Talk:Republican Party

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • More sauces
  • Revise introduction
  • Flesh out modern history, positions, Tea Party, etc.etc.


Added a reference to "GOP" - as a Brit I never knew who people were talking about when they mentioned the "GOP".--Bob_M (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Coloured Republicans[edit]

Just seen Condaleeeeeza Rice on the Daily Show. I am an outsider (UK) but can anyone explain to me how a "person of color" can support the Republican Party? SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 16:47, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm less surprised that a black person can support the Republican Party than I am that a working-class person can - 'cause there are many, many more working-class Republican voters than there are black people of any class that support them.

Actually, I'm appalled that working-class people and black people support either the Republican branch or the Democratic branch of the US political system and aren't out on the streets tearing down the system that screws tem so badly, but what can you do? PFoster 16:57, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Mm - it was just seeing Ms Rice made me ponder the point. SusanYou don't have to talk, but ... 17:01, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
If they are Republicans they are "colored", btw. Anyway, the GOP have had their high profile people of color for quite some time - Alan Keyes, ex-pres. hopeful, Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, etc. The working class folks vote GOP because of "social" issues (God, guns, and gays). There was a book called "What's Wrong With Kansas" that I think tried to analyze why people like this vote against their best interests. As far as people of color, again, in the US the black vote is overwhelmingly (>85%) Democrat. People of various Hispanic descents are more of a cipher, since they are often Catholic and the social issues carry more weight. The real question Americans need to answer is why anyone supports the GOP anymore... humanUser talk:Human 17:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm a huge Thomas Frank fan - check out "The Conquest of Cool" - not really related to what he's getting at in "Kansas," but a great read about the advertising business. As for why "anyone" supports the GOP - why should anyone support the Dems for that matter? It's not like Barak or Billary or John Kerry have any of them have the people's best interest in mind. If they did, they wouldn't have made it to where they are. PFoster 18:51, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

See our articles on the parties. Agreed. Kucinich is cool, but marginalized. Greens might be good, but also marginalized in a two-party system. We need a new party. Meantime, I'd take conservative Billary over nutjob right-wingers any day. Can we get a "real liberal" soon? I doubt it. Keep in mind that the right wingnuts think Hillary is an extreme left winger. How much wow is there in that? humanUser talk:Human 21:22, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


gop is helping greens in texas

Hmmmm, helping greens = hurting democrats... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the SC of TX is not really "the GOP". I realize they are all republicans, but that doesn't provide the direct connection. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

These guys are fucking clown shoes[edit]

Discuss --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 00:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

When you see someone make Boner Boehner Boner look like the Voice of Reason, you know you're not looking at some bright political lights. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A very long list of Republicans[edit]

Any particular reason you want them alphabetized by first name, OS? Doesn't make sense to me. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Phillips in Timeline?[edit]

Would anyone support mentioning Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips in the timeline? I think that the interview he did with the New York Times on May 17, 1970 may be worth mentioning due to this quote:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that. Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

This was basically the official announcement that the Republican Party had to appeal to racists if they wanted to win elections. It may be something worth noting on the timeline, though I am unsure about that. Crow7878 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mention it on the Southern Strategy page. ClothCoat (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

William H. Taft[edit]

Alluding to Taft as a business-aligned conservative may be a stretch; Taft brought more anti-Trust litigation under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in four years than Teddy did in eight. nobs"It all depends what Isil is" 03:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: He hasn't renounced his party allegiance,

Perhaps if you look at what the Democrats did to Gates in 1987 upon William Casey's death you'd understand why he'll never be a Democrat. It was pretty fucking disgusting. When they finally did approve him to a cabinet post 20 years later, I'm sure he was thrilled, and took it as a belated apology for besmirching his reputation for 20 years of his life. It's laughable having that uninformed, and ill-informed shit on this page, as if you're educating or enlightening somebody about the truth about anything. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 07:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia still devotes a tremendous amount of space of baseless, slanderous Democrat-McCarthyite crap which, after you read through all of it, says "there's no there there". Why would he ever even consider becoming a Democrat when they never gave him a fair hearing, not until Obama came along 20-odd years later? yet the malicious, slanderous crap, after his noble service to the Obama administration, remains in Wikipedia? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 07:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, why would anyone worry about that old stuff, right robs? I mean it's not like CIA spooks are constantly being suspected of not being totally above board, and there has never been any conspiracy theories about the CIA either, so why spend time going through details and concluding that one of them was, in fact, not involved in a major scandal, know what I mean?
There's a pretty good reason why the Dems were tough on Gates in '87, it's called Iran-Contra. Remember that you (and Gates) can thank the same William Casey and Saint Ronnie for that one, incl. the damage it (initially) did by association to Gate's reputation for having been Casey's deputy director at the CIA...
Fun fact, it was a Congress in the hands of a Democratic majority which approved Gates' nomination by Bush Sr. as Director of Central Intelligence in 1991 - after Gates' role (or rather lack of it) in Iran-Contra had been made clear. In other words, rather than the EEEEVUUUULZ Democrats "besmirching his reputation for 20 years of his life", a mere 4 years after having effectively denied Gates the CIA top job due to his unclear role in Casey & Ronnie's shenanigans, the Democrats actually joined in approving Gates for that very same job. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Laying aside BCCIWikipedia, Clark CliffordWikipedia, Robert FiskeWikipedia, and Mena ArkansasWikipedia, why then was John TowerWikipedia the perfect pick to head up the Tower Commission § ReportWikipedia which trashed Reagan & Casey, but then was denied by these same Senate collegues the appointment as Defense Secretary over allegations of "womanizing" - the same fucking assholes that gave Bill Clinton a pass on "womanizing" a few year later. nobsBern baby bern 23:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Civil war among party[edit]

Yes, there is a civil war among the party, from the extremists to the centrists. One commenter said

[Answer to why the Tea Party isn't its own party] Because they know that they will have nothing if they separate from the GOP. THey want to take over the party thinking that those who are Republicans will stay. They may not realize that they are driving many of the centrist Republicans to Democratic candidates.
. This is worth mentioning in the article. — Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 21:00, 02 July 2015 (UTC)

Trump and GOP backtracking on Southern Strategy[edit]

We need to add this whole thing about Trumps comments bringing to light the GOP's racism, and the GOP's reactions.Keter (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfair to Nixon[edit]

The timeline section is a little unfair to Nixon. "Tricky Dick" was actually one of the best Republican presidents in the 20th century (you know, if we ignore the whole Watergate and plumbers and unrestrained abuse of power). He...

  • Established a policy of détente with the Soviet Union, starting the "thawing-out" process of the Cold War.
  • Negotiated and achieved two landmark arms control treaties with the Soviets: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement (SALT I) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. People began to ease off their fear of being annihilated at any moment, until Reagan brought the Cold War back full-swing with his campaign and presidency.
  • Normalized relations with China, which had been regarded as impossible.
  • Pulled out of Vietnam.
  • Declared the War on Cancer, accelerating the cancer research process.
  • Enforced large-scale desegregation of Southern schools.
  • Introduced legislation to reform healthcare and welfare.
  • Publicly endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, and campaigned as its supporter.
  • Established/passed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Air Act. Teddy Roosevelt would have been proud.
  • Presided over the Apollo 11 moon landing.

All in one term's work, and by someone who got impeached, for God's sake.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I agree that we should add those achievements but you could always do it yourself, y'know.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 00:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

'Far-right' party?[edit]

The introduction describes this party as far-right. How so? Not even Ted Cruz has the authoritarianism of Donald Trump to generalize the politics of the few wingnuts.Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


In the long haul, win or loose, the impact of Trump may force major overhauls in this and other articles. It's obvious Trump does not come out of the GOP mainstream which traces it's roots to about the fall of Nixon and the 1974 electoral massacre. My view is Trumpism is the RINO wing retaking control as they held the sway in the pre-Goldwater days. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 18:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How is Trump a RINO? He is even more racist than the rest of the GOP. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
East coast, New York, liberal pro-tax, emphasis and pandering to social conservative issues, de-emphasis on business (like pro-minimum wage) and national security issues. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump has no policy positions besides racism that he hasn't flip-flopped on repeatedly. He has for instance said US wages are "too high". And him being from the East Coast means exactly nothing. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
East coast Republicans tend to be "reform Democrats", i.e. reform minded Democrats who cannot advance within local Democratic machines because of their reform agenda. Voters know this, and a reform candidate can advance very quickly and get elected to Governor (like Romney or Christie) in a state solidly controlled by Democrats when corruption and reform become big issues, or Mayor (like Guilianni or Bloomberg) in a city like New York with a 90% registered Democrat voter base. This is only possible because the GOP organization in those states is virtually non-existant, at least anything that resembles the national party.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 02:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── RINOs typically do not get the scrutiny from MSM that national Republicans do, and enjoy better press relations. Now that Trump has become a national Republican figure, this is something he was totally unprepared for and obviously a mistaken assumption on his part that the positive press he's enjoyed for years as a RINO would not be there as the GOP nominee. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 18:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hamabost that Trumps political positions are far too fluid to make categorical statements on what "Trumpism" is — bar an aggressive version of chauvinist "USAism" in which Trump practically depicts himself as the latter day strong man embodiment of manifest destiny. Whether his supporters and voters can be categorised into a more coherent set of ideological positions also remains to be seen. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Trump has many things in common with the original Italian meaning of fascism. Extreme nationalism, the claim to "not be a politician", few ideological fixed points (Mussolini in his early years as a Fascist leader was impossible to pin down) economic populism but still an alliance with the "Middle Class" as well as "captains of industry" - in short, if the term wasn't so toxic as to usually be the end of debates, Trump would have to be described as the prototype of the 21st century fascist. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Immigration policy, for example. There's no evidence Trump believes any of the crap he talks. What he did was sieze ahold of an issuse - a controversial issue politicians of both parties have avoided or eqivocated on - and made it his centerpiece knowing he'd garner about 40% nationally, unchallenged as the leader on that issue. Now he can't let go of it. He has no other issues or constituencies. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 06:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Understanding the GOP[edit]

Fundamentally, there are two wings to the GOP. Historically, these have been represented by the Wisconsin wing and the New York contingent. Tensions between the two date back to the founding of the GOP in Wisconsin in 1854, and the New York City draft riotsWikipedia of 1862. While Wisconsin has provided ideological leadership of the party, New York by virtue of its size and population dominated for many years. Even today in the primary schedule, primaries are held weekly, with a two week break between the Wisconsin and New York primaries for an assessment of results.

Ideologically, when the New York model of governance through Tammany HallWikipedia was exported to other states, it was Wisconsin Progressive Republicans who took the lead in reform. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt left the corrupt, New York dominated GOP and joined the Progressives. Franklin Roosevelt entered politics the same year, associating the Roosevelt name with Northern Democrats. Joseph McCarthy (please don't laugh) was elected as a "reformer" because of the communist influence the New York machine lead by FDR allowed to worm its way into the federal DC government.

Nelson Rockefeller of NY led the coalition that lost its influence in the 1964 nomination. I'm leaving out a discussion of Ulyses Grant and TR Roosevelt, which could help make my point clearer.

Fast forward. When Boehner quit, the national GOP looked to the party's traditional ideological bearings in Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus. Not surprisingly, along comes the traditional, corrupt, big city, communist leaning, anti-American, draft rioting, Rockefeller Red contingent of New York Republicans again fucking up the party and the nation. Wisconsin sent him packing with 30% in primary. But New York can always beat Wisconsin in numbers, and the prick survived. Now he makes it to DC, where he knows jackshit about Washington. Paul Ryan's been running the country and the party now for a few years. He asks Ryan, "Duh, what do I do next?" Ryan tells him, "Well, you have to appoint a Chief of Staff to run things." Trump says, "Who do I appoint?" Ryan says, "My man Friday, Reince Priebus". Mind you, these are the same guys that just kneecapped him in the Wisconsin primary who got 70% of the state GOP to shit-can him. And Scott Walker, the third stooge, who quit the presidential race blaming Trump, just flipped a blue state to red. Bottom line, this mutherfucker owes us (that is, the Wisconsin GOP and ideological heirs of the party of Lincoln). If he thinks he's gonna take the party in the direction of those anti-American draft dodging corrupt big city communists like Nelson Rockefeller or Franklin Roosevelt, fuck him. This is our goddam party. Evidentially it's working, too. His first action was to shit can that RINO Chris Christie. nobs 12:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

See, whu'd I tell ya[edit]

It's the goddam New York RINOs fuckin' up and giving GOP a bad rep. Hell, real Repiblicans don't even call them Repiblicans. They call them D-m-o-c-r-a-t-s. That's what Trump's bums are, Democrats. I mean, who else is capable of this incompetence and fuckin' up this much. Only in this case, the media is a actually talking about it. nobs 07:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular sovereignty[edit]

Somewhere we'll need a discussion of the notion of Popular sovereigntyWikipedia. It both caused the Civil War and led to the creation of the Civil Service, ending Reconstruction and the spoils system. nobs

All this harkens back to the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates (those debates were about 6 hours in length, each). It's essentially federalism vs states rights, and ties into debates on big government today. The Tea Partiers in Congress, for example, just voted to uphold federalism, Obamacare, and big government and deny the popular sovereignty of their people. nobs 17:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

1. Sean Spicer was picked because he's the spokesman for the Ryan/Priebus machine, which he remains. Donald Trump doesn't have press spokesman, maybe Kellyanne Conway comes the closest.

2. The Obama's named their babysitter White House chief of protocol. When the clamor arose to fire someone and clean house in the first six months, she was the perfect scapegoat. The position is expendable, not just a reward for big donors. nobs 01:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


All politicians are corrupt in some way, the left, the right, and central.RW is leftist so you won't see as much stuff against the democrat party (just compare with this article.) if you want to see neutral view then you are on the wrong site.--Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 18:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Considering that presenting the facts and nothing else leads to the conclusion that the Republican party is awful, plus the fact we explicitly don't claim to be neutral, I don't see why this is a bad thing.
2) Anything specific wrong with the article, besides "it's biased"? Christopher (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Im just telling the people who say "this site is full of left wing idiots" that if they don't like it they can go elsewhere.--リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 18:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
i personally don't care, as i don't have a group i tie into.--Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 18:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a bad suggestion, 1) You shouldn't only visit websites with the same political bias as yourself, echo chambers and all that. 2) Someone who has different biases to the person who wrote a particular article is more likely to spot errors and, hopefully, correct them. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
True, but it is annoying that most are here to cause trouble.--Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right Faction[edit]

"...and the blatantly racist Alt-right faction, which, at this point, is probably close to getting a candidate of their own into Congress"

Does Steve King not count? --User:ClintWayne 04:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClintWayne Hmm... Well then, it seems that section needs updating. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would class him personally as alt-right. He seems more like your standard neo-Confederate style racist who happens to be using alt-right propaganda because that particular propaganda agrees with him, but he doesn't really use many tactics endemic to their community. Ꞩᵽꞧɨꞡꞡɨꞥⱥ (ⱦⱥłꞣ) (ȼøꞥⱦꞧɨƀꞩ) @ 03:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Citations Needed[edit]

There are very few citations in this article. Without citations it looks like we just made stuff up. MrNubNub (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Internal Factions Section[edit]

Would anyone else be up to adding a section featuring all the factions of the Republican Party and the members of those factions like the Democratic Party article has? ClintWayne (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)ClintWayne

I know I'm 2 years late, but I agree. I think we should reorganize the "An incomplete list of Republicans" article along ideological lines like the Democratic Party.TheEndlessVoid (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)