Here, I'll make it easy for you. You click this link: [6]. Then you scroll down to where it says, "Click here to read Strong At Home, Respected in the World -- The Democratic Platform for America." Click on it. You will see the Democratic Party's complete platform. Every issue I list is discussed in the platform in nauseating detail. There's my source.

I downloaded the platform. I read it. There is no such list in the platform. Cite a specific source to each issue and I'll accept it. Otherwise, I won't. You are required to cite sources not point to documents in a very general way and assert that supports your claims. You need to cite specifically where it lists the "signature issues" you refer to. It doesn't so I think you'll find this difficult.

You made it up most probably, which is "original research" of the kind JK Rowling produces.

Ollieplatt 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean that I "made it up?" If its mentioned in the freaking official platform of the party, a platform, I might add, that is only updated every four years, then it is an issue that said party intends to focus on. Use the higher functions of your brain, for God's sake! And I don't really need your permission to put the list up, do I? I'll just keep putting it back up every time you take it down.

Signature Issues?

Signature issues is a cliche. The list that follows it is partisan POV. The anonymous user is repeatedly reinserting with no source. He points to the DNC platform which mentions no such thing. Where in the platform does the list appear?

Ollieplatt 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no physical list is no reason that a thinking human could not infer that those are, in fact, the issues that the party focuses most on. The fact is that the party platform goes into incredible details about each of those issues and they campaign on them regularly. They're signature issues, and you seem to be the only one who disagrees with that. --12.217.127.27

He's given a source, the platform page. Just because he has summarized it does not mean it is not a source or a legitimate list. OlliePlatt, why don't you give us your summary of the platform issues according to their page and we can see if we can get somewhere? What part of his list do you dispute? What parts do you think are in difference from the platform page? At the moment, you are looking like a stubborn vandal. --Fastfission 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Summarizing a lengthy document is not original research. I do continue to have the concern, relating to the articles about both parties, that simply summarizing their platforms is not an accurate way to represent the party's political positions. Both platforms make no mention, or delicately dance around, a variety of subjects that the parties have a clear and consistent position on, but which they don't want to talk about. RadicalSubversiv E 04:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a childish revert war being played out. I suggest the list stay providing the page numbers indicating support for these concepts be provided. I question whether it is a useful or accurate summation of their views, which is why referring to the platform itself solves that. Radical says that he has summarized the platform, I don't think that's right. I am hopeful there can be a solution. Salazar 04:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Platform and the list

There is one mention of the word union. It is a reference to Iraq. Accordingly, it is removed. Salazar 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please search again, there is a whole passage about domestic unions. Might as well quote it since it's a stinky PDF: Standing up for workers. We will ensure that the right to organize a union exists in the real world, not just on paper, because that's how we create more jobs that can support families. That means reforming our labor laws to protect the rights of workers (including public employees) to bargain contracts and organize on a level playing field without interference. It also means barring the permanent replacement of legal strikers. And we will of course reverse this Administration's cuts in wages for working people by restoring overtime protections for hard-working Americans. We will strengthen health and safety protections as well. p. 24 Rhobite 05:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are four references to civil rights. It stays. Salazar 05:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no reference progressive taxes. In fact only one reference to tax at all. Salazar 05:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gun control. I was surprised about this but here's the direct quote:

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

So I've put a more accurate summary of the Democrats position which is pro-gun but anti assault weapon. Salazar 05:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Reproductive rights stays. Salazar 05:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting you, because I object to this entire exercise. The paragraph is accurate, and reflects long-standing and well-established Democratic policies, which are reflected in various ways in the platform (Rhobite has already demonstrated this on the labor unions front). Individual phrases may or may not be used for political reasons, but that doesn't justify removing them from the paragraph. RadicalSubversiv E 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The list is promotional in nature and should be referenced, this is difficult because it's a pdf but I think it is important to do. Can you wait and see how it turns out before reverting. Each one can be considered separately. And probably should be.

They are all complicated. However, "gun control" is not right really when the first word in the DNC platform is their support for the folks to have guns under a constitutional amendment which to my mind says no such thing. I don't think that means gun control. That's just my POV though. I would rather reflect the platform as an irrefutable source. Salazar 05:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this issue needs to be worked out in detail. All the better then for individual edits not to be made at this time, but discussed here until it's resolved. Khanartist 05:32, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Nothing here is irrefutable. The official platform is a good jumping off point to explain the unofficial policies of each party, which can wildly differ from those stated. But the official platform doesn't represent what most people see as the actual goals of the party. Rhobite 05:36, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversive, yes discuss the issues.

Gun Control - Democrats actually support the right-wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment. "Right to bear arms". I was surprised. Am I wrong?

Progressive taxes - Middle class tax cuts. There's a difference. One is spin, the other from the platform.

Labor unions - Rhobite was right about that. I didn't search it properly.

I haven't finished going through the list but am happy to wait while the above are resolved. Salazar 05:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've giving up on dealing with this for the moment, but Salazar's latest changes are totally unacceptable. First off, as we've been through about 80 times, the Democrats were divided over slavery at the time of the Civil War -- the dividing line between the two parties was the expansion of slavery into new territory. Second, the paragraph about political principles has been muddled to disbelief. The issue here isn't what all Democrats support (hint: almost nothing, including the platform), the issue is what policies the majority of the party has a clear record on. RadicalSubversiv E 06:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Radicalsubversiv about slavery. With regard to the list, the discussion seems to be darting around among different concepts. One might try to do any of these lists:

• What's in the platform
• Which platform issues the party emphasizes
• Which platform issues command the greatest support among Democrats
• Which platform issues most clearly distinguish Democrats from Republicans (it's not particularly informative to say, of either major party, that it's against terrorism)
• Which issues are most strongly identified with the party in the eyes of the general public

I think that identifying the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans would be the most useful to the reader, but any of these would be OK if properly described. (For that matter, we could include more than one of them.) I don't know exactly what's intended by "signature issues" but I agree that it's hackneyed and I add that the phrase is too vague to be useful. JamesMLane 08:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The word "minimal" is inapropriate. Democrats generally support the use of social welfare but there is no kind of consensus on how much and what kind. Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform bill and favored workfare, that is true. But every single candidate for the presidential nomination last year came out in favor of expanding welfare. Howard Dean and John Kerry talked about raising the minimum wage and creating a system that would give all those uninsured the same health coverage as members of Congress. Many Democrats, with Dennis Kucinich leading the charge, said that they did not go far enough, and proposed creating a living wage and instituting a Canadian-style system of universal health care. Even Joe Lieberman declared that some kind of universal health coverage should be sought. So, you see, the minimalist faction is but one sliver of a party that overwhelmingly supports welfare in some quantity or other. --12.217.127.27

Labor Unions

The point of not including the mob-affiliated thing isn't so much that it's a slur on labor unions - which it is, since it suggests that a significant enough proportion of labor unions are mob-affiliated as to warrant the qualification (as far as I am aware, no national unions have demonstrable ties to organized crimes - obviously there are so many locals across the country that there are going to be some). The point is more that this distinction is completely unimportant. Democrats support labor unions as an idea, and they support the right to organize. At least, they do as a general rule, and their platform details that support. Republicans are generally much more unfriendly to labor rights (as the current NLRB, for instance, has shown). Whether or not a few mob-affiliated construction unions in New York have ties to the Republicans is irrelevant to the basic question. In any event, that's more a case of unions supporting republicans than it is of republicans supporting unions. john k 22:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This is a non-issue, simply because it's so patently false. Democrats are very big into unions, it's true, but many, many famous Democrats have made their names as racketbusters. Robert F. Kennedy, for example, made his name as chief counsel for the McClellan Commission, the whole purpose of which was to root out and get rid of Mafia-influence of organized labor. Moreover, after becoming attorney general, Kennedy became famous for relentlessly pursuing members of organized crime, particularly Jimmy Hoffa, the famous boss of the Teamsters Union. Estes Kefauver, the 1956 vice presidential nominee, made his name chairing the Kefauver Commission which first introduced most of America to the threat of organized crime, even as J. Edgar Hoover, a Republican, I might add, was claiming that no such thing existed. Even Rudy Giuliani got into the act. He first made a name for himself as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. During his tenure, he became most famous as a racketbuster. At the time, he was a registered Democrat. So what's all this crap about Democrats letting unions connected to organized crime slide? --12.217.127.27

• Although I agree with the substance of 12...'s graf, I believe he's misunderstood the issue. The users who are inserting the OC references are not accusing Dems of letting OC-influenced unions slide, but claiming that the Dems do not associate with such organizations. This is true, but irrelevant to the article. The phrasing is, I believe, merely a Trojan horse in order to insert damaging implications into this entry. Khanartist 01:48, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

The point of the entry is this: there are good and bad labor unions. Many are to this day, riddled with organized crime. This is not my POV, unfortunately, it's just the way it is. Do some research and you will see in New Jersy and New York this is the case right now. Do a google search. Even Google News! Do that and come back to me if you can't find anything.

The point is that Kennedy and others have opposed gangster labor unions. I question whether any person ever did more than RFK to attack organized crime. I believe my entry far from being a "Trojan Horse" is a positive to the article. Many labor unions are associated with organized crime and I thought it an important distinction to clarify. Many more labor unions are honest and that's the point worth making. It's a valid clarification and important. Ollieplatt 06:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. Certainly organized crime penetrates certain unions (although, again, no internationals that I am aware of are at this point associated with organized crime - not even the Teamsters). But this is irrelevant. The reason that Democrats have opposed corrupt labor unions is because they're corrupt, not because they're labor unions. Democrats and Republicans both oppose organized crime. This is irrelevant to the question of labor unions, especially considering that the influence of organized crime on labor unions is almost certainly at an all time low. Democrats support labor unions in that they support unionization rights; and they support labor unions in that the AFL-CIO and other labor unions are a major part of the Democratic coalition. That a small number of locals have mob ties, and that Democrats have often attacked mob-run labor unions, is not of such tremendous importance as to require that the statement that democrats support labor unions needs to be qualified. john k 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of that, but why does that support deleting the clarification. Organized crime has been a strong feature of labor union activity in the United States and should clarified from the legitimate labor unions. It is tremendously important in the context of saying the first thing Democrats support is labor unions, which is probably misleading anyway. The reference is a crucial qualifier. Ollieplatt 11:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether organized crime has targeted labor unions. The issue is whether we can find consensus language to describe the position of the Democratic Party so that the article can be unprotected. Following John Kenney's suggestion, I phrased the point in terms of workers' right to organize, so no reader could think it means that Demcorats support everything all labor unions ever do. Does anyone have a problem with the current wording (in the protected version)? JamesMLane 11:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find the current phrasing excellent. The "it shouldn't be first because it implies that Democrats support it above all else" line of reasoning is specious, but harmless. Khanartist 12:59, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

I would welcome language that clarifies the Democratic Party's disavowal of organized crime, something quite recent to them. Ollieplatt 09:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to go most logically in the "History" section. Using some of the material from the anon above and some from Jimmy Hoffa, how about something like:

Because of the traditional importance of labor unions in the New Deal coalition, Democrats were especially concerned with resisting attempts by organized crime to infiltrate and control unions. Robert F. Kennedy, for example, made his name as chief counsel for the McClellan Commission, which sought to find and remove Mafia influence on organized labor. Moreover, after becoming Attorney General, Kennedy became famous for relentlessly pursuing members of organized crime, particularly Jimmy Hoffa, the famous boss of the Teamsters Union. When Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded John F. Kennedy as President, he continued this policy. In 1967, during the Johnson administration, Hoffa was convicted of attempted bribery of a grand juror and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. In 1971, however, Republican President Richard Nixon commuted his sentence.

Of course, there's more that could be said, perhaps a mention of Kefauver, but this is a start. JamesMLane 12:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logo at Top

Someone change the filename of that thing... it's in a directory called /ad/, so (most) Firefox Adblock users can't see a thing.-Grick 06:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

Is the Democratic party any more Liberal (in the international sense) than the Republican party? Or is it important to mention this anyway, even if both could be reasonably described as liberal according to that definition?--Pharos 03:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. It would be best described as generally liberal, since the vast majority of the grassroots members fall into that group. There are some conservatives left, but most have left for the Republican party, which is definitely conservative.

Really, this whole business of adding ideological labels to the major American political parties is highly dubious. The parties are closer to big-tent coalitions than most of their international peers. While the Republican Party has become more uniformly conservative in recent decades (though even there we see distinctions between neocons, paleocons, libertarians, as well as various regional distinctions), the Democratic Party has become even more the party of "everyone who's not a Republican". By European standards, the party includes people who would generally be described as social democrats, Greens, liberals, democratic socialists, among other things. The only reasonably accurate and NPOV way I can think to describe that it is to provide an ideological range of left-wing to centrist. (Note that such a label would not be an accurate description of the Republican Party, in which true centrists are essentially anomalies.) RadicalSubversiv E 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I generally meant that the Democratic Party could be reasonably described by Liberalism in the United States, which has a somewhat different meaning than Liberalism generally (not everyone working on this page seems to realize this). Of course US liberalism, is in some ways about as broad as social democracy, green tendencies, plain-vanilla liberalism etc.--Pharos 07:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fascism project

(Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages; besides, it's just a talk page]])

I will withhold my own commentary for now and see what happens. See also Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Fascism project.

Please read WP:POINT. Meelar (talk) 03:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

WTF? If you're looking for an answer, it's NO. --Revolución (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we have permission to remove this crap as it's spam? --Revolución (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If the answer's a flat no, then so be it. The origin of the question comes from discussion on Talk:Kuomintang and Neo-Fascism#From_the_Right. Stlemur 23:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The answer's a no. --Revolución (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course the answer is no. john k 23:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

How preposterous. The Democratic party can be described as many things. Ideological, overzealous, stubborn as a mule, passionate to the extreme, but not facist by any stretch of the imagination. The obvious answer here is NO!!Tetragrammaton 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"tempering capitalism"

I'm reverting Old Right's inclusion of "tempering capitalism with state socialism" and just "tempering capitalism with" because it's unnecessarily pov. By any stretch of the imagination, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support a totally capitalist society. Things would be very different if they did. However, saying that the Dems feel the need to temper capitalism with something, especially socialism, is needlessly pov - we say exactly what they support directly after. I don't think we need to slap labels on it, especially if those labels don't really fit. No offense, Old Right. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)