Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Ideological position in based on the politics of the country, not a universal standard

This is to explain that ideological position is based on how RS describe the party and the politics of the country. This is not about changing the ideological position of the Republican Party in the infobox. Please do not substitute your own views for how reliable sources describe the Republican Party.

Side-note: My personal political views are mostly libertarian, that is mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though not on all issues. I have a similar set of views as Chase Oliver, who I will likely vote for in 2024.

Examples

• Many political parties around the world are socially conservative, such as in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia, but still considered to be politically left-wing because they are liberal on fiscal issues and their countries are socially conservative.
• Similarly many political parties that are socially liberal in countries that are very socially liberal, such as the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Canada, are still considered to be politically right-wing because they are fiscally conservative and their countries are socially liberal.
• Some political parties are big tent or ideologically diverse parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, with several factions. For these parties, a range of views on the political spectrum may be appropriate.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, parties that have been fiscally conservative had been considered left-wing, while parties that have been fiscally liberal have been considered right-wing. That's because mainstream political parties deal with reality. They select policies which best reflect their ideology according to time and place. TFD (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to add a point though that even with the countries political standards rather than the universal, mainstream political parties can have ideological positions that is not Centre-left or Centre-right such as Likud, Fidesz . Mhaot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The position label of a party (or person) is relative to the speaker's assumed center position. Nobody will ever agree on the correctness of a label, so why do we still use them? It's much more relevant to examine positions on specific issues (which the article already does). Dad98253 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Add 'Trumpism' as a faction

^ 49.184.140.57 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism is more than just "supporting the party nominee". — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral symbol or logo??

Why this elephant symbol is shown as logo?? I edited this as electoral symbol previously but got reverted everytime. Donkey isn't shown as Democrats' symbol in their article. We have separate banner logo for the Republicans. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad @Completely Random Guy No, it wasn't removed for copyright reasons. There's a group of users replacing the logo with the electoral symbol without explaining their choice. Pantarch (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well thats not good, how can we go about returning it to its official logo in place of electoral symbol without causing an edit war? Completely Random Guy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First, consensus needs to be reached here, then a source should be found (we have one: https://fabrikbrands.com/branding-matters/logofile/republican-logo-history-republican-elephant-logo-and-symbol/), and finally, an invisible comment should be added near the logo explaining the choice. Pantarch (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we do a poll? Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A sort of Pantarch (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm down, just dont know how to create a poll Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the files being discussed are these: File:GOP logo.svg (logo) File:Republican Disc.svg (electoral symbol)--Pantarch (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is missing from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello out there. Does anybody know why the infobox isn't showing McConnell? GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being ignored here. I've brought the problem to WP:Village pump (technical). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions on sources for "center-right" designation

The sources used to back up the claim the party is "center-right" do not appear to state such, state a point against that label, or state it as a historical position. For example, Gidron and Ziblatt state "We consider center-right parties as those that construct big-tent coalitions, drawing support from all different right-wing currents simultaneously—while other parties right of the center specialize in mobilizing voters based on narrower agendas...in the American case, this three-sided image of the Republican Party features prominently in research on the intellectual history of the American conservative movement (Nash 1996; Phillips-Fein 2011, p. 729)" but then explicitly state that "While we accept the fact that the Democratic Party shifted to the economic center during the 1990s, the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" with no statement on the party shifting back towards the center thereafter; Keckler and Rozell identify the center-right as a part of the broader conservative movement, with the latter represented by the Republican Party; Donovan appears to be referring to how in theory the electoral system lends itself to two big/dominant parties (one of the centre-left and one of the centre-right) rather than explicitly calling the Republican Party as it currently exists centre-right; and the cited link/PDF from The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties does not appear to contain the cited quote (and even if it did, it doesn't appear to reference the Republican Party at all, unless there is some context missing). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" The source is 18-years-old and reflects a rightward shift during the 1990s. It can not be used to determine the current position of the party in the political spectrum, but it can be used to cover changes in that decade. Perhaps it can be used in the article on the History of the Republican Party (United States). Dimadick (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Partisan phrasing

"opposing transgender rights" seems like partisan phrasing to me. Maybe there's a better way to put this? CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there is. Do you have any suggestions? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Naming specific issues, such as sexual education and sports. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty inarguable the party opposes transgender rights, defined by the common meanings of the term. Can't tell you how many "Trump is for us, not they/them" ads I saw. But it is possible there are better ways to describe it. Maybe the specific policy issues (access to bathrooms, sports, surgeries, documents, etc.)? At that point it's just getting too broad. Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Honestly culture war issues aren't worth delving into beyond their due weight. That advertisement is one thing, but voters' top priorities during the election were mainly: the economy (#1), democracy, abortion, and immigration.

• I don't think having discussions about transgender issues on the talk page, which are bound to result in flame wars and conflicts, is a good idea.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The party? Log Cabin Republicans… Not to mention Classical liberalism Mistletoe-alert (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Ghost consensus about demographics

I recently updated the description of the GOP voter base with this:

As of 2024, the party receives majority support from Arabic, Native, and White voters, and has gained increased support among Hispanics. A majority of working-class, rural, men, individuals without college degrees, and lower income voters also support the party. Traditionalist religious voters, including Evangelicals Latter-Day Saints, Muslims, and Catholics generally lean Republican.

Senior citizens are no longer the strongest GOP voting bloc, Generation X is. Age has become a significantly less significant predictor of voting support than 2016 and before.

Racially, most Native American tribes (heavily heterogeneous; the Cherokee are generally far more conservative than Navajo, for instance), Arabs, Haredi Jews, and others are more conservative than whites.

Conservative, traditionalist religious groups of all-types vote Republican according to exit polls. Many even surpassing white evangelical Christians.

Don't think these changes are objectionable but felt that I should mention it on talk. OntologicalTree (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please no news sources for analysis ...for the basics pls review Gruwell, Cindy; Ewing, Robin (2022-05-25). "News as a Source". Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Moxy🍁 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

OntologicalTree a sockpuppet

See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Transgender rights"

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.

---

What transgender "rights" does the GOP oppose? 66.177.84.252 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Not being beaten in the streets by people you hate them for no reason. If you have anything helpful to contribute to the article that would be great :) Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, for one. See Nancy Mace and Sarah McBride. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any right that permits a man to use a woman's bathroom (regardless of what sex he thinks he is) Dad98253 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

okay. a friendly reminder for both you and the OP, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Carlp941 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose discussion of transgender issues for the most part. It's an issue, but not among the most important issues for voters. The economy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare (including abortion), etc. are far more important for voters.

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or culture war arena.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civil rights legislation

Was enacted by the republicans, not the democrats. The democrats tried to filibuster it. 2600:1700:FB0:8D70:686C:3D2F:97CD:8F4F (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this somehow a suggestion for an improvement to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened after 1964? (Hint: it's the Southern strategy) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that statement in the LEAD as well. It isn't sourced anywhere that I see. As percentage of party, more of the GOP voted for the 1964 civil rights act than Democrats.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Southern strategy reference in the lead was an wp:egg snuck into the lead a while back. Though it never had a clear consensus editors were willing to edit war it back in claiming it was true. I'm sure the discussion is in the archive. Since that discussion I've found some additional references that would tend to dispute the link here. The issue here isn't if the GOP used such a strategy, the facts supporting such a deliberate strategy seem ambiguous - they don't prove it false nor do they prove it true. Rather the question is if the Southern realignment was caused by such a strategy. Here it seems, per the sources, that scholars are not in agreement. I haven't ever made this change to the lead because I need to refind at least one of the references and because a number of editors have decided it's critical to include this claim/link in the lead thus removing it would be a fight. If others are interested in pushing this change through I'll try to find the evidence over the next week or so. Springee (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• I wrote almost all of the Solid South article. Read the section on the Southern strategy, which I wrote. The reasons for why the South realigned are debated, but how it realigned is extremely clear.

The fundamental issue is that Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law, while Republican Barry Goldwater opposed it. The South stayed Democratic at the state-level, including for Congress, for decades. It wasn't until the 1994 Republican Revolution that Republicans won a majority of U.S. House seats in the South, and only after 2010 that Republicans won most state legislatures and became dominant in the South.

There is one exception to Republican gains in the South: the state of Virginia, because Northern Virginia is extremely Democratic as part of the Washington metropolitan area. The Confederate capital was Richmond, Virginia. Democrats control the Virginia General Assembly, and have won the state consistently since 2008. It was the only former Confederate state never to vote for Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken a close look at the article since I think before COVID. I'm not sure what changes you've made. I'm also not sure if I understand the difference you are making between how and why. I would agree there is the voting evidence that shows when things changed. I'm not sure if there is agreement that the fundamental issue was Johnson signed the law while Goldwater didn't. That is part of the question of top down vs bottom up reasons for changing. Especially as things move further in time from the 1960s it's harder to assume that voters are motivated by a 1964 vote in 1980 or in 2010. Regardless, I think the EGG to the Southern Strategy is a problem and should be removed (especially if I get around to finding those sources I mentioned above). Springee (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It was actually enacted by both parties, although Republicans were more likely to support than Democrats:

Senate version

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

The actual divide was between the North (where >90% of representatives/Senators backed it), and the South (where >90% of representatives/Senators opposed it). Coincidentally - Democrats held nearly 100% of seats in the South. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Right wing to Far right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDS

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.

---

I think it would be good to make mention of TDS and add a link to the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" wiki. It would probably make for a more balanced discussion about "Trump era" politics (e.g., as a counter balance to the claims of illiberalism).

One place it might be inserted would be at the end of the paragraph beginning "Trump lost the 2020..." following the sentence that starts with "By 2020, the Republican Party..." (which contains all of the claims regarding illiberalism).

The added statement could look something like the following: "Since the 2016 election, [[Trump derangement syndrome]] (TDS) has become increasingly mainstream in politics and the media. This non-medical term refers to an irrational fear of anything that has to do with Donald trump. The anti-Trump hysteria peaked during the 2024 election cycle with media claims that Trump was Hitler, a fascist, and if elected would end democracy." Dad98253 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT, also as someone with a couple of mental disorders myself claiming that disliking Trump is one is honestly disgusting. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any inclusion of this content, because it's not relevant to the Republican Party as a whole. Readers have their various views about Trump, but this article is about the party, not Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right-wing populism expanded its demographics.

Per the New York Times, the only group to substantially shift left from 2012 (last non-Trump election) to 2024 is White voters with college degrees, though Black voters still stuck almost entirely with Harris. This is D-R margins.

• Black voters went from 95-4 to 85-13 from 2012 to 2024 (R+19). But 85% is still extremely high.
• Hispanic voters went from 69-30 to 54-44 from 2012 to 2024 (R+29).
• Asian voters went from 67-32 to 58-40 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17).
• Others went from 58-40 to 49-48 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17). I'm not sure what this category is, but sure.

• White, no degree went from 37-61 to 31-67 from 2012 to 2024 (R+13). The sheer margins of 61 and 67 are still high.
• Non-white, no degree went from 78-20 to 67-30 from 2012 to 2024 (R+21). This is a big shift.
• Non-white, no degree went from 82-17 to 63-35 from 2012 to 2024 (R+37). This is a massive shift.

• By age, 18 to 29 went from 61-36 to 54-43 (R+14), 30 to 44 went from 53-44 to 49-48 (R+8), and 45 to 64 went from 49-50 to 45-54 (R+9).
• White voters went from 41-57 to 42-57 from 2012 to 2024 (D+1), which is negligible.
• Whites with degrees went from 46-52 to 55-43 from 2012 to 2024 (D+17), which is a big shift.
• And 65+ went from 46-53 to 48-51 from 2012 to 2024 (D+4), which is a small shift.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/25/upshot/democrats-trump-working-class.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025

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.

---

If Project 2025 is not a case for why Republican Party is a right wing to far right political party it means either wikipedia is financially bailed out so Republican Party doesn't look extremist and have a bad image or just shows time again and again that Wikipedia is not a trustful source of information 86.124.126.108 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a soapbox Carlp941 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The populist faction isn't "far-right"

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.

---

The sources that state that the populist movement in the party is "far-right" have a left-leaning bias and have no understanding of what "far-right" actually means (which is a common trend among leftists). It's an absolute disgrace that this was allowed to be put in the article. 188.2.10.93 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources are published books studying the subject. By what basis are you deciding those are left-leaning?

Besides, our policy on sources doesn't mandate them to be unbiased as long as they're considered reliable. — Czello ^(music) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Czello For example, Associated Press is listed as one of the sources making such claims, and they have been accused of leaning left in the past 8 years.

Even if the sources aren't biased (which they are), the populist movement in the GOP isn't far-right and anyone with even the slightest understanding of political science and theory would know that. Trump is probably the most centrist Republican candidate since Nixon, so labelling the populist wing which rose under him as "far-right" demonstrates either a severe lack of knowledge on the subject or an attempt to push an obvious political agenda. I'll make an educated guess and say it's the latter.

I won't argue about policy with you, but tell me - isn't stating that a source can be both biased and reliable an oxymoron? 188.2.10.93 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - I was talking about the published books. However in answer to your question - no, a source can be considered reliable while still having a political slant. You'll struggle to find a mainstream source that isn't, at some point, considered biased in one direction or another. They're still generally considered reliable, however. — Czello ^(music) 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Czello You think books based on studies can't be biased? Because they absolutely can and quite often are. Usually towards the agenda of the people funding the study.

A source simply can't be reliable if it's biased. Those 2 things are literally mutually exclusive. I understand Wikipedia policy says otherwise, but still, from a logical point of view that's just how it works.

Reuters is generally considered neutral and objective, so it's also not impossible to find a mainstream source that isn't biased.

Again, my point still stands, even if you disregard the sources being biased. The populist wing of the GOP isn't in any way, shape or form even remotely close to being far-right. To say otherwise is disingenuous and points to a clear political agenda.

I understand Wikipedia is left-leaning and I understand that the article won't be changed, no matter how good of an argument I (or anyone else) present(s). But I'm writing this in the hope that this will reach some people (no matter how small the number) and dismantle the Democrat propaganda that's rampant in this article. 188.2.10.93 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are not presenting a good argument. You are preaching a sermon about alleged bias with no sourcing to back your claims. See Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Carlp941 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying books can't be biased, I'm asking you by what reasoning are you using to say they are? Unless you think something is inherently biased if it says "far-right". — Czello ^(music) 08:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Republican populism against "elites" a backlash against educated "elites," rather than the rich?

This is a draft space, but it appears that right-wing populism's core base in non-college voters could be explained directly by resentment against the well-educated.

One thing that strikes me is that while Elon Musk and Donald Trump are both billionaires, both only have a Bachelor's degree. JD Vance literally has a J.D. (Juris Doctor).

• Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have law degrees (J.D.), and Tim Walz has a Master's degree.

I have my source on "Polarized by Degrees," but given Republican support among Whites without college degrees, and increasingly among non-Whites without college degrees. It seems that the populism against "elites" is that of well-educated "elites", rather than the rich. Specifically, this populism originates based on specific issues where a cleavage by education can inspire populism (i.e. immigration, globalization, and environmentalism). It appears Republican voters love the wealthy but resent the well-educated, which don't perfectly correlate.

Link: https://substack.com/@theliberalpatriot/p-152601288

• Quote: "To put it bluntly, voters, particularly [non-college] voters, harbor deep resentment toward elites who they feel are telling them how to live their lives, even what to think and say, and incidentally are living a great deal more comfortably than they are. This is not the rich as conventionally defined by economic populism but rather the professional-dominated educated upper middle class who occupy positions of administrative and cultural power. By and large, these are Democrats in Democratic-dominated institutions. Looked at in this context, truly populist Democrats might want to say, with Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” This is a bitter pill for most Democrats to swallow. In today’s America, they are the Establishment even if in their imaginations they are sticking it to the Man and fighting nobly for social justice. The failure to understand that they themselves are central targets of populist anger leads Democratic elites and activists to overestimate the efficacy of economic populism and interpret populism on the right as driven solely by racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. That’s more comfortable than realizing millions of populist voters hate you. But they do."

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"In today’s America, they are the Establishment" I thought that was obvious. Democrats and their leadership are stereotyped as being classic examples of limousine liberals: "...hypocritical wealthy dogooders insulated from the negative fallout of their bad ideas. This theme has remained a staple of conservative attacks ever since." Anyway, you may need to check the article on anti-intellectualism:

• • "In 2017, a Pew Research Center poll revealed that a majority of American Republicans thought colleges and universities have a negative impact on the United States" Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support adding new content on anti-intellectualism in the Republican Party. I'll figure out how to get the wording to comply with NPOV. This new version of American conservatism, that is right-wing populism, does significantly differ with conservatism almost everywhere worldwide in its anti-intellectualism and negative correlation with increasing education among voters.

  The Republican Party is still pro-business, which does require practical expertise even if not intellectual. Whatever your views on Elon Musk, his companies Tesla and SpaceX require tremendous expertise in engineering for example. Almost all members of Congress have Bachelor's degrees, including Republicans.

  I've put a lot of work into the Social class in the United States article, and it still surprises me that the Republican Party's base is essentially the top 1% and voters without college degrees, while the Democratic Party's base is essentially voters with college degrees and African Americans. This has turned class politics in the United States nearly upside down, except for the top 1% and African Americans. Harris' voters were on average richer than Trump's voters in 2024.

  Thanks for the sources. I'll add content on how anti-intellectualism and resentment against the Democratic Party on issues perceived to be only for "educated elites" is part of the Republican Party's core appeal, particularly in the Trump era. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is original research on your part and cannot be added to the article. Social scientists have studied reasons why people adopt ideologies and vote for parties since the end of WWII and only their conclusions can be added to the article. TFD (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  My goal, as a statistician and Wikipedia editor, is to understand right-wing populism and Trumpism. I'm not doing original research, but trying to understand what exactly the "elites" Trump is railing against are. The conclusion here is that the well-educated are the elites, not the rich. This is backed up by Trump's support statistically increasing as educational attainment decreases and sources on anti-intellectualism in Trumpism. I have a Gallup poll on Republican support for higher education in decline. The sources by Nate Silver that "Education, not Income Predicted Who Would Vote for Trump" and Harry Enten's "Even Among The Wealthy, Education Predicts Trump Support" . Finally, the book Polarized by Degrees by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins has that excellent quote.

  "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ~ John Steinbeck. In a nutshell, it appears that the Republican party's base loves the rich but hates the well-educated. The Democratic Party's base hates the rich but loves the well-educated. This has caused White voters with college degrees to leave the Republicans and become Democrats, and voters without college degrees to leave the Democrats and become Republicans.

  Links: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ ; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-among-the-wealthy-education-predicts-trump-support/ ; https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus clearly exhibits inherent bias

Consensus should equally weigh all views instead of letting certain groups present more information than others. Most Wiki editors fall into the educated bucket, and studies show that educated people lean left. Why should we not counter balance this by valuing non-consensus views more? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"equally weigh all views" Is this your first day on Wikipedia? The policy in Wikipedia:BALANCE specifically prevents us from doing this: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." We have to determine the prominence of the various views before describing them in the text. Not all views are equal. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Only one reliable mass media source supports republican ideals. How could you think that weighing the rest of mass media less would not equally weigh all views? Please see my profile for when I joined. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Asia Pacific Democratic Union

Any evidence this is still active? The website and members list seem defunct. If there isn't any, maybe the affiliation should be removed from Infobox. Jay942942 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)