Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Corporatism as political ideology?

Corporate special interests, lobbying, subsidies and general corporatism seem to be a trade mark of this party.

Look no further than the Trump Admin's Goldman Sachs connections--69.172.150.61 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

69.172.150.61, if you have reliable sources that support your contention, please provide them. Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss. SunCrow (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Should I mention that the current GOP Party platform supports protectionism

Should I mention that the current GOP Party platform supports protectionism with citations? It's unfair to say the GOP supports free trade in the lede when their party platform says otherwise. Nashhinton (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

GOP's successful gutting of the IRS belongs in the article

Basic stuff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The ridiculous sentence that Snooganssnoogans wants included in the article reads as follows:

By 2018, the Internal Revenue Service, which Republicans had primarily starved of resources in the past decade, had lost considerable abilities to conduct audits and to engage in large-scale investigations of tax evasion.

I have no idea whether the assertion about the impact of budget cuts upon the IRS is true or not. The concerns I have relate to the first part of the sentence. The first problem with the sentence is its wording, which is both awkward (what, exactly, does it mean to "primarily starve" a government agency?) and POV (a neutral sentence would use phrases like budget reductions or cuts, not make reference to starvation). The second problem is its accuracy. The source is a ProPublica article written in 2018, which means that the "past decade" referred to would be the period 2009-2018. The source asserts that "Republican lawmakers" were "chiefly responsible" for major recent budget cuts to the IRS. Question: Which party controlled the U.S. Senate during half the period beginning in 2009 and ending in 2018? Next question: Which party controlled the White House during the majority of that same 10-year period? Third question: Was the writer of this ProPublica article suffering from amnesia? Congress only overrode an Obama veto once, on a terrorism-related bill (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama). With the exception of budget year 2018--when the GOP controlled the White House and Congress--both parties had to sign off on federal budgets between 2009 and 2018, and both parties are "responsible" for the contents of those budgets. I don't believe the sentence is significant enough to include in the first place; however, if it's going to be included, it should be accurate, clear and neutral. SunCrow (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If only there was an article that answered your bizarre uninformed questions. Oh wait, there is one: The ProPublica article. But no, instead this content should be scrubbed because a random editor personally disagrees with the content and pretends to know more about the IRS than ProPublica which has published multiple indepth reports on the subject in the last two years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreement or disagreement is not the issue, knowledge of the inner workings of the IRS is not the issue, and whether certain Wikipedia editors with attitude problems spend too much time making snarky talk page comments instead of actually trying to improve the encyclopedia is also not the issue. Accuracy is the issue. Any American who has passed a high school-level government class and who has been awake for the past 10 years knows that no budget cuts to the IRS or anything else could have been made during the Obama administration without the approval of the (Democratic) president, unless a veto override took place. Given that there were no veto overrides on budget bills during Obama's tenure, calling the GOP "primarily responsible" for IRS budget cuts made during that time is misleading. Make the sentence accurate or leave it out of the encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You're objecting to a 100% factually correct statement that's verified by citation. Call it "ridiculous" all you like, it's a violation of NPOV to keep it out. — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Red XIV, I don't just call it ridiculous; I call it dishonest and misleading, for the reasons I explained above. SunCrow (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would further argue that the ProPublica article is unreliable and slanted. SunCrow (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

Currently, we say:

Ideology:

Majority:

• Conservatism[2]
• Social conservatism[3][4][5]
• Economic liberalism[6][7]

Factions:

• Centrism[8]
• Fiscal conservatism[9]
• Fusionism[10][11]
• Libertarianism[12]
• Neoconservatism[12]
• Paleoconservatism[13]
• Right-wing populism[14][15]
• Economic nationalism[16][17]

Political Position: Right-Wing

Is that still accurate? It's not hard to find cites to say that Right-wing populism faction has taken control away from the Economic liberalism faction.

• CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/28/heidi-heitkamp-republicans-abandoned-free-trade-to-support-trump.html
• The National Interest: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/will-conservatives-abandon-free-market-53172
• The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/republicans-economic-populist-josh-hawley
• Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/economics-is-another-field-where-republicans-reject-the-experts
• Investors.com: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/have-republicans-abandoned-the-free-market/

Analysis is made more complicated by drift in the definitions. A lot of pundits are now dividing what once would have been called 'Economic liberalism' into 'Progressive economics' and 'Conservative economics'.

Anyway. An observation.

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. One need look no further than the 2016 Republican Platform to see that "Economic Liberalism" is core to the party's public policy agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Political Position!

Every political party outside the US has political positions, and it's very US-centric to make it such a controversy as to what we're going to assign the US parties when we have just about every major party outside the US labeled.

We ought to come to some sort of consensus. To get started, we have to decide what scale we're positioning them on. If it's the US scale, then it would mean Republicans are centre-right to right-wing; However, if we want wikipedia to be an international source rather than a US-centric source, then we would have to apply international standards. If we use the EU parties as our metric, then the GOP would be somewhere around ECR and ID. That would mean right-wing to far-right. What standard do you guys believe we should use? Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.82.167 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reason why the Republican Party (along with the Democratic Party does not have a defined political position is because the controversy surrounding it is unavoidable. As politics of the United States has become polarizing these years—more than it ever was—it is no surprise that an uncountable number of Americans (and this does not even include people from all over the world) will instinctively attempt to figure out their positions. For example, everyone who identifies as a Republican or conservative may find the Democratic Party to be far-left while finding their own party to be closer to the center, whereas those who identify as being a Democrat or progressive may find the Republican Party to be far-right while finding their own party to be closer to the center. As long as politics of the United States remain divisive, I doubt that we will ever be able to form a consensus. And what do you mean by "US-centric"? I fail to see any connection between that and this controversy. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 04:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

Political Position: Right-Wing Jonathan Nightfire (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2019 (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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019

I would suggest that somewhere in the description of people who support members of the GOP, it also include " independent and critical. " Capt Ginyu (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Seriously, you would need an independent reliable source to support the addition of those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Proposal lacks source. Sdkb (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction change the first sentence from "There have been 19 Republican presidents (including incumbent president Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016), the most from any one political party." to "There have been 19 Republican presidents, the most from any one political party." because Donald Trump is now no longer an incumbent president. 80.42.128.6 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How is Trump not the incumbent? 331dot (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: closing as  Not done, per the previous comment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section on "Structure"?

The actual structure and functioning of the GOP doesn't get a mention here? I would say that it is an extremely critical oversight for this article. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Very much agreed! If you feel qualified/have the time, please WP:BEBOLD and write it! Sdkb (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Tea Party racism

A study was added saying in Wiki voice that Tea Party support was not driven by racial animosity. However, the study itself notes that other research does indeed find that racial animosity drove Tea Party support:

• "Unlike other scholarship, we find no evidence that racial animosity drives the movement"
• "Our data and research design allow us to assess the validity of two of the most contentious claims in the literature: first, that the movement is driven by racial resentment (see Arceneaux and Nicholson, 2012; Barreto et al., 2011; Parker and Barreto, 2013; Skockpol and Williamson, 2012; Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 2011)"

Thus, the findings of this one study should not be described in Wiki voice as having conclusively found that racial animosity played no role in Tea Party support. Per NPOV, we are supposed to reflect all significant viewpoints in RS, not just those that personally appeal to us. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice it describes the racism claim as “contentious”. This seems a big indication it’s not widely accepted. Regardless, actually voting these other studies would be better than saying “other research” with no indication of what that is. Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

[In response to Snooganssnoogans above] I looked again at the article on "Tea Leaves and Southern Politics" comparing two-party Republicans with all the Republicans in nine southern states and 2012, using a very large sample of N=100,000. At first glance, the tea party group was more conservative on racial issues, as other surveys have also found. However the tea party group was also older and poorer and more male, and more evangelical, more ideologically conservative, and more partisan. Each of those characteristics is connected to conservatism on racial issues. The statistical technique the authors used [multiple regression], holds all the background factors statistically constant. When that happens, the tea party Republicans and other Republicans are pretty much identical on racial issues. (The remaining differences very small and not statistically significant: the authors state "Contrary to other studies, we fail to find any linkage between Tea Party identification and our measure of racial conservatism." p. 934) The other studies did not undertake the same sort of advanced statistical analysis, which requires a very large number of cases. I will revise the text to summarize this point. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We should not, as editors, evaluate which academic sources provide the "best" evidence and scrub mention of studies which provide "weaker forms" of evidence. Rather, RS (in this case, the academic literature) should guide us in how we describe the research if RS have conflicting findings. There is nothing to substantiate that this one particular study published in SSQ (a perfectly decent journal, but not exactly the top-tier) should supersede all other research and be described in Wiki voice, whereas other research cannot be mentioned. Per NPOV, we are required to reflect the viewpoints presented in RS, not choose one over other. Here's[1] a study published in a higher impact journal, which finds that racial resentment indeed strongly predicts Tea Party support (even when controlling for other factors). Why should that not supersede the other study? My argument has simply been that the text reflect that there's a dispute between sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, I appreciate your effort to provide a balanced portrayal of the "Tea Leaves and Southern Politics" article. My question, though, is: Why does the article need to say anything about the racism or non-racism of the Tea Party in the first place? Right now, the article mentions the Tea Party, delves into its racial views, mentions Scott Brown, and moves on. The reader is left with no information about the Tea Party movement's ideas or activities. Weird. I believe that all the material on race should be removed as WP:UNDUE. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Tea Party Wikipedia page. SunCrow (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me respond here to both Snooganssnoogan and SunCrow on the matter of tea party members. This article is all about the Republican Party and it and its talk page demonstrate that that one of the most dramatic developments is the move of the white South from overwhelmingly Democratic (in 1950s) to heavily Republican (in 2010s). I think exactly WHEN it happened is one of the first questions to gain historical perspective (below the presidential level, the South was mostly Democratic before 1998--the GOP became the majority after 2000). All RS have asked how race played its role; some RS have asked what role the tea party (a national conservative movement) played in this transition. RS have also asked the role of white evangelical religion, which is national but heavily based in the South. I summarized in a few sentences a scholarly article that used tens of thousands of white Republican voters in the South in 2012--it found that the difference between the tea party element and the non-tea party element was quite small in terms of racial conservatism. Snooganssnoogan points to an article on a very different topic --it uses a 2010 national sample of 961 adults that included about 115 tea party members (of whom i'd guess 20 or 30 were southern Republicans). The data included all races, all regions, all parties, all ideologies--and ignored religion entirely. It argued that tea party members were more racially conservative than the rest of Americans. I think that's true, but it does not touch on the question of what happened to the GOP in the white South, which is what I think this article should focus on. I agree with SunCrow that the tea party information should also be in the tea party article, but since it focuses so heavily on Southern Republicans I think it also belongs here. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, I think you may have put your finger on it. Yes, there are two separate things going on. The first is the Southern Strategy, whereby the Republican Party targeted Southern racists as a deliberate mechanism to provide a long-term structural power base. The second is the Tea Party (which as far as I can tell largely a creature of Citizens United and the flood of unlimited dark money, but that's another story). The Tea Party is a libertarian movement that has significant crossover with the ideals of Southern racists: the gubmint should stop forcing me to accept things, for values of things that will include, in some or other combination, gays, blacks, interracial marriage, Muslims, abortion, birth control, sex education, evolution and more.

In the same way that social media bans on racism disproportionately affect "conservative voices", so racists are likely to be disproportionately represented among the cadre of people who believe that government has no place in civil society, because one of the things government does is stop you discriminating against people based on race. But racism is not a Tea Party ideology. The Tea Party ideology is straight-up libertarianism: reduce government to the size of a bathtub, then drown it. Guy (help!) 11:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

As of 2/5/2020 Mitt Romney is voted with the Democrats. He is no longer a Republican Knoxcano (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>BEANS X2t 13:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wanting him to not be a Republican because of his vote does not make it so- though it is disturbing that anything less than 100% loyalty results in such comments about Romney. Until Senator Romney changes his party registration, he's a Republican. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

In the last line of the History section of this page, change "charges of abuse of powerand obstruction of Congress." to "charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." JoshyBigMac (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Political Position

All other parties in America have a political position, why not the Republican Party? I see the Republican Party as a Moderate/Centrist to Far-Right. I know it may not sound good to put Far-Right, but the Democrats are Moderate to Far Left. This is just their political position. It would add consistently with other parties such as the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, and the Reform Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apha9 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Apha9, the Democratic Party page does not currently state a position on the left-to-right scale, either. As per the comments made above by GaɱingFørFuɲ on Nov. 16, it is difficult to come to a consensus on this issue for either party. SunCrow (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)#The_question_of_the_political_positions_on_the_spectrum_for_the_Democratic_Party,_and_possible_WP:OWN_violations_and_obstructionism_over_the_past_few_years}. SunCrow (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

However, you would find most independent sources describing the Republican party as having members whose social and economic politics tend to range from moderate to far right, and the Democratic party as having members whose social and economic politics tend to range from moderate to far left. There are always exceptions, but to think otherwise is pretty naive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally, they as a Conservative party, would be considered center-right. There may be members who are right wing but the parties general ideologies are center right, right wing at most but not far-right. This field is supposed to display a general view. IWI (chat) 21:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Republicans in the U.S. are definitely further to the right than other conservative parties around the world. The conservatives in Canada, Australia, and the U.K. all support some form of universal government funded healthcare for example while Republicans in the U.S. are staunchly opposed. Most conservative parties around the world (besides maybe Australia’s) acknowledge man made climate change as an issue as well, while Republicans in the U.S. either deny it exists or say we shouldn’t do anything about it. On social issues the Republicans are definitely further right as well. The majority of conservatives in Canada and the U.K. for example don’t tend to favor abortion restrictions and support gun control, while the opposite is true for Republicans. Then there’s the fact that Republicans have a strong anti-immigrant contingent that’s not generally present in standard center-right conservative parties and is more in line with right-wing or even far-right populist parties that have sprung up across Europe in the past decade. I wouldn’t place the mainstream Republican Party as far-right (even though they most definitely do have small factions that are), but they also are definitely not center-right, which is what the British Conservatives are positioned at. I would place them as right-wing. Psherman122 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

According to a study by the New York Times, the Republican Party is further right than the UK Independence Party, National Rally (France) and the Swedish Democrats. All of the parties are listed as being “right to far right” on Wikipedia. I would say that we should list the Republican Party as the same. To call it “far right” would give off connotations of things such as xenophobia and homophobia and these sort of things are not Republican policies, so I think that they are right to far right. Dylan109 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You can read about the report here https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html Dylan109 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"bases of support"

The intro says "The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, people without college degrees, the elderly, white Americans, and evangelical Christians." This seems incredibly broad and oversimplified - and misleading. GOP margins among men, people without college degrees, and whites aren't big enough at all. And it implies that the vast majority of these groups vote Republican which simply isn't true. I'd propose deleting the entire section. MB298 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's all solidly sourced (primarily to Pew survey data), and mirrors the demographics sentence we have at Democratic Party (United States). I see no issue. Sdkb (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb -- many RS have mentioned this base--esp regarding Trump's appeal. Here is a recent Pew report states (1) "There continue to be fundamental differences in the partisan orientation of different demographic groups, and in many cases these gaps have grown wider in recent years. For instance, gender, generational, geographic and educational divides are now as wide, or wider, than in Pew Research Center surveys going back more than two decades." (2) "women are significantly more likely than men to associate with the Democratic Party." (3) "Since 2010, white voters have been more likely to align with the GOP than with the Democrats. " (4) "Higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation " (5) " white voters with no more than a high school education....in 2017 (58% Republican, 35% Democratic). etc Rjensen (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It just seems unnecessary regardless of sources. Again, misleading. Imagine you’re someone who knows nothing about US politics reading the lead. And you get the false impression that every man/white person/etc supports the Republicans. MB298 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

nobody with an 8th grade reading skill will get the impression that EVERY man is a Republican. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

6 territories?

in the section that show how many republicans are in the senate, house, governorships, etc, it shows that 1/6 territories have republican governors. I believe this is a typo or mistake but if not then I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmsch (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Racial and geographical realignment after the Civil Rights Act

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.

---

Should the lead include mention of the fact that the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and that the party appealed to racial conservatism after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The text in question would summarize the "Composition" section of the body[2], and would reflect the contents of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on the matter. ^{RfC expired and extended by Sdkb (talk) at 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)} Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, obviously. There is no dispute in the academic literature over the fact that the racial and geographical composition of the Republican and Democratic parties has drastically shifted since the 1960s, and that racial conservatism increased the appeal of the Republican Party in the South and among White Americans. The following dozen sources bear that out. The lead covers all others aspects related to historical shifts in the policies and factions of the Republican Party, so it makes no sense to remove this one fact, which has had a profound impact on the Republican Party and US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• Not lead-worthy "Racial conservatism" isn't even a thing. Race relations in the South, and the Barry Goldwater phenomenon obviously were an important thing in the 1960s, but they don't define the party in 2020. Plus "racial composition" wasn't just a thing for the Republicans, as evidenced by the Democratic governor George Wallace (which is covered by many sources). --Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  We could debate the extent to which the Southern Strategy is still integral to the composition of the party (its base is still the South, after all), but that's mute, since per WP:RECENTISM the intro should include all major historical shifts in the party, and the Southern Strategy is undoubtedly one of those. Sdkb (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• (1) Racial conservatism" produces more than 1,200 hits on Google Scholar. It's absolutely a thing and it's a term used in some of the sources above. The use of "racial conservatism" is even a more modest compromise version of what would otherwise be referred to as "racism", but it's clear that compromise is pointless for some editors who go around this encyclopedia scrubbing peer-reviewed research because it doesn't fit their POV. (2) The 1960s set off changes in the racial composition of the two parties. We go through all the other important changes in the party but should skip this profound change? (3) As for your last sentence, if you have any ground-breaking research on this topic that conflicts with the dozen+ peer-reviewed sources from the best academic journals and presses, I suggest you publish your research and come back to us. It's getting to be incredibly tiresome to encounter editors both on the left and right who seek to scrub peer-reviewed research with nothing more than "I know better than all the recognized experts who have done the research and published it in the best academic outlets". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely. The existence of the Southern Strategy is an uncomfortable but verifiable and well-established historical fact, and has long been mentioned in the lead. Here is the first sentence of Southern Strategy (a solid B-class article with 115 references): In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. That phrasing is admirably direct and non-euphemistic, and I support similar phrasing here. The two users who attempted to remove that content (as well as the entire demographic summary of the GOP) have not cited any policy rationale, only that the content is controversial. Sdkb (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. Verifiable content, which explains the appeal of the political party to reactionaries. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not saying "the party appealed to anti-black racism," is at best WP:SYNTH based on a few biased sources and at worse nothing more than a smear. "Racial conservatism" is a Neologism and we don't use neologisms at wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Not lead-worthy It probably should be mentioned with a link to the Southern Strategy page later in the article. But it doesn't quite rise to the level of mentioning it in a party with such a long history. Also, the so-called Southern Strategy as being a reason the south supposedly switched to the GOP is highly questionable. (The debate still goes on.) For one thing, the timeline doesn't quite fit, for another this "strategy" was nowhere near the centerpiece of the campaigns it is touted as playing a significant role in. Suffice it to say that the Democratic Party moved to the left on a whole host of issues (by the late 60's/early 70's) that alienated voters that had nothing to do with race. (Starting with Vietnam, abortion, crime, etc.) The Democratic party began losing elections everywhere by the 1980's. This led to the formation of the DLC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• The text above is an inaccurate portrayal of scholarship on the question. There is a scholarly debate about the extent to which the racial realignment was a top-driven elite process ("The Southern Strategy") vs a bottom-up process where little elite-manipulation was needed. There is no disagreement among scholars that racial conservatism and a racial backlash was essential to the realignment. As the Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer writes in a peer-reviewed study covering the scholarly debate, the scholars who hold the bottom-up view "[agree] on the centrality of a racial backlash".[3] If you dispute that racial conservatism played a role and that it was more about the other factors you mention in your comment, you should publish your study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Your statements are wrong. There is plenty of disagreement among scholars on this. (And it is growing as the years go by.) There have (also) been plenty of scholarly studies that dispute that racial politics played any role in this supposed shift. A good source is 'The End of Southern Exceptionalism...' (by Shafer and Johnson). To quote from the Southern Strategy article: Some historians believe that racial issues took a back seat to a grassroots narrative known as the "suburban strategy". Matthew Lassiter, who along with Shafer and Johnston is a leading proponent of the "suburban strategy" viewpoint, recognizes that "[t]his analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and a popular strain in the scholarly literature".[97] When speaking of the "suburban strategy", Glen Feldman states it is "the dissenting—yet rapidly growing—narrative on the topic of southern partisan realignment"....Political scientist Nelson W. Polsby argued that economic development was more central than racial desegregation in the evolution of the postwar South in Congress.[110] In The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South, the British political scientist Byron E. Shafer and the Canadian Richard Johnston developed Polsby's argument in greater depth. Using roll call analysis of voting patterns in the House of Representatives, they found that issues of desegregation and race were less important than issues of economics and social class when it came to the transformation of partisanship in the South.[111]Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"The Suburban Strategy" bottom-up approach is also about a racial backlash, as Zelizer makes clear[4]: "younger Southern historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin Kruse, and Joseph Crespino objected to claims about Southern Exceptionalism while agreeing on the centrality of a racial backlash." You're misrepresenting the literature. The Polsby citation is also to a lecture given by him, not an academic publication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. Shafer and Johnson make the argument from a economic standpoint. From the backcover of the book: The transformation of Southern Politics after World War II changed the political life not just of this distinctive region, but of the entire nation. Until now, the critical shift in southern political allegiance from Democratic to Republican had been explained, by scholars and journalists, as a white backlash to the civil rights revolution. This book challenges that idea.. Doesn't get any plainer than that. Furthermore, Nelson Polsby was a published, well regarded political scientist at Berkeley. So that doesn't wash either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not dispute Shafer and Johnson who are clearly a minority view. I did not say Polsby was not a proper academic: I said this particular claim attributed to him was not from an academic publication by him, but a lecture. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference: Polsby published a number of papers on southern politics. Not to mention the fact there are a lot of other cited scholars on this point (Feldman, Lassiter, etc.; Lassiter calls the whole Southern Strategy theory "wrong" and a "myth"). I didn't feel the need to paste the whole Scholarly Debate section into this talk section. But there IS a debate. (Plain and simple.) A reader (especially a younger one) might well wonder if all this "Southern Strategy"/1964 Civil rights act theory is true....why did take until the 1980's for most (white) southerners to self-identify as GOP?, why wasn't it until 1994 until most southern (US House) seats were represented by the GOP?, why was the DLC formed?, why did Bill Clinton run as a "New Democrat" in 1992?, etc, etc. That's why I suggested linking to the Southern Strategy article later on. Putting in the lead I felt was a issue with weight.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The bottom-up approach does not say that racial conservatism wasn't central. Our Southern Strategy article explicitly says about the Suburban Strategy approach: "This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Top down/bottom up doesn't matter. The sources I have cited have made it plain that racial animus wasn't a factor. (Top, down, or sideways.) Granted it appears to be a minority view at this point.....but a point worth noting. A link to that article would (I think) be sufficient....but in the lead I feel is a issue with WP:WEIGHT.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing different things: the Southern Strat is one thing, and "racial conservatism played a crucial role in the racial realignment of the parties" is a different thing. Those who dispute the Southern Strat don't dispute that racial conservatism drove the racial realignment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, quite simply: you are wrong. I've given the quotes. Shafer & Johnson's book (right here in front of me) says different. Even the people who reviewed the book say this. From the NY Times Magazine review of the book (for example): "Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”...It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)...The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t....To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.” So you must know something the people who reviewed the book don'tRja13ww33 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's one book. You're like a broken record. I explicitly said, "I did not dispute Shafer and Johnson who are clearly a minority view." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are others (as cited in that Southern Strategy article (and here)).....but I have acknowledged this (as it stands now) is a minority POV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman who said "By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." to the NAACP. DN (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment:Well this isn't a forum.....but I will say I apologize to my wife all the time....doesn't mean she's right....just means I want the griping to stop. The fact is, the Democratic leadership has sold the African-American community on this premise. There isn't a whole lot (else) he can say.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. (Uninvolved editor) It seems to have enough WEIGHT for a short addition to the timeline in the lead.

From the current lead... "Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics. People living in rural areas, men, people without a college degree, the elderly, and white Americans are generally more likely to support the GOP."

From the SS lea d... "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party."

Suggested revision... "Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted during the Southern Strategy, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics. DN (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

suggested addition: in state politics the South was competitive until about 2000; since then the GOP has come to dominate nearly all of the Southern states in terms of legislative, congressional and gubernatiorial elections.. . The issue is dating. the critical transition period was circa 2000. The Southern strategy of 1960s dealt ONLY with presidential politics-and was Not complete, for Jimmy Carter carried the South in 1976. The shift at state and Congressional and local levels to GOP came much later. 1) Alexander Lamis says it came after 1996 (that year both parties were about equal). Lamis, Southern politics in the 1990s (1999) covers the region and each state, with an index for the region on page 2 2) " [Yoshinaka & McKee, State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Jun2019 state: p 271= "in the South these dynamics changed drastically after the 1990s, with the GOP in most states firmly entrenched in the 2000s as the majority in all offices above state legislatures."" p274 =" In more recent years (e.g., 2000s and beyond), the GOP is certainly the majority party in the South, but as a result there is intense competition to win the Republican nomination. The 1990s, on the other hand, were the ideal time because southern whites were willing to embrace Republican candidates, but the GOP bench was not as “deep,” thus affording a path to higher office for many ambitious former Democrats.". (3) "Indeed, the speculation by Hayes and McKee (2008) that the region was once again a “one-party South” has largely come to fruition in recent election cycles." states Knuckey, Social Science Quarterly June 2017, p 729. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suggested revision My suggested text is this:

Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, the party appealed to anti-black racism, shifting its core political base to the Southern states.^{See updated proposal a little below.}

This better mirrors the language at Southern Strategy, reduces use of euphemisms (see WP:SPADE), and links to broader articles (e.g. Civil Rights Movement rather than Civil Rights Act of 1964). By talking about "core political base" rather than presidential election results, it also avoids all the messiness Rjensen is trying to handle. Sdkb (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The fallacy here is that the shift in the base of the Republican Party took place after the year 2000, which was 35 or so years after the civil rights laws of 1964-66. That's the longest delayed reaction I think in all of American history. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My language reflects the scholarly consensus, as Snooganssnoogans and I provided evidence for above. If you disagree with that consensus, feel free to take it to the scholars, but we're here to build an encyclopedia that reflects WP:Verifiability, not truth; this is not the place to try to outdo historians in analyzing a hugely complex topic. Sdkb (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

the consensus of scholars is that GOP dominance of southern politics began about 2000 and that date should be included--leaving it out suggests it started 3+ decades earlier when very few republicans won any election in the South. Rjensen (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC).

Would "gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states" work better for you? I'd be fine with that. Sdkb (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

yes-- how about "gradually shifting its base to the South over the next four decades." some evidence: (1) "Since 2010, all state offices in Alabama have been headed by Republicans and the state legislature has fallen under GOP control. Except for...the 7th District, today’s congressional delegation is red. How did this happen? In The Irony of the Solid South, [2013] Glenn Feldman suggests it was decades in the making." [Southern Studies (2015) p 101] (2) "Southern partisan realignment...did not take place in a single “critical election” but instead occurred gradually over the last half-century." [Southern Cultures, ( Summer 2014) by Cooper and Knotts]; (3) review of "Why has the once solidly Democratic South shifted into the Republican camp in the postwar era? This is a complicated question that does not lend itself to a simplistic answer. In seeking explanation, Feldman and his contributors [to PAINING DIXIE RED] round up the usual suspects: race, class, residence, modernization, ideology, religion, and culture" [Historian March 2013 p 143] Rjensen (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad we found agreement. Consider my updated proposal this: "Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, the party appealed to anti-black racism, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades." Sdkb (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That proposal is a NPOV problem because scholars don't agree on the cause of the shift. Again, the scope to which the GOP appealed to racism is debated and more critically, the extent to which those appeals vs other factors resulted in the shift is clearly debated by scholars. Additionally, that is not a remotely accurate summary of the body of the article where the disagreement between top down and bottom up is discussed. Also, the body doesn't say the racial backlash was "GOP appealing to racism" vs the voters responding to the civil rights act. Thus this (and the current text) fail WP:LEAD because it's not a summary of what the body is actually saying. Springee (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Inclusion in the lead seems appropriate given that this is discussed in the body of the article and that this page shift has been extensively studied by political scientists and historians in peer-reviewed and other high-quality publications. Neutrality^talk 17:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Without this fact, a lot of modern US politics makes no sense at all, and it's a fact of which a substantial minority of Americans seem blissfully unaware. There's rroom for discussion over how it should be represented, but a lead that does not include the Southern Strategy is incomplete to the point of being potentially misleading. Guy (help!) 18:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

But more recent scholarship is moving away from supporting a "Southern Strategy" style top down narrative vs the bottom up. If the bottom up is the real reason then mentioning the Southern Strategy in the lead is totally UNDUE as it would be factually incorrect. Springee (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes but the question asked by the RfC does not support the disputed text [[5]] originally added here [[6]]. Yes, there is a consensus among scholars that the GOP did expand into the southern states and that expansion is not a critical base of the party. It is also true that in the post WW2 era support for the GOP by minorities, African Americans in particular has declined. But that isn't what the disputed content is saying and it's perhaps misleading to start this RfC to show the current article text should stand. The current article text is wrong for several reasons. As Rjensen and others correctly point out, the demographic shift started before the Civil Rights Act and didn't finish until several decades later. Second, the scholarship is not clear on two salient points; to what extent any particular election race included appeals to racism and if any such appeals were what motivated voters to change from D to R. Claiming in Wikipedia voice that the GOP as a whole deliberately appealed to some sort of inherent racism in the south is a big NPOV issue. So, I generally support the inclusion in the lead but not claims that this shift was due to appeals to racism nor any implication that there was some sort of light switch moment due to the Civil Rights Act. One final note, we need to consider how to present this carefully. As it currently reads it would be very easy for a GOP/right leaning reader to assume some partisan hack got to the GOP and this is yet another example of Wikipedia suffering from a left wing bias. This is a complex issue and simplistic claims of "well it was appeals to racism" are likely to result in many readers dismissing this article as "written by lefties". For that reason alone we should try to take a more nuanced approach regardless of "which side" is right. Springee (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "the scholarship is not clear on two salient points; to what extent any particular election race included appeals to racism and if any such appeals were what motivated voters to change from D to R." The scholarship is extremely clear that racial conservatism was essential to the racial and geographical realignment of the parties. As for the rest of your comment, we do not write Wikipedia articles to protect the feelings of a subset of the readership (right-wing Americans). It may upset a subset of hopelessly wrong people that Wikipedia articles state that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, that birtherism is a conspiracy theory, that vaccines do not cause autism etc., but that is not a reason to start fudging facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't bludgeon the Survey section. The relationship between racism and the GOP shift is not as one to one as your presentation would suggest. The bottom up narrative suggests that many of the demographic changes in the south were due, in part, to race related issues. Those demographic shifts resulted in the south moving to the GOP. That is not the same thing as saying the GOP's success in the south was due to an appeal to racism. Springee (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed with Snooganssnoogans that moderating our language to appease those who are uncomfortable with the historical record is the exact opposite of the approach we ought to take. To uphold WP:NPOV, we should call a spade a spade consistent with the consensus in the academic literature, no matter how controversial it might come off to some readers. Sdkb (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

But the historical record is hardly one sided as Snoogan etc would wish to add to the article. The more recent analysis suggest this top down narrative is wrong. We have a clear case where scholars disagree that the shift was due to efforts by the GOP to appeal to southern racism. [[7]] Lassiter and others see the shift as the voters looking to who better aligned with their suburban interests. Those interest were often not seen as strictly motivated by race though often race could play a part but not the way Snoogan's wants to claim. Given there isn't a uniform belief among scholars, per NPOV we can not push a single version of events as "correct". That is what the article currently tries to do and what those who support only crediting the top down narrative aim to do. That is strictly a NPOV violation. What serves the readers isn't suggesting everyone calls thing thing a spade when it's clear not all agree. Springee (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree with your interpretation, Springee. Your interpretation of "bottom up" view is UNDUE, not just here, but at the Southern Strategy article as well..."Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." DN (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as we discussed at the other article, it's clear there are a number of scholars who do not buy into the earlier theory that the south went to the GOP because GOP candidates appealed to some sort of inner racist that southerners happen to have. Claiming that this is some sort of FRINGE view is something that you need to prove. To counter your claim we have several scholars who have put forth the bottom up narrative with evidence (Lassiter, Shafer, Johnston). We have Glen Feldman saying this is a narrative which (as of about 10 years ago) was gaining traction among scholars. You simply don't make a compelling case that this is a fringe view as opposed to one that is newer thus not as well known. If you think it is really a fringe POV (say held by less than 2%, 5%? of serious scholars) vs a significant minority POV (up to 49%) then I think the burden is on you to prove it. I suspect Rjensen is the only one here who is actually a published historian. I would be interested to know his opinion on your view this is a fringe matter. The simple fact that we need to debate this point should be obvious justification for removal from the lead of the GOP article. Springee (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• No It's not true that its geographic composition is Southern. The Republicans regularly run a candidate for Governor in every state. Successful candidates include Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott for example. Among recent Presidential candidates it seems to be a mix. Mitt Romney has ties with Massachusetts and Utah, while Donald Trump was from New York but changed his residence to Florida. Nor is it true that its racial composition is White. We have Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, and Tim Scott. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, although some wording tweaks might need to be considered. It's a major defining part of the party's history, has extensive coverage in the article and considers to attract massive amounts of coverage today. --Aquillion (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - It's a significant part of the history - including it in the lead seems like a straightforward stylistic+weight decision. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, but it might be possible for something along those lines in the future following work on the body. Our guidelines are clear, the lead follows the body, and it follows it proportionally. The proposed addition would be disproportionate, indeed in relative terms the material being referenced already has a larger proportion in the lead than it does in the body. Secondly and I do believe this has been mentioned, it does not seem to be a good summary of the current body material (1 2). First get some consensus to rework the body, and then once that's done we can discuss how to word the sentence or two that summarizes it in the lead. Otherwise, I see no policy based reason why the manual of style applies differently to this case. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. The theory presented by the nominator is nonsense. The South was still dominated by the Democratic Party in the early 1980s, long after the Civil Rights Act. Despite being Democrats, southern whites were politically allied with the Republican Party long before the civil rights era. A "conservative coalition" between southern Dems and Republicans was formed in 1937 and dominated Congress until the early 1960s. It was a response to labor unrest, the Second New Deal, and to FDR's court packing scheme.
  Given that the everything-is-a-reaction-to-the-civil-rights-act view is so easily disproven, why is it so popular? The theory originated with a bogus Lyndon Johnson quote. After the Civil Right Act was passed, LBJ supposedly said, “We have lost the South for a generation.” This quote comes to us by way of Bill Moyers. It did not appear in print until the 1990s. If it had been published in, say, 1980, no one would have thought Johnson was prescient. Colin Gerhard (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously This is a clear, widely accepted, and significant fact about the history of the party. Cherry-picked examples that the party isn't only white and southern does not mean this shift did not occur. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, as it would give undue weight to this aspect of the topic, and especially no to adding it in the misleading/unnuanced manner originally proposed. The proposed addition does not align with the content in the article's body, e.g.: "the party appealed to racial conservatism" versus "Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism"; "the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans" versus "[w]hile scholars agree that a racial backlash played a central role in the racial realignment of the two parties, there is a dispute as to the extent in which the racial realignment was a top-driven elite process or a bottom-up process". The sources should be incorporated, if they are not already, in the article Southern strategy. (And can we stop stating "X, obviously"? It only comes across as arrogant and obnoxious.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  How is it possible to claim that it's undue weight to mention the shifting racial and geographic composition of the two parties? It's one of the most important things to have occurred in US politics in the 20th century, and is essential for understanding US politics in any sort of comprehensive overview manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  That's a fair question, and I'll answer in two parts.

  First, I do not think this discussion is about mention[ing] the shifting racial and geographic composition of the two parties. It was framed, instead, as a discussion about attributing certain actions ("appeal[ing] to racial conservatism", "shift[ing] its racial and geographical composition") to the Republic Party. The racial and geographic base of the Republican Party is already mentioned in the lead: Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics.[17] The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, people without college degrees, the elderly, white Americans, and evangelical Christians.

  Second, it should not be the goal of this article, or of its 350-word lead, to provide an understanding [of] US politics in [a] ... comprehensive overview manner. The lead of this article should present a high-level overview of the Republican Party only (not US politics in general) over its entire history. The comprehensive overview would be better suited for an article like Politics of the United States. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the switch of SOUTH from strong D to strong R decisive change that restructured the recent GOP. However its not just race--the white south is very conservative on many issues (religion, abortion, anti-union, for policy) that it has overwhelmed the more liberal northeastern GOP. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Snooganssnoogans Idealigic (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not lead-worthy This definitely has a place in the body, but I don’t think it should be placed in the lead. The lead is already quite lengthy and I worry that a few more additions may make it more fluffy. ~ HAL333 03:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not lead-worthy - While there are certainly a lot of references, there is a potential bias in the position. If one looks at election maps going back to the 1950s (because of FDR's dominance have to look at after Truman), there just isn't support. Additionally the term "racial conservatism", which I had never heard of until reading this, if one looks over the web, has links with white nationalism. So this would be prejudicial especially because much of the white nationalist base is in the upper northwest. Yrwefilledwithbugs (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - ??? the topic doesn't present the exact text of edit intended, but the description given seems not a good summary of the Composition section and seems POVish. Wording in the description here is also a bit odd -- the composition of the party shift as people decide, not the party decides to shift it's composition, and the GOP did not shift it's composition to the South at that time -- there were the more important Republican states of New York and California, for example. The 1972 election did have some of the southern states vote Republican, but most went for Wallace and the rest were only a small portion of the Republican total. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment President Donald Trump has since been acquitted, could someone with editing privileges update the page to say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.96.246.222 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's important for any involved editors to see some level of timeline with the material in question. The original version of the text was inserted in June 2018 [[8]] and largely the same as the current information restored here [[9]]. The edit that kicked off the recent debated was from late January here [[10]]. It added an explicit claim, in Wiki voice, that the GOP shifted it's core base to the south via the Southern Strategy [[11]].

The long time version of the text is generally acceptable other than it incorrectly suggests a sudden shift vs a shift over a number of decades. The hyperlink from "Southern states" to the Southerns Strategy is a violation of MOS per WP:EASTEREGG. The consensus text doesn't mention the Southern Strategy nor does it imply that was the reason for the transition. The body of the article supports that there is an unresolved debate if the transition occurred due to the southern strategy. As such it is against policy to imply in Wikivoice (via the hyperlink) that the southern strategy is the reason. The edit might have stood this long since the blue link in the text says "Southern states" which is an actual disambiguation page where the first suggestion is Southern United States. Since none of the disambiguation links are Southern Strategy that was, at best, poor editing when added. Springee (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Good points. I think the most neutral, fair approach would be to mention the shift of the GOP's ethno/regional base to the south in the intro starting in about the 1960's and concluding later. And then in the main text, briefly allude to the variety of theories out there for this (i.e. Southern Strategy, rise of evangelicals, leftward turn of the Democratic Party starting in the late 60's (on issues unrelated to race, including foreign policy), abortion, etc). An interesting secondary discussion on this is what to say about the west. A lot of Western states have been reliably GOP at the Presidential level) for more than a century now (barring the FDR era and a couple of other elections like '64). The article only (currently) touches on it by calling it the "old right" emerging in the New Deal era.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Springee. It is important to note that the longstanding version of the text mentioned the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, so it's a stretch to say that the connection to race was an Easter Egg and that the link to Southern Strategy just slipped unnoticed into the lead of an article as heavily monitored as this one. In any case, I don't think it's all that useful to argue over what the prior consensus was when an RfC is happening here that will override that consensus. Sdkb (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all a stretch. MOS says blue links should be going to the obvious target. In this case the obvious target is the Southern United States. Currently there doesn't seem to be a new consensus which means we would revert to the previous text. As such the blue link needs to be corrected because a RfC shouldn't end with a link that is a violation of MOS for the reasons outlined above. Springee (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify my easteregg concern, consider the example from WP:EASTEREGG

Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles. For example, do not write this:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few [[Thomas Bowdler|exceptions]]) back in to stay.

The readers will not see the hidden reference to Thomas Bowdler unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions, such as [[Thomas Bowdler]]) back in to stay.

We have exactly that case. The plain text refers to the southern states as a region, not to the Southern Strategy. We should stick with the plain text. Springee (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (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.

Further discussion

The following moved over from S Marshall's talk page: ^{by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)}

Question

Hi S Marshall! Thanks for the effort you put into the close at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Racial and geographical realignment after the Civil Rights Act. I anticipate that the de facto effect it will have is a maintaining of the status quo, since I or someone else could try to put forward a suggestion consistent with your close (perhaps Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, most historians say the party appealed to anti-black racism, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.), but I assume it would get shot down and indefinitely stonewalled by those who disagree with the close. Given that, the most I'd like to try to do right now is to make two smaller and hopefully less controversial tweaks. Would you consider it consistent with your close to do the following?

1. change Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,... to Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement,... This improves conciseness and links to an appropriately generalized article rather than two inappropriately specific ones.
2. change ...with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics... to ...with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics... to remedy the MOS:EGG issue.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would, but of course I'm not the article manager. Others might have valid objections that I haven't thought of. All the best—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried implementing the changes, but that has led to two other editors trying to make further unilateral changes, so I have brought the matter to the ANI. Hopefully that's the right process to resolve this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: thank you for your edit. My view would be that the proper STATUSQUO version after an RfC would be the most recent one affirmed as consistent with the close by the closer (otherwise the closer would have no power to actually make any changes). Would you consider restoring to this version while discussion about this matter takes place? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for going straight to a noticeboard rather than discussing it with other editors. Really appreciate it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Take it to talk" is a fine response when an issue has not yet been discussed, but it is not appropriate when there has already been an RfC. This is a matter of enforcement, thus ANI is the appropriate venue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether this morning's version of the other one is reinstated, but I think it prudent to err on the side of leaving it on the earlier version especially while it's at ANI. The strange thing here is that the objections to Sdkb's edit (and the ensuing edit war) aren't actually about the substance of Sdkb's edit. Sdkb didn't add a southern strategy link -- that was already there. Removing that link isn't undoing Sdkb's edits; it's making a new bold edit (one that seem surprisingly contrary to the spirit of the RfC). Insisting that it's a bold change that Sdkb must find consensus for on the talk page is straightforwardly inaccurate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the RfC, the link in question was always problematic WP:EASTEREGG. It likely gained assumed consensus only because it was not obvious the hot linked text, "Southern states" ended up at Southern Strategy and not at the most obvious target, Southern United States. If we do a search for "Southern states" we get this [[12]]. None of those links goes to Southern Strategy. As was extensively discussed in the RfC, there was not a clear shift as the Southern Strategy theory suggests. The discussion was far more complex than Sdkb's changes suggest and a proper discussion of the involved participants with proposed changes offered for review and editing before being implemented is what is really needed. Springee (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If my changes were really "far more complex" than I suggested, the admin closer, who read through the entire RfC, would not have endorsed them as consistent with the close. I initially went to their talk page rather than here because I anticipated that any further discussion here would just result in the rehashing of all the arguments made in the RfC, which is regrettably exactly the direction you are taking this by restating points you made in the RfC. RfC closures need to have consequences, even when you don't agree with them, otherwise they're meaningless, and attempts to implement them are not invitations to revert and then start a new discussion going through the whole original question again. The close was clear: Q: Did the party appeal to racial conservatives after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? A: Yes. Unless you want to challenge the closer's reading of consensus, that's the last word with regard to the argument you're making about whether or not the Southern Strategy was a thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. I didn't say your changes were "far more complex". Your changes were generally simple and other than the WP:EASTEREGG to the Southern Strategy article I see no issue with them. The closing did not say we should link to the Southern Strategy in the lead and we have to be careful about how we handle "appeal to racial conservatives" from the RfC. A hidden link to a contentious article is not how to do it. Additionally, it is not clear the link in the lead to the Southern Strategy was ever legitimate since it was effectively hidden. The plain language reading of that sentence does not take the reader to the SS article. To be clear, that hot link was a problem before the RfC. The body of the article does not draw such a clear line so the lead absolutely shouldn't. Perhaps we need a RfC for just that particular issue. Springee (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

When does an ideology gain enough support to be considered a faction? Re: National Conservatism

I remain convinced that National Conservatism is now at least a faction of the Republican Party, but I am wondering when does it gain enough support to merit an addition under the "factions" header? Of course, just the opinion of a select few can't be enough, or else the box would be full of various ideologies of Republican politicians, rendering the section meaningless.

I would like to at least see a discussion of adding National Conservatism as a faction, due to:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/national-conservatism-is-coming-for-washington/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/josh-hawley-national-conservatism-social-cohesion.html https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/republican-party-transforming-right-our-very-eyes-69836 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/what-do-republican-voters-want/ https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/trump-has-outlined-the-republican-partys-future-by-underscoring-its-failures/

Granted, all this coverage was generated due to the July 2019 National Conservatism Conference, but when would it become a large enough "faction" to be considered a legitimate faction worthy of inclusion in this article?Rapmanej (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm wary on this particular issue given that, as you've remarked, the reliable source coverage has been centered more around an event than on an actual ideology. That's not good. And, to be blunt, 'national conservatism' hasn't generated the kind of coherent meaning that we've seen for like... I mean, well, it appears to be a cardinal example of a 'fuzzy concept'.

So, this is Trumpist far-right politics based upon a kind of racial and religious nationalism in which 'real Americans' who are white, Christian, heterosexual, et cetera constitute a sort of 'master identity' born to rule over others and to impose their factional interests against the majority populace through government power? Or is this an inclusive center-right movement based around social traditionalism that's emphasizing citizenship and the notion of holistically improving working class people's lives regardless of creed, ethnicity, etc? Or is 'national conservatism' neither? Or is it possibly both and already divided as a movement?

I'd like to see detailed analysis looking at the particular movement outside of a particular event from multiple sources first, you know? Otherwise, we're kind of left speculating exactly what in the hell practically the movement consists of and how it all goes (Mussolini with a new label? Eisenhower-ian constructive pragmatism? Cheap talking points? Serious appeals?). I'm being a bit glib here, I know, but I'm, as I said before, wary on this issue. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to caution that The Federalist is ideologically extremist and factually unreliable to where I'd recommend almost never looking at it, particularly in regards to social issues where the website's party line is de facto 'if only all the LGBT people and other rifraff were all gassed we'd have a utopia'. It's close to the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News. But then this is a really minor point compared to your central argument, so I apologize for having a chip on my shoulder a bit. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What you have here are basically a few opinion pieces pretending a wing of a party exists when really it doesn't. This would be like including "Reformicons" as a wing - remember when they were a thing? This is similar. There's some support among a handful of a academics and TV hosts, but you couldn't actually find more than a handful of members of Congress remotely close to where they claim to be at. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are some good points. Agreed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Democrats "rival" or "opponent"?

Can we please change the beginning text of "its main rival, the Democratic Party." to "its main opponent, The Democratic Party"ContoversalSubjectCorrector (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely don't capitalize the "t" for Democrats. As for changing "rival" to "opponent", ContoversalSubjectCorrector, what benefit do you see to the latter? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

rival implies that both sides are bitter enemies and at each other's throats, opponent would imply something like friendly rivals. Rivals would not shake each others hand, Opponents would. ContoversalSubjectCorrector (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see such a strong difference in connotation between the words. But in any case, "bitter enemies" doesn't sound all that off to me as a description of the relations between the two. Overall, I'd be fine with either word. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this as an issue worth the trouble. The Democratic Party article uses the same phrasing. CSC, you might ask on the other article talk page as I think what ever change is made should be the same for both. Springee (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with both, I just think that it would be a slight improvement to reduce polarization

and try to unify the world a bit more. Sincerely ContoversalSubjectCorrector (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)