This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Since when have either the Democratic or Republican parties adopted official colors? The articles report Dem=blue and GOP=red. Just because the media uses these colors in electoral maps doesn't make them official. They should be deleted from articles unless someone can show that they have been adopted officially. (In practice, I think both parties may claim red, white and blue as used in versions of their logos). NoSeptember 01:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The historic section has been augmented by some Democratic Presidents who, as Presidents go, aren't all that notable. Maybe we should create a third category, between the current ones and the historics, for "Democratic Presidents". JamesMLane 23:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
For the last couple of days, I've been trying to add some depth to the article, thinking it lacked it. I've tried include more clear descriptions of the issue positions shared by the vast majority of Democrats and include some recent history. I tried to discuss some of the inner struggles of the party, given that its bitter division is important to understanding why it is as it is now. I don't know how to make footnotes, but I carefully numbered the references to the section for recent history and listed them in a new section for references. More importantly, I've described the ideological factions, rather than the microfactions previously listed, and tried to assertain why liberals, progressives, conservatives and moderates are all under the same party banner and what caucuses and networks are in each faction.
The results of my work are imperfect and my biases may have crept into it a little. Plus the section for principles needs the Democratic views on campaign finance and enviroment. But I think it's a good model for improvement. I encourage other wikis to further edit it for encyclopedic quality.
I appreciate the effort to add more info on the party's actual political beliefs, but the section as it stands is seriously problematic, and likely to only get worse. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of deciding which are the most important "issues, principles, and values" of the party -- that's an inherently biased exercise in original research, prohibited by our editorial policies. Nor does it serve any useful purpose to develop a smorgasbord listing of every issue in American politics, and our best guesses as to where a majority of Democrats might fall on it (even with repeated caveats that the party is not united).
I'd like to suggest that we start over with something closer to what's in the GOP article: a listing of the party's stated political principles (from either the platform or charter), and a brief description of the party's core political identity (or lack thereof), and work from there, preferably using specific citations at every turn.
Thoughts?
Also, the article overall is in fairly bad shape, so I'm going to spend some time going over the other sections now. I'll leave the first section alone for the moment. RadicalSubversiv E 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I completely disagree with User:Radicalsubversiv deleting my edits. They are in no way POV, in fact I actually deleted a few lines that were indeed POV and didn't give both sides of the political argument. What I simply did was edit the article to make it less bias and more informative. That's why I'm going to re-add the edits. Mr. User:Radicalsubversiv I don't have any personal problem with you, so let's this civil and not start some sort of editing battle. I'm not here to push any political junk, just be informative. -- HowardDean 7 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
I've just removed several of PSzalapski's additions to the issues, principles, and values section:
Note that I am on record opposing this entire section to begin with, as I believe it to be a magnet for endless debates over which minute policy positions can be attributed to a party which can't even agree which direction is up much of the time.
RadicalSubversiv E 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to start an article on the various ballot symbols used by U.S. political parties in different states. I have never seen a source for these anywhere. I think with the diverse knowledge of Wikipedians, we can compile a comprehensive resource right here. Help out at User:Pharos/List of political party ballot symbols by U.S. state. I've already added a few for New York. Thanks.--Pharos 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Hello, will some of you answers some questions for my research on wikipedia. Please e-mail Tiffany at chadek@u.washington.edu thanks! The questions are short and will take about 10 min. --216.160.93.48 (talk · contribs)
As I've already stated at Talk:Republican Party (United States), I don't see the need for the infobox to include a blanket "ideology" label in the first place. But if we're going to have it, our obligation is to be accurate, not to create some sort of false parallel between the Democrats and the GOP where none exists in reality. The reality is that the Republican Party is unquestionably a conservative party -- that being a relative broad labels which includes several flavors and degrees. Sure, there are a few outliers (Lincoln Chaffee comes to mind), but they are just that.
The Democrats cannot be thought of as liberal in the same sense. Democratic moderates are not an informal grouping of the "somewhat less liberal" -- they are an organized, dominant faction which specifically eschews the liberal consensus which once dominated their party, in favor of a "third way". The issue here is not an odd outlier like Zell Miller -- it's prominent party leaders like Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Tom Vilsack.
RadicalSubversiv E 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe an NPOV disclaimer is needed for this article. The article takes a consistent slant that the Democratic Party is "more centrist" than the Republican Party. The ideology label is only the most visible manifestation of this and is persistently added by a few people with the opinion that the party is "more centrist" than the Republican Party. In a system with two major parties, one left and one right, it's nothing but POV for someone to believe that their party (or the one they associate with more closely) is the correct, or more moderate/center one. Go to a red state and ask people which party is more center, and people will tell you it is the Republican Party -- their opinion too. Until the article (articles, really) drop the positioning of one party as moderate and the other as hopelessly dogmatic, the NPOV disclaimer is needed on one or both. Daniel Quinlan
One broader point... motives don't really matter, although I sometimes let an implication of that leak into my discussion of articles (it is definitely not a major point in my argument here, though). All that really matters is whether or not the articles contain POV, which they do. Daniel Quinlan 22:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
While I wish the Democratic Party was as much a liberal as I am (I'm a member of the party), you can not ignore the many Democratic Leadership Council members who infiltrate the party (Vilsack, Hillary Clinton, Bayh, and others). DLC is an unofficial organization of centrist and conservative Democrats who want to move the party rightwards than the Democratic National Committee. The Republican Party is unquestionably very conservative, however the Democratic Party has many elected members who have a rather centrist stand on issues most of the time. Most of the members of the Democratic Party are left-wing though. But as much as you can point out the centrist members of Congress, there are also many liberal members, such as Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich. By the way, there is nothing POV about this issue in my view, and liberals are not adding "centrist" to make the article "look good" or whatever, in fact, I'd wish "centrist" needn't be there in the first place, since I wish more Democrats would take a more liberal stand on issues. But Wikipedia is here to reflect the reality. And the reality is that the Democratic Party is divided on this issue, of whether to be left-of-center or to move rightward, so both "liberalism" and "centrism" should stay there. --Revolución (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for putting other pictures up. I was the one who added FDR's picture. Do you think we should add Howard Dean's picture, as he's the chairman of the party? --Revolución (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you think this is a good idea: A graph of how the Democratic Party has changed politically over time, you could show it starting out as conservative, then moving to liberal in the '60s, then moving a bit centrist later. I guess we should have it resting a bit left of the center for the current situation. And if it moves to the left or right politically then somebody could update it. (although I have no idea how to update an image, if somebody knows please give me some info on User talk:Revolución.) --Revolución (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Has this been a featured article before? I'm just making sure, so if I ever feel this has reached featured article status (it's looks close to that!), I can nominate it. --Revolución (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not one to get into edit wars, so I'm putting this here, at least until there is other support.
In the United States, there is an evenly split electorate. Both parties have a legitimate claim to the center, by numbers alone. This edit summary "RV! Listen to the reasons you just gave, if the GOP is centrist the DNC is what......? ah yes, NOT centrist" is fallacious: it assumes that the "center" is monolithic, and can belong only to one camp. Not so. Both parties claim "centrism." Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
see how many wiki-goers think Democrats are 'centrist'--I-2-d2 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Members of the Senate "New Democrat" Coalition:
18 centrist Democrats in the Senate, out of 44 total Democrats.
"New Democrat" Governors:
10 centrist Democratic governors out of 22 Democratic governors
That's the reality. A hard, unfortunate reality for us liberal Democrats. --Revolución (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I see a lot of stuff here, but no consensus. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concern that "centrist" is a subjective label. "Third way" is not -- it refers to a very specific ideological movement, which is why I've added it twice as a supplement to liberalism. But again, my preferred solution is to remove the "ideology" line from the template altogether. RadicalSubversiv E 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
One of the best ways to defuse these kinds of arguments, and get the article-writing back on track, is to stop focusing on what we think but on how the political parties label themselves. Does the Democratic party claim the label of centrist (they do)? Does the Republican party claim that label (they do). That, together with the abundant evidence of self-identified centrists among both Democrats and Republicans, suggests keeping "centrism" in the article.
Polite note to the newcomers to Wikipedia: this is not Usenet. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They are not suggestions, they are official site policy. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned by the "centrism" issue. In particular, given the tremendous overlap between the policies of the GOP and the Dems, it seems to me highly POV to describe exactly one of the two as centrist. Either they both are, or neither is. WMMartin 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I doubt you would find many Republicans who self-identify as "ultra-conservative". Revolución's recent edits are POV and should be reverted. --Bziobnic 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
1. You cannot state unequivocally that Nader was a spoiler, because there is compelling evidence that Gore would have lost to Bush even without Nader in the race.
2. You cannot trivialize the similarities between Bush and Gore by listing only two issues. Their similarities were many and varied and were the main reason why all those people voted for Nader and Buchanan.
3. Never, never, never say that one candidate "stole" votes from another, unless you have proof of electoral fraud. Liberal votes didn't belong to Gore and conservative votes didn't belong to Bush. They belonged to the people who cast them, and if those people cast their votes for Nader and Buchanan, that's their right as Americans.
1. By the definition of "spoiler" in this encyclopedia, Nader was a spoiler. See the link.
2. You cannot trivialize the differences between Bush and Gore by not listing all of them. The past five years ought to have demonstrated what the differences are between these two candidates.
3. I was using "stole" in the colloquial sense.
The problem here, I think, is that the description of the 2000 election focuses on the Greens and Nader, when really the election was between Gore and Bush. How do you analyze that? If not for Nader's role in Florida, he would have been a footnote to the election, just as he is a footnote to the 1996 and 2004 elections and is not mentioned here. Nader's role in the 2000 election would better be covered in the entry about Nader and the entry about the 2000 election. The description here should be written in a Bush-Gore context. Why did Gore lose to Bush, not to Nader (Gore clobbered Nader). I'm going to give some thought to this and write it up in the next few days.
1. It could be argued that a variety of factors, including but not limited to Pat Buchanan, sight-challenged old folks, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America decided this election in favor of George W. Bush and you cannot lay the whole thing at Nader's door.
2. Since you don't have a crystal ball and you cannot see into a parallel universe, you really can't say what Gore would have done differently than Bush. And I did not, by any means, list all of their similarities. I summarized.
3. Don't use "stole" in any sense. Nader and Buchanan didn't steal anything. Those votes belonged to the people who cast them, and if they cast them for someone other than Bush or Gore, hard cheese.
No doubt a number of factors contributed to the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. That goes without saying. But Buchanan, butterfly ballots, and the like aren't the main reasons. The real question is: Why did so many vote for Bush? This Wikipedia entry deals with the Democratic Party. Why did it lose the election? The Nader discussion from the subject, as I argued earlier, and Nader in 2000 is a more fit subject for Ralph Nader. The Green Party has become a footnote in American politics.
The second paragraph of the "History: Origins" section is kind of out of chronological order, and semi-confusing. There's a word missing from this clause: "...with the forming the Democratic-Republican faction..."
The wikipedia definition of Political faction states that a faction is "grouping of individuals within a political organisation," and a "power bloc, or a voting bloc." It futher states, "Where factions differ is the amount of organisation and internal structure they possess. Most factions are very loose organisations, having no definitive list of members and little in the way of common goals besides the advancement of particular individuals."
By the wikipedia definition, several of the factions under "Factions in the Democratic party" are not factions at all, but are organizations whose members have joined together to influence the Democratic Party in some way or to advance their political ideas. Under the wikipedia definiton of factions, I believe these groups should be taken out of the list of Democratic Party factions: Democratic Leadership Council, 21st Century Democrats, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Democrats of America, and African-American Leadership. These are actually organizations, not factions of the Democratic Party. Some have member lists; some are closed to outsiders; all are not "loose organizations."
What say you to making this a true list of factions? -- Groit
Those are factions. sorry, but they're staying. However, I think "Clintonistas" should be taken out, because supporters of Clinton do not even call themselves that, and most likely they could be classed under the DLC. --Revolución (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree about the Clintonistas, although maybe they should be given a different name (I think Rush Limbaugh came up with the term "Clintonistas", which would qualify the term as perjorative). However, Clinton followers and admirers form a large voting bloc within the party. As a voting bloc, they consitute a faction. Maybe call them "Clinton Democrats."
Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia defintion of Political faction. I believe we should keep the terms straight. If this list is to have organizations, not factions, maybe its name should be "Prominent Organizations in the Democratic Party." -- Griot
Gun-control is a significant party platform that deserves attention as the democratic party's position is generally opposed to that of the Republican, and other parties.Tetragrammaton 01:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The Clinton administration supported the Brady Campaign and SAFE (both of which call for total disarmament of US citizens openly on their websites). Therefore, some of the Democratic party's leadership and members did support outright disarmament both directly and indirectly during the Clinton years. I realize there has been major backpeddling on this issue by the Democrats, its about time too. How can the party rally to protect a women's right to an abortion and a gay person's right to marriage, but not the right to keep and bear arms for self defense? (which the DOJ says is an individual right. Seems both illogical and hypocritical, IMHO.
California, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C., are all excellent examples of what some Democrats (not all, I understand there are those who understand the constitution) want to do to the rest of the country. I have seen the senate bills to renew and/or replace the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" over the last few years. The usual suspects keep pushing for stronger and more unconstitutional legislation. Tell me John, where will it stop? When there are no firearms left to own?
As for the Brady Campaign HERE is their "position" on the second amendment. Basically, their position is that the second amendment is an "anachronism." Essentially this organization is saying they have the right to illegalize gun-ownership completely. That IS total disarmament, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton support this group, and had numerous photo shoots with Sarah Brady during Bill's reign. Other Democrats support this organization, like Ted Kennedy, Dianne Fienstein, Barbara Boxer, and the rest of the so-called "Brady Bunch."
As for having to demonstrate "total support", I would like to see any politician that "totally" supports any issue, no matter what party he belongs to.
Modest gun-control does not exist, it is a fallacy, for the simple reason that what one group finds modest the other may find extreme or intolerable. This is akin to saying that there can be reasonable restrictions on Gay rights, like not allowing them to get married. Or "modest" restrictions on abortion like only allowing abortions if the woman has been raped. Maintaining current gun laws is still considered to be unreasonable by the standards of those they effect most, gun-owners. Therefore, I say that the entry which gives a spectrum going from moderate gun-control over to total disarmament is a fair analysis of the Democratic party's stance on gun-control.Tetragrammaton 08:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, nobody cares about your policy preferences, or your interpretation of the second amendment. The interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Democratic Party would be valuable, but the Brady Campaign is not the Democratic Party. Furthermore, saying that the 2nd Amendment is not about a right to individual gun ownership (a position which has not yet been contradicted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, so far as I am aware, has yet to find any gun control measure unconstitutional, except for obvious overreaches like the Gun Free Schools Act) is not the same thing as saying that individual gun ownership should be banned. Nor is registration of guns the same thing as banning private ownership of guns. Is the private ownership of cars banned because all cars have to be registered? BTW, the DOJ position that you elucidate is a new one. Until the present administration, the DOJ always agreed with the prevalent Supreme Court interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right having to do with the formation of militias. Obviously, the Supreme Court has not fully decided this issue, but it is misleading in the extreme to act as though the NRA position is the mainstream one, just because a Republican DOJ decided to change its position a couple of years ago. Beyond this, you have yet to provide any evidence of anything, except some libertarian scaremongering. As to Massachusetts, California, and DC, it doesn't look to me as though any of those jurisdictions have authorized "total disarmament." They all require permits, apparently, and DC has banned sale and possession of handguns, but that is not the same thing at all. Note that my source is the NRA's website, which can hardly be accused of being biased against 2nd amendment rights! john k 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all John, I am far from the only individual who is able to read and properly understand what the 2nd amendment means. The fact that the DOJ has finally officially recognized this is no surprise. People of varying backgrounds, social status, and race understand it. Even the BATF's special council on "assault weapons" determined that the "assault weapon ban" as it was written "may violate the individual rights of citizens" and made exceptions and policys which allowed the continued production and sale of "military sporters" and replacement "magazine bodies." According to the BATFE's 2003 NICS statistical report to congress, there are 20.5 million more gun owners than in 1999, making the total number of gun owners at some 85 million (NRA statistics put it at approximately 147.5 million). This is hardly a minority viewpoint, I can safely assume that people who are willing to pay $1000.00 to $3000.00 dollars for a decent rifle, $500.00 to $1800.00 for a quality pistol, and $300.00 to $1200.00 for a quality shotgun, are buying these weapons with the understanding they have an individual right to keep them. Of equal interest is the Census Bureau's statistics on licensed hunters, there are only 13 million licensed hunters in the US. Hmmm, wonder what the other 72 million own? I can answer that question, handguns, and OMG, military sporters. Yep! The BATFE estimates that 45% of all firearms sold between 1999-2003 are of the military style civilian type rifles, 40% are pistols, and only 15% are "hunting" guns. Otherwise gun ownership would obviously decline. Your assertion that "Until the present administration, the DOJ always agreed with the prevalent Supreme Court interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right having to do with the formation of militias.", it just dead wrong. US. vs Miller makes clear who the "militia" and "people" in the second amendment are otherwise they would have focused on Miller and not the shotgun. Common sense tells us (well most of us anyway) that no amendment is necessary to grant power to the states so they can "keep and bear" arms, that has been the custom and policy of governemnts the world over for the better part of 5000 years of man's history. I believe this is enough said. John, you will not change my or any other gun-owners opinion on this subject, nor shall I or anyone else I presume, change your opinion on this subject. Therefore, we are at an impass. As for the article, I shall research the issue of total disarmament more closely especially around the registration issue which, as has been shown in every country that has passed registration laws, usually leads to either partial or complete disarmament of the population. Tetragrammaton 04:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Most Democrats support the continued decriminalization of same-sex partnerships and progress in their nationwide acceptance, though their legal standing continues to be debated nationally. As such, the majority of the Democratic Party considers engaging in a same-sex partnership a civil right of the American people.
Is this referring to gay marriage or gay sex? I need to know, so I can change the language in this paragraph to make more sense. --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Decriminalization makes no sense with respect to gay marriage. Gay marriage is not criminal, it is just invalid. You can't be arrested for performing a gay marriage ceremony, so far as I am aware. "Legalizing" and "Decriminalizing" don't mean the same thing at all. If it means gay sex, it likewise makes no sense - gay sex is no longer criminal since Lawrence v. Texas. john k 04:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Since it is apparently NPOV to add a "Negative Press" section to the Libertarian entry, I am flirting with the idea of adding similar sections to both the Democratic and Republican party articles. Any objections?Tetragrammaton 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, yes. john k 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree with John. --Revolución (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I turned the list into prose. --Revolución (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)