Talk:Democratic Party

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Different standard of 'control' is applied for democrat governors then republican ones

In the third paragraph of the opening it says that democrats "control 18* of 50 states and have partial control of another 5*" However if you look at the notes here it explains that the states democrats control includes Vermont because they have a supermajority despite Vermont having a republican governor. If you then look at the note for the five they have 'partial control' this refers to states that have a democratic governor but republicans super majority.

So apparently when democrats have a supermajority it puts then in full control of a state, but when republicans have a supermajority it leaves democrats in 'partial control' of a state. The definition of 'control' seems to change based off of the affiliation of a states governor. We should really stick to a consistent definition for how much control having a supermajority represents. I don't care which definition we go with, but the easiest would seem to be to place Vermont in the 'partial control' category and update the note to say these are states where democrates have control of either the legislative or executive branch but not control of both.

Legibility

I've started trimming this article's lists. As it was it was a barely legible compilation of names placed into categories without context. I'm inclined to say that the whole factions section would be better off with summaries of each faction's ideologies and policy, and a link to a category page rather than a list. Thoughts?-Hastur! (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, ditch the lists. The only names we really need are super notable ones like party leaders and some famous faction figureheads. Basically, I don’t care about almost anyone on these lists. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I like Hastur's idea, it conveys the information more efficiently. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The “Future” section

The section called “Future” kinda looks to me like a lot of speculation resting on a few vague and/or uncited claims. I mean, it might be right or not (I don’t really understand US politics), but it sounds a lot like just one person’s opinion that’s not based on anything concrete? ^{— Unsigned, by: 1.132.110.253 / talk / contribs}

I would agree with that. I support removing this section entirely, much like some of the overly bullish predictions that were once on the capitol riot article.-Flandres (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, it has hardly changed since 2017, and it shows. It appears to have been added almost entirely by User:Plutoniumboss, in early March, 2017: [1][2]. Serene (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Internal factions section

More than half of the article is filled by bloated lists of no name congressmen and governors, courtesy of some strange BoN that might be copypasting their entries from another site based on the randomly capitalized political positions they add. Either the lists should be trimmed further to exclude anyone that doesn't have an article or they should be removed entirely. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans in the United States

The Democratic Party now seems to be closer to the center-left than to the centrist. Joe Biden has pro-labor policies and protectionist policies, and the mainstream of European center-left social democracy is class cooperation and free trade.

American 'moderate' liberal media (Newspapers, magazines, Internet news, etc) apply harsh standards to American conservatives, but are very generous to South Korean and Japanese conservatives.

I have rarely seen Yoon Suk Yeol or Shinzo Abe described as a fascist in America.Umaru16 (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Abe has been described as the "Trump before Trump" by such luminaries as Steve Bannon. Carthage (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Although Moon Jae In is not a progressive, he is often described in the U.S. media as a "progressive nationalist" because he is sympathetic to North Korea and hostile to Japanese imperialism. I have rarely seen Yoon Suk Yeol or Shinzo Abe described as a fascist in America. So why are ALL Republicans fascists? Few American media describe Abe as a fascist, as the LDP is a pro-U.S. party responsible for the core interests of U.S. diplomacy. Umaru16 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The real reason why the Democratic Party of the United States is considered conservative outside the United States is because of its imperialist foreign policy rather than its domestic policy. Obama, for example, does not like Trump, but considers Lee Myung Bak and Shinzo Abe friends. The reality is that Trump supported Moon Jae In's North Korea policy, and Obama's North Korea policy represented the right wing of South Korea. Some liberals in South Korea loathe Yoon Suk Yeol and Shinzo Abe because Joe Biden is a liberal hawk, but are friendly to Donald Trump. Donald Trump is called a fascist in the US media because he is a pro-Russian politician, but Shinzo Abe is an extreme pro-American, so the US media does not describe him as a fascist. However, while Abe is the successor to Japanese fascism in the 1930s, Trump has nothing to do with the tradition of fascism in the 1930s. South Korean liberals think Abe is a fascist and Trump is not a fascist. Umaru16 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, South Korean politics and media are also quite problematic. Most liberals in South Korea do not like Trump, but liberals who are sympathetic to North Korea are more likely to like Trump than the anti-feminist far right in South Korea. In South Korea, the political far right hates North Korea, so they hate Trump for sending a love letter to Kim Jong-un and expressing support for Moon Jae In's North Korea policy. Yoon Suk Yeol is really anti-feminsist/anti-LGBT/anti-Chinese "K-Trump" in South Korea, but Yoon Suk Yeol and Yoon Suk Yeol supporters hate Trump for being pro-North Korea. Rather, Lee Jae-myung's supporters are relatively favorable to Trump because they believe he was anti-Japanese racist and supported the Sunshine Policy. (Anti-Japanese sentiment is left-liberals in South Korea, not right-wingers.) Umaru16 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any anti-democratic / authoritarian instincts of Yoon Suk Yeol or Shinzo Abe. This is a key difference; while both are considered very nationalist, they do not display scorn for democratic norms or desire for "strongman" rule. At least for Japan, I think there are absolutely some full-on fascist ultra-nationalists who probably end up in the "big tent" LDP at election time, but the LDP party as a whole hasn't "crossed that line". Certainly Fumio Kishida seems pretty "toned down" compared to Abe so far.

Donald Trump is clearly a "fascist wannabe" to some degree (or perhaps more accurately in the ruscism tradition) and many in the Republican party unfortunately kowtow to his path. It would be a mistake to call all Republicans fascist, many aren't. But there is a lot of illiberalism drift in pockets of the GOP these days. I actually think the end goal of many who pursue this path is more the "illiberal democracy" / kleptocracy of Viktor Orban as a "model" than the full-on ruscism of Putin, and it's not a guarantee that those who desire such can implement it, but still. The contempt of democracy and explicit support of military suppression is something I don't remember even *hearing* about from Abe or Yeol. BobJohnson (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So Koreans don't see Trump as a fascist, but to see Abe as a fascist, is it a reflection of 'sentiment', not a neutral view? (Japan colonized South Korea, but the U.S. liberated South Korea, so the image of the Republican Party in South Korea is much more positive than the image of the LDP.) However, Abe denied the Asian Holocaust and blocked demands for compensation for victims of war crimes by afflicting the South Korean economy. Trump doesn't deny the Holocaust. The human rights of Koreans during the Abe period are more inferior to those of black people during the Trump period. Umaru16 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Other users seem to object to the biased phrase describing the entire Republican Party as fascists, so I'll remove it from the Democratic Party article.# Umaru16 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, I don't think it's appropriate to describe the Republican Party itself as a fascist. Even I, with anti-Japanese sentiments, don't think all LDP members are fascists. Umaru16 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

How many times have we had this debate? Please stop, basically everyone from the U.S. has told you repeatedly that the Democrats are centrist and Republicans are very far right. Plutocow (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a social liberal party and social liberalism is at least a 'center to center-left' ideology by international standards. Umaru16 (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Center-left

Why do you keep removing this? Rationalwiki is not a left-wing wiki. There is no need to remain politically neutral, but it is not right to write biased. There are far more senators or House members close to Sanders or Warren in the Democratic Party than senators or House members close to Manchin.

I even presented academic data that the Democratic Party is center-left. Umaru16 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say the wiki trends to the left more than the right, although that's not an absolute. Anyway, the Democratic Party is a big-tent. The centrists are still very influential in terms of institutional power, but I suspect that as the "old guard" so to speak ages out, the left-wing of the Democratic Party will become increasingly more powerful institutionally speaking. We already see this process happening, but it's nowhere near complete. Carthage (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a big fight with another user who was a self-proclaimed socialist on South Korean Wiki over this issue, but I was in the opposite position in the talk session there. Certainly, many wiki in South Korea describe Minjoo Party of Korea as "centrist" and the Democratic Party of the United States as "centre-left." In South Korea, Minjoo is not considered progressive, but the U.S. Democratic Party is considered progressive. I tried to add a "centrist" to the American Democratic Party article in South Korean wiki, but overwhelming users attacked me for saying that the American Democratic Party is a radical left-winger on social issues. In the end, my editing failed. Well, it's the exact opposite here. So I'm very, very confused. 'Some' socialists in South Korea tend to think that Minjoo is not left-wing, but that the Democratic Party of America is left-wing. This shows how conservative South Korean politics is. Umaru16 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Even excluding the case of South Korea, English Wikipedia does not describe the Democratic Party as a complete "Center", but usually as a "Center to center-left". Modern liberalism is a center-left ideology. I don't think it's "reasonable" to regard Democrats as centrists while considering all Republicans as fascists. Rational wiki is not an anti-GOP wiki. Umaru16 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

When talking about the political position of a particular party, I think that minority 'identity politics' issues are as important as 'labor' issues. (Intersectionality is very important.) The Democratic Party of the United States is very 'socially' progressive in international standards. The Democratic Party of the United States, at least related to identity politics, is more left than many other "liberal" or even "social democratic" parties. I even think Joe Manchin could be more progressive on cultural issues than South Korean social democrats. In addition, liberals and socialists in Europe, Japan, and Latin America often take less progressive positions on identity political issues than the Democratic Party of the United States. (For example, transgender people in Britain, Korean-Japanese people in Japan, or Kurds in Turkey would think the U.S. Democratic Party is much more progressive than its own social democratic party.) Umaru16 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's true that the Dems are a bit to the left of many liberal parties abroad on at least a few social issues ('identity politics'). The characterization of the party as centrist, though, mainly comes from distaste by the progressive wing towards its foreign policy, economic policy, and extreme emphasis on political "process" over political "wins". But I think all three of those have changed enough under the Biden admin (or at least, his admin has been a telling sign of the shift), that to me, characterizing them as center-left isn't wrong. Chillpilled (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's right. The Democratic Party is a 'center-left' party, and social liberalism itself is a center-left ideology in the first place. Clinton or Obama are centrist, but the Biden administration and the current Democrats are center-left. Some progressives think the Democratic Party of America is still a Clinton or Obama-era centrist, but it is neither empirical nor rational at all. On social issues, the Democratic Party is quite progressive, and economic policy has recently returned to left-wing protectionism, and even left-liberal populists in South Korea see Biden's economic policy as "radical". (Even left-liberal populist Lee Jae-myung opposes Biden-style left-wing protectionism.) Umaru16 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't find his economic policy radical at all, it's just he's done some work to prevent austerity as bad as the Republicans want (which is not something we historically could've expected from him as he was a champion of Social Security cuts). Also he's reasserted the Democrats as a party that backs up labor unions, however there is the caveat that he signed a bill that killed the rail workers' strike (caveat to the caveat being that was during a really bad economic moment). His economic policy, too, is probably about center-left. As for protectionism, I don't know much about this, but I think I heard something about it being a carry-over from the Trump administration he simply never bothered to reverse (regarding China-US economic relations). He's meeting with Xi this next week, I wonder if there could be a turnaround on that. Chillpilled (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think all of Biden's economic policies are radical. Biden is more centrist in that Lee Jae-myung advocates universal basic income but Biden does not defend it. However, the part that I find very radical is Biden's protectionist policies. The policy has taken an unfair toll on the South Korean semiconductor industry, and the U.S. government is treating South Korean semiconductors unfairly. Lee Jae-myung can be seen as more centrist than Biden in that he is a firm supporter of free trade. I am a staunch supporter of free trade, even though I am a socialist. I don't think protectionism is a good policy. (I think that in a resourceless country like South Korea and Japan, U.S. protectionism can be more imperialistic than U.S. free trade. Protectionism is a zero-sum game, but free trade is a very fair game.) Umaru16 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Even Marx himself was in favor of free trade on grounds that it supported broad economic development (reasoning that it advances the classes towards a revolution). So you're not exactly alone. Chillpilled (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Marx on that point. However, free trade in the general sense tends to be based on mainstream economics. Free trade makes everyone rich in the long run, but protectionism is only beneficial to great powers or countries with resources. Umaru16 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The general perception in South Korea is that the conservative faction of the Democratic Party and the liberal faction of the Republican Party have disappeared. In fact, I tried to add a conservative faction to the "Democratic Party's faction" at a Talk session on the South Korean Wiki, but failed because other users said, "Democratic conservatives are economic liberals in other countries, not conservatives, and conservative Democrats are much smaller than social or socialist Democrats" Umaru16 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Moderates in the GOP have certainly become increasingly marginalized (as far as "moderates" can be said to exist in the post-Nixon era, regular neoconservatism is still incredibly shitty and we shouldn't be celebrating these fucks for being anti-Trump) but centrism in the Democratic Party still holds institutional power, albeit with an increasing amount of concessions to the left. Carthage (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Moderates and conservatives are different. Neoliberalism without social conservatism is not conservatism. South Korean wiki still writes conservative Democrats as factions of the past, and I tried countless times to add content about conservative Democrats to the "existential factions" rather than "historical factions" in South Korean wiki's "Democratic factions" article, but all failed. In South Korea, classical liberalism/Neoliberalism/Fiscial conservatism and conservatism are strictly distinguished. Umaru16 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There are moderates in the Republican Party, but they are not liberals. The Democrats also have moderates, but they are not conservatives. In the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed "conservative Democrats" are not social conservatives, they are fiscal conservatives who agree with cultural liberalism, which are not conservatives, but economic liberals or classical liberals. Umaru16 (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It is right that the Democratic Party is "social liberal" party. In Europe, conservatism is right-wing and socialism is left-wing, and the Democratic Party of America is closer to socialism than to conservatism on both axes. (It does not mean that the Democratic Party is a socialist, but that it is far more distant from conservatism than socialism in its ideological spectrum.) That's why Democratic Party is a "social liberal". This is an ideology founded by liberal-based socialists like Thomas Hill Green. Umaru16 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, both parties tend to align wrt economic and foreign policies. Support for Israel, support for general American imperialism, support for austerity policies that overwhelmingly harm the working and lower classes (because God forbid we cut military and police spending, or cut subsidies for major corporations)... Where they differ are on wedge issues, like welfarism (although some Democrats are fine with "cuts" to Social Security and whatnot), abortion, and LGBTQ+ issues. This is starting to change, obviously, as the grassroots becomes more and more influential... but not enough IMO. Policies favored by plutocrats are still very much institutionally relevant. Carthage (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not a party that represents the working class because it is a 'liberal' party. (To represent the working class, the identity of the Democratic Party must be a socialist or a social democrat.) But I think Democratic Party are "centre-left" because they have been more inclined to left-liberalism than right-liberalism. Democrats are clearly left-wing on cultural issues, and Biden's economic policies are more left than Obama. Umaru16 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Some regions, including Poland, rate culturally leftist social-liberal parties as "center-left to left-wing" and culturally moderate social-democratic parties as "center-left". In cultural policy, the Democratic Party or the Liberal Party of Canada may be on the left of Europe's main social democratic party. Umaru16 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the topic of Talk now, but I have a complicated feeling about Israel. Israel's attitude toward Palestinians is imperial, but Israelis are rather anti-imperialists in the Japan-South Korean conflict. The Israeli government has identified Dokdo as South Korean territory. Israelis criticize the Japanese government for not rewarding Koreans enough, and are very concerned about discrimination against Koreans in Japanese society. This is because Japan's attitude toward Koreans since 1945 and Germany's attitude toward Jews after 1945 are so different. South Korea's anti-Japanese sentiment will not go away forever unless Japan apologizes and compensates Koreans at a level similar to that of Germany. Umaru16 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)