Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 9

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 5

←

Archive 7

→

Black migration to Democratic Party: Documentation?

The article as written today indicates that blacks overwhelmingly adhered to the Democratic Party from economic considerations, the programs of the New Deal. Though this may be true, there's not one source cited in support of so bald an assertion. Can any reliable source be found? Can the racial difference (as many whites remained within the Republican Party) be explained? Firstorm (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's received knowledge; everybody knows it's true, so sourcing may be hard to find. I'd start with textbooks. Look at party-switching; William L. Dawson, the most powerful black politician in Chicago at the time, switched in 1930. Abductive (reasoning) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue this point but..."The Color of Welfare" by Jill Quadagno, "The White Man's Burden" by Winthrop D Jordan, & "America's Struggle against Poverty in the 20th century" by James T. Patterson would all support your claim in some fashion, however LBJ's "Great Society" would be a better turning point to site than "The New Deal" and really, historically, neither party had done anything to actually help America's problems with poverty in the past 60 years. If you look at the actions & effects of for both democrat & republican parties, you'll find the efforts were mainly useless endeavors created to garner votes without fulfilling the needs of the voter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous poster (12 Jan 10). I've a similar impression: that, at least since the 1920s or '30s, neither major American political party really desires more than to continue its bosses' receipt of money (and, perhaps, a shadow of power). I'm more interested in blacks' internal reasoning in transferring allegiance from the Republican party to the Democratic: do we actually fall for the rhetoric, or are deeper factors at work? I remain uncertain. Firstorm (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The real change came when the Democratic party became the first to support civil rights. This enraged long time southern Democrats, who finally dropped the Yellow Dog mantra and joined the Republicans. Strom Thurmond, for example, was a Democrat until 1964. It was a difficult time, because neither party was well defined. There was polarization like there is today, but it wasn't quite along party lines. ReignMan (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove implied "attacks" on Non-Democrats

In the "Ideology" section under "Liberals" there is the following line...

"A majority also favor diplomacy over military action"

This statement is indicative of most Americans. Placing it in this article implies that the majority of Independents and Republicans prefer military action over diplomacy. There is no argument that there exist radical elements (of all parties)that are pro-war, but they remain an exception. This information is not necessary in a nation where the vast majority of citizens share the same beliefs. Saminole (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Without taking sides on your core issue, I do take exception to your closing statement. In the U.S. the vast majority of citizens DO NOT share the same beliefs. If they did, there would not be a revolving door into the White House (and Congress) every other election or so that swaps representatives of one political belief system with another. Mercy11 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's this: [1] 62% support for the war. You (saminole) stated:

This statement is indicative of most Americans. Placing it in this article implies that the majority of Independents and Republicans prefer military action over diplomacy. There is no argument that there exist radical elements (of all parties)that are pro-war, but they remain an exception.

So, your statement is actually untrue. According to Gallup, ABC, USA Today, CNN, FOX, and the Washington Post (reliable sources), the majority of Americans did, in fact, support the war. When these polls were done, it was also shown that less Democrats were in favor of the war than Republicans. ReignMan (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here separate the soldiers from the generals? I live in America, I was raised in America, this means that most of the people I know are American's. I think it is safe to say that most voters, from ALL parties, do not want to go to war...EVER. I think it is also safe to say that most voters from ALL parties condemn torture & think it's an inhuman practice. If you look at the numbers MOST of the Democrats in the senate supported the war with Iraq at the time, they may have recanted it later, but they did vote for it, just like most of the Republicans voted for it. In this case there is NO revolving door, the American voter has a limited choice, they can either vote for Donkey that wanted to go to war or an Elephant that wanted to go to war. They can vote for a Blue that wants to give billions of dollars to companies that wont give Americans jobs, or a Red that wants to give billions of dollars to companies that wont give Americans jobs. This is why the parties in power switch so often. If you look at what the American people want it's really not that different no matter what party they are in: security, happiness, meaningful work, education, health care, transportation, a world at peace, a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, a winning sports team. The problem is not that Americans don't want the same things, the problem is that politicians in BOTH parties don't want to give it to them. So they try one for a little while & when that fails they try another not because there is a huge divide between the people in one party or the other but because there is a huge divide between politicians in Both parties & the people that have no choise but to vote for one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Center-Left? How?

Center-Left by international standards, looking at political parties across the world spectrum. Those who don't understand that need to study international politics and put American politics in context of the whole world we live in. I don't find the statement about the Whig Party fading away and the Republican Party being mostly a split-off from the Democratic-Republican Party. Two of the main founders of the Republican Party were Rockefeller and Leland Stanford. Stanford was a Whig. The Republican Party continued to perpetuate (and still does) many of the Whig policies, and a study of the early-20th century Encyclopedia Britannica entries (before they were heavily cut up and censored after it was put under the thumb of Rockefeller's University of Chicago) show how much the Republican Party was and is a revived Whig Party, although they copied half the name of the party of Jefferson. 70.36.176.211 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"although since the 2007-2010 recession, many in the party have moved to the far-left." - this statement from the article is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gksteele (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they are considered "left wing" on a national scale within America, however, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it is arrogant to write an article on a national scale instead of an international one.

It at least deserves a dubious and discuss tag as does the Republican party has over whether it is "centre-right" or just simply "right"

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

I believe that this at the very least could be used as evidence of the Democrats being "centre-right" even if they are more left-wing and liberal than the Republicans that is only relatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.52.20 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A truly international article would label the democratic party as a party that represents the center right to center left. The vast majority of Democrats (including every single sitting Democratic Senator) are right wing. Barack Obama is right wing. The Democratic party is "more left than the Republican party", but not left wing in general.

It's my theory that the reason so many Americans consider the Democrats left wing is because they don't know what left wing actually means. A true left wing party would advocate universal single payer healthcare, limitations on salary and wealth, government control of markets, and would be opposed to land ownership. On the social issues, they would insist on nothing less than full legal marriage for homosexuals and polygamists, be opposed to censorship of any media, and vehemently oppose the death penalty. There are almost no Democrats who favor even one or two of these things. ReignMan (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, that sounds like the Democratic platform to me, with the expection of polygamy. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that. The positions of the various Democrats currently elected in the United States are almost totally against most of this stuff. Many Democrats don't agree with gay marriage, and even those who do only agree with civil unions. Democrats across the board favor censoring nudity and foul language from television. As far as I know, not a single Democrat currently in a major office is calling for land ownership to be outlawed, or capping salary and personal wealth. Ralph Nader is the only politician I can think of who supports income caps, but he's not a Democrat. Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat I can think of who advocates universal single payer healthcare, but almost all Democrats believe in private options as well. This would be a centrist view, not left wing. The true left wing view is that no one should be able to have better healthcare than anyone else, no matter how much money they have. ReignMan (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the red herrings...the article does not call the Democrats "left-wing." That would be quite absurd indeed. Please resist the urge to flood the talk page with your personal opinions and refer to the reliable secondary sources backing up the claim.UBER ^(talk) 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because the Democratic party is considered right wing in the European spectrum, doesn't mean that they would be considered right wing on an international scale. Maybe you should take a look at the policies implemented by the Democrats while they've been in power. Very much in line with the European left. Dunnsworth (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as much in line with the European right too, although Democratic policies are more right-wing than the mainstream European right would advocate. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said below, there's no real comparison. Nations in Europe use different issues to define left than Americans, Cubans, Canadians, Columbians, etc. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe you should take a look at the policies implemented by the Democrats while they've been in power. Very much in line with the European left." - Not true at all. The European left (who actually are socialists) traditionally advocates things like public ownership of finance and certain industries and a system of social security much more robust than what the far left of the Democratic Party advocates, and have carried out quite a bit of their programs in many countries. The Democratic Party is a liberal party, which by the standard of almost all developed countries is a center-right ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@reignman polygamy? which left-wing party is in favor of polygamy? (talking about center-left, not radical splinter-groups) . a lot of left-winged european parties did agree with privatization of several government businesses (which came back to bite them when privatization was often not as successful at cutting costs and improving customer-services as hoped). against land ownership??? i'm afraid you're confusing 'left winged' with 'militant communists'. the idea that private ownership and free market are inherently 'evil' has long been abandoned by any respectable leftist party. you do have a point about gay marriage: equal rights for men, women, straight, gay, white, colored, etc seems pretty standard for left-winged parties the world over. most are against death-penalty indeed as for censorship: hypocrisy about freedom of speech is pretty universal, everybody wants their own views to be spread everywhere and will accuse their opponent of 'spreading lies'. demanding any unpleasant opinion to be silenced, leaving just enough of a neutered opposition to keep the illusion of 'freedom of speech'

Democrat Party and Slavery

I think there should be a refference that outlines the involvement of the Democrat party with slavery. It is not well known that the Republican Party was entirely Anti-Slavery from it's inception in the late 1800's, it is also not well known that the Pro-Slavery party was the Democrat Party. This is the Cause of the Civil War, It doesn't seem correct to just completely exclude a key period in our currently Dominant political party. --67.172.230.59 (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, this is due to a mere switch in party positions. Liberals have always been in favor of civil rights, whether for blacks, gays, or any other minority group. The thing is, the Democrats weren't always liberal. It all goes back to the "Yellow Dog" days of the Democratic party. I don't know how much it has to do with the "wrong side of history" because it was a different party back then. I'll do my best to explain it here from memory.

The Republican party was founded as the liberal, northern anti-slavery party, while the Democratic party was the conservative party of the south. This was around the mid to late 1850s. Around 1912, the Schism of the Bull Moose party broke the Republican party in two, when liberal Teddy Roosevelt was angered at Taft's removal of a tariff (can't remember specifics). The left wing part of the Republican party was detached. The Republicans now represented more or less the middle, while the Democrats represented the right wing. The left wing had the Bull Moose party, followed by another few small, not very memorable parties.

So now, we had the right wing Democrats, and the centrist Republicans. Woodrow Wilson took the helm, and favored what we now call "populism" in the U.S. American populism was essentially left wing economic views with conservative social views. Now, the democratic party represented the populist view, while the Republicans took on more of a mainstream conservative view. The liberals more or less joined the Democratic party.

Ok, you with me so far? Here's how it splits now: We have the Republicans representing the northern anti-segregation conservatives, and the Democrats who represent the liberals, and the pro-segregation conservatives. The Populists refused to leave the Democratic party due to the "yellow dog" convention. For a while, there was even a "Dixiecrat" party.

Anyway, in the 1930s, the Democrats became more and more favorable to civil rights, but never quite drove it home. The turning point came in the 1950s, when the Democratic party officially adopted the platform of civil rights. At this point, the upset southerners moved to the Republican party, and the conservatives, both pro and anti segregation were now Republicans. Now, we had the first signs of the modern parties. The Democrats were the liberal party, and the Republicans were the conservative party.

In 1964, the last major party presidential candidate to run on the position of segregation (Barry Goldwater) ran as a Republican. Eventually, the pro-segregation side of the party subsided, and both parties adopted civil rights. While the old Democratic party had the same name, it was ideally the opposite party of what it is today.

This does show a confusing history, but an interesting one none the less. There is one universal constant to look for. Since the beginning, the southern states have tended to be more conservative, while the northern states are more liberal. Whenever you're confused about the issue, look up election maps and try to spot patterns. In the 1860s, the northern states all voted Republican, while the southern states voted Democrat. That's probably the quickest way to get a fix on who was who. ReignMan (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does get a little vague around that issue. I think that it is well-known that the Democratic party was on the wrong side of history for a while, so if you can find a couple of reliable, secondary sources that say something about the topic, please list them here. Start with the ones already in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.241.154 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"White Man's Burden" by Winthrop Jordan "The American People: Creating a Nation" by Gary B Nash & Julie Jeffrey, "Crucible of American Democracy" By Andrew Shankman, or, if you really want to, you can pick up ANY early US history text book, or ANY text book dealing with the founding of the Democratic Party as one of the first major issues was opposing the Federalist Party on the issue of Slavery. Rent "1776" you'll be entertained & enlightened. For over a 100 years the big D was on the wrong side of history & then they were on the wrong side of Reconstruction, & then FDR came into office & things radically changed for a period of about 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

favored ethnic minorities

I also believe the Democratic party and it's supporters are trying to rewrite it's history regarding slavery, human rites and supression of minorities. This passage: "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" Is totally untrue. One only has to look up other subjects like Jim Crow laws, Bill Connor, George Wallace, Orville Faubus, The KKK, Robert Byrd etc right here on Wikipedia to see how the Democratic party suppressed civil rights up until the time that President Johnson and Kennedy took up the civil rights cause and got the 1964 Civil rights passed, despite the filibustering of Democrats such as Robert Byrd. Once the bill became law, the Democratic party needed the minority votes to be elected so they switched their ideology to pro-civil rights and claimed to be pro-civil rights all along and further claimed the Republican party had been anti-civil rights.

I think this section on Wikipedia is an outrage an an affront to intelligent people. See

"One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Robert Byrd (D-WV)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Smith 1956 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is still there: Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities

When does someone make the changes in the article or dispute them? I offer this quote as evidence that the Democratic party has not historically favored ethnic minorities:

Sen. Ben Tillman, D-S.C. "Now that Roosevelt has eaten with that nigger [Booker] Washington, we shall have to kill a thousand niggers to get them back to their place."

True, but recall that prior to the 1960s, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. Barry Goldwater was the first Republican to carry the deep south in the 20th century. July 2nd, 1964 was the day that the conservative southerners finally abandoned the Democratic party. ReignMan (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WILLIAM A. SINCLAIR, THE AFTERMATH OF SLAVERY: A STUDY OF THE CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE AMERICAN NEGRO 187 (Afro-Am Press 1969) http://students.ou.edu/W/Gifford.L.Weber-1/Documents/15-Leon_Higginbotham_Letter_To_Clarence_Thomas.pdf Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I understood that as referring to the party's historical support from white ethnics (ex. Irish Catholic immigrants in the North) which it did do through machine politics in large cities (see Political_machine#Political_machines_in_the_United_States). With regards to racial minorities it is right to say that the Democratic Party was for a long time the party of slave holders and then segregationists (so historically speaking it was certainly not the party of racial minorities) but since the split of the Dixiecrats and the incorporation of many of them into the Republican Party through the Southern Strategy that is no longer the case.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If "historically speaking it was certainly not the party of racial minorities" then the statement "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" is untrue and should be corrected. Dixiecrats did not appear until 1948. "The Republican Party, nominating Tom Dewey of New York in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed" [2] Where is a list of these Dixiecrats? This whitewashing of the Democratic party in the 120 or so years before the civil rights era is outrageous. I had a person tell me recently that John Wilkes Booth was not really a Democrat because he shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" after he shot Lincoln.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Party which favored slavery IS NOT THE SAME PARTY as the one we know today. Back in the 1800s, the "Republican Party" was almost completely northern and the "Democratic Party" was almost completely southern. You are right in saying that the "Democrats" supported slavery, but you are reffering to the wrong "Democrats." Back in the 1800s, Democrats had a conservative agenda while Republicans were more liberal. During the late 1800s, everything changed after The Republican Revolution in which the beliefs and ideals of the Republican pary changed, and with it, those of the Democratic party, to those we know today. That is why today, the majority of Democrats are up north while the majority of the Republicans are down south. Everyone didn't just get up and move simultaneously; the parties did. So please get your facts straight before posting. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities"This is an incorrect statement as per the above and a whitewash for 120+ years of pro slavery and anti civil rights. The The Republican Revolution had nothing to do with party policy it was merely about an election as written here in Wiki. The Dixiecrats is a subterfuge. Someone needs to present their facts.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) The "Dixiecrats" were Conservative Southern Democrats. The "Conservative" is key. Had they been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans. Same with the Democrats up north. They were not called "Dixiecrats", as they were not in the South, yet they still had a Conservative agenda. Since the Democratic Party today is strongly liberal, while back then it was Conservative, this means that the party mentioned is not the same party, with supporting evidence coming from the locations of Democrats and Rebublicans being moved from North to South without playing 'musical chairs'. I rest my case. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) If Then does not reflect a fact. It does not change 120+ years of history. Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities is an incorrect statement and it still needs to be removed or corrected.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1: I have read over my own writings and cannot find the "If...then" you were reffering to.
2: The 120 years of history you are reffering to, as I have said, does not include the current Democratic Party. The Democratic party that endorsed slavery is not the same Democratic party that it is today. This is why, in answer to a previous question, a large ammount of African Americans "migrated" to the Democratic Party, and why, as I have been saying continouosly, Democrats used to be almost completely southern, but are now almost complete,y northern. Unless you can refute all of the evidence I have provided in this discussion, don't blame what happened 120 years ago on this party just because it happens to have the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.116 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Had they been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans is an If Then statement. Fact is not based on hypothetical statements. "The 120 years of history you are reffering to, as I have said, does not include the current Democratic Party" The statement Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities" does include the democratic party from today all the way back to the beginning of the Democratic party. It is untrue and should be corrected if Wikipedia is to have any credibility.Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The statement, "If they had been liberal at the time, they would have been Republicans" is not hypothetical; it is 100% true. Republicans before the early 1900s WERE liberal. Democrats before that time WERE conservative. Look it up if you want. 2. You have yet to prove my evidence wrong. Please explain to me how the evidence I have previously given is incorrect before you continue, or you won't accomplish anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.116 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Please explain the meaning of this quote by Lyndon B. Johnson: "I'll have those Ni***rs" voting Democratic for the next 200 years" Another question I have is how many of those Dixiecrats switched to Republican? I can only find 3.74.47.205.45 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm glad you mantioned that quote, as that was actually around the time the parties changed, which further proves my point. 2. Why do you think the south in the late 1800s was almost entirely blue, yet changed to almost entirely red in the early 1900s? I rest my case. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You could say that William Jennings Bryan was conservative, because he opposed teaching evolution and supported racial segregation and his followers today (in the South at least) are Republicans. But he favored farmers and laborers and opposed the eastern commercial establishment. While the Republicans may have been more liberal, they were clearly the party of big business, even though regional elites in the South joined the Democrats in opposing them. The Democrats were much more welcoming of minorities, in particular Catholics, which is why they controlled ethnic-based machine politics in all the major cities. TFD (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Party Roots

The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that they are the opposite of what they were. However, the parties have changed in the past, most recently the Democrats went from being the conservative pro slavery southern party before 1912 to the liberal northern pro civil rights party in 1965. The Republicans did the opposite. In between those two dates, they bounced around a bit, with factions on both sides. When the Republicans were founded in the late 1850s, they were the northern liberal anti slavery party. ReignMan (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a terribly simplistic view of it. The Republican party has always favored big business and the rich, which still holds true today. In that case, there is no switch. Also keep in mind that there were northern Democrats in the time before the Civil War. That's how Lincoln won the 1860 election - the Democrats nominated two candidates and that split the Democratic vote. You can't just make a blanket statement and say that Republicans & Democrats completely switched around or that Democrats were all pro-slavery. 76.105.6.113 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Big business in the north opposed slavery. TFD (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it was oversimplified, but major corporations don't vote; people do. ReignMan (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Center-left revisited

I see no reason to label the Democratic Party "center-left" when the term has no clearly defined meaning and there is no academic consensus that they are center-left. They do not self identify as center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what any party or organization "self-identifies" as. We use reliable secondary sources, and these largely call the Democrats center-left, although there are also plenty (just as many I'd say) that call them centrist, which is why I wanted to include both labels. Either way, to echo what you're saying, none of these terms are clearly defined, including centrist, which is especially one of the most annoying buzzwords in American politics (ie. it means nothing). Deuces, without gaining consensus here first, please don't tamper with this information.UBER ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK and France that sees the Americans as being centre-right. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has an article on this already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-left , "where the article states "European social democratic policies would be considered right-wing in Cuba and left-wing in the United States.[15][16]" The political spectrum means different things to different parts of the world. Asian nations and the Americas will not agree on what is center, right, or left. Europe will not agree with either as well. Should be say the US democratic party is center-right because Europe does? I think Asia and South America would like to have a word with you. In Europe, it's all about class, property rights, the power of the state in property and economy, etc. That defines their spectrum. To the US, social welfare, individual rights, etc define their parties. In Asia, well, I'm not sure really. Anyways, as the article [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics ] states: The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. There's even different models to the spectrum here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum . I say we keep it center-left. This is an American party and so it should be set to the political spectrum they use. We do not use the American spectrum (or shouldn't use) to label and tag European parties, why should we use ours to tag theirs? Just a suggestion from an anon. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other articles. While one may describe relative position within a political spectrum (e.g., the Soviet Communist Party had a Left Opposition, a Right Opposition a center), the terms left, right and center have clear meanings. Would anyone argue that the Communists were centrists? Also, does it make any sense to apply French concepts of left and right to US politics? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes Europe the world model for political affiliations? This links to the article on American Liberalism, and after looking at the center-left page, I believe this party falls under that label. TN 05 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So you do not think the left-right model should be used at all? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Which model are you talking about? There are many different models to use. TN 05 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think the terms "left" and "right" came from? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I know where it comes from; which model are you talking about? TN 05 —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC).

The model that displays ideologies along a left-right axis. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with it. TN 05 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Largest -- citation?

The article says: "The party contains the most registered voters of any political organization in the world as of 2004, with 72 million voters.[4][5]"

The second link says 72 million, but I didn't see anything in either about it being the largest. I don't know that it's the largest, but I don't know that it's not, and the references don't seem to say.

For example, the Communist Party of China has "nearly 78 million members[4] at the end of 2009". (Are they "voting" members? I'm not sure -- Elections in the People's Republic of China says there are elections at the local level, at least, so it might depend on your definition.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aerocow, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change the political ideology of the Democrat party from "Center-Left" to "Left" of which "Left" points to the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing" because The far left legislation of the Democrat party has shown a serious drift from the center of which all politics in the U.S. has usually revolved. For all informative purposes, the Democrat party is effectively a complete left-wing organization because they no longer have ties to the center of which they claimed to be fiscally. With the removal of the Clinton ideology of "New Democrats" of which were fiscally centered, there is no longer a balancing force in the party that claims the majority of the U.S. legislation and which in turn controls fiscal irresponsibility. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/139877/Near-Record-Say-Democratic-Party-Liberal.aspx Aerocow (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left a welcome message on your talk page which offers useful advice. Your edit cannot be made because it is against neutrality and verifiability. TFD (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tax cuts for wealthy expire; they are not "reversed"

This article says the Democrats want to REVERSE the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That is not accurate. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy had a built-in EXPIRATION DATE when they were enacted under Bush. The Republicans included the tax cut expiration date on purpose. That means they go away without anybody taking any action to get rid of them. Letting something expire is not the same thing as "reversing" it. Please correct this; it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A prominent liberal and Speaker of the United States House of Represenatives stated she wanted the tax cuts repealed as soon as possible when President Barack Obama was elected. This shows, as she is Democratic leadership, that the Democrats ARE in fact in favor of the reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Because the House is basically an autocracy that is run by the Speaker, the agenda of the Speaker can be assumed to be the agenda of the majority party. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/pelosi-parts-with-obama-o_n_156260.html

I might add my source is an extreme left-wing news organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerocow (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a political forum. Just because there is a political advantage to using loaded words, and just because they have been used (in a more general context than what you imply), does not mean they are the most accurate way of describing something. If the Congress voted to end cuts early through repealing the enabling legislation, then it would be a repeal. If they are allowed to expire, it is not a repeal. Let's leave the propaganda at the door, please.Jbower47 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue is the color of Democrats?

I would prefer that we remove this information from the infobox. There is no official color, to my knowledge. And talk of unofficial colors seems to be speculation. It seems misleading since Democratic candidates for office have used all kinds of colors in this past several months while running. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speculation my foot. Red states and blue states --Cybercobra (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, neither party has adopted an official color. However, it seems both parties have accepted the colors. GOP.com has an all-red background, and Democrats.org is blue. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even has the Red to Blue program. Of course, individual candidates can use their own colors. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 04:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing / Left Wing

This discussion page is more informative than its parent article! Has anyone considered the origin of the terms "Right Wing" Vs "Left Wing"? They arose from the seating arrangement of the British House of Commons when each party tended to congregate on one particular side of the chamber; to the Speaker's left and right. (In the US the seating layout is quite different).

My reading of the parties in the UK and the US is that "Left Wing" tends to indicate a preference for statism while "Right Wing" prefers less government control. Thus the current (US) democrat administration would be designated "Left" while the republican party seems unclear on the matter. The UK "Tory" party does exist insofar as the term was originally one of opprobrium and consequently adopted in order to counter the effect; it's a colloquialism like the the term "GOP" for Republicans.John C Kay (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're incorrect. It came from the French Parliament during the revolution. The members who represented the aristocracy sat on the right wing, while the members who represented the peasants sat on the left wing. Therefore, right wing has come to mean authoritarianism and capitalism, while left wing has come to mean libertarianism and collectivism. ReignMan (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The terms left and right, as applied to politics, originated in France, not Britain. The rest of your statement displays similar levels of ignorance.UBER ^(talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"3. Please be calm and courteous when writing. Do not troll here."John C Kay (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

John C Kay: I doubt he is trolling. Still, I agree with you; the Democratic Party is clearly left-wing. TN 05

Clearly left wing in what respect? Again, on the political spectrum that defines "center" as midway between logical extremes, the Democrats are considered right wing. On the spectrum that defines "center" as the mean political viewpoint in the world, they are left. ReignMan (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Platform is left of center. Their leaders are left of center. The Democratic party is therefore left of center. TN 05 00:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see no original source. You need a reliable source that states they are generally seen as left of center. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The party seems center-left or liberal to Joe Lieberman, a centrist Democrat. TN 05

Do you know if Lieberman has published his theories in a peer-reviewed academic journal? If he has we can assess the degree of acceptance they have received in the academic community. Otherwise, his comments cannot be considered a reliable source. (Another problem of course is that he does not actually call the Democrats center-left.) The Four Deuces (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, Wikipedia is not run by academia, which quite frankly is slanted left. Second, Lieberman is a four-term U.S. Senator; I'd think he knows more about the political positions of the United States political parties than most academic scholars. Third, he said the party should move to the center, which you can use to reasonably assume he thinks it is too far left. (Also, the only reason I am using my IP is I'm having trouble logging in with both my accounts) 97.82.172.106 (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy to have the entire article re-written to represent Lieberman's views of the Democratic Party? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, for the same reason we don't rewrite the Communist article to represent the views of Leon Trotsky; you asked for a source, and I gave you one. You, however, have yet to prove any sort of consensus, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for your belief that the party is centrist. TN 05 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a reliable source. As you say, Lieberman is no more a reliable source or this article than Trotsky is for Communism. The Democrats are a liberal party which is by definition centrist. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a source for your assumption? TN 05 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Left, right and center explained here. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is the British system, and that is just one document, which does not prove anything. Where is your consensus? TN 05 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While the book is about British politics, it explains the political spectrum as it is commonly understood. (In fact the terms left, right and center derive from France, not the UK.) You might want to read Seymour Martin Lipset's Political man or Friedrich Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative"[3] which both explain the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I know where they came from; however, you are still assuming the world political system is based off of Europe/British/French politics. They are not; most regions or countries have a different definition of centrist, leftism, and rightism. If you want to keep insisting the Democratic Party is centrist, I'll go add 'far-right' to the Republican Party page; bumping up the Democratic Party to 'centrist' would require that. The point is, the Democratic Party platform is center-left, not centrist. Universal health care, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, enviromentalism and pro-same sex marriage are all major platforms of the party, and they all happen to fit on the left. TN 05 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are actually exaggerating policy differences - no mention of same sex marriage in the platform - and you must explain why the US should be an exception to the rest of the world. What is left-wing about gun control anyway? Better still get a reliable source that coincides with your views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A party is also defined by leadership; I believe all three of their leaders (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack H. Obama) support gay marriage. Gun control is left wing here. TN 05 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually parties are usually categorized according to history, membership and constitution (see Klaus von Beyme). The Democrats were founded by Jefferson, have a middle class membership and a liberal constitution. Political scientists classify it like the Republicans as a liberal party.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is he talking about the European definition of liberalism or the U.S. one? TN 05 01:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They do not use those terms, but if you follow the footnote it says "the American Democratic Party would be considered a left liberal party and the Republicans a right-liberal party". The Four Deuces (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you defined 'centrism' as liberalism earlier. Does that mean that left-liberalism is centre-left? Also, this argument seems to be going nowhere, as neither of us will change the other's position; would you be fine with having a mediator determine whether to add centre-left back to the article? TN 05 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the term center left is that it is ambiguous. While it can mean the left wing of the Center (which describes the Democratic Party), it can also describe the right wing of the Left (e.g., Social Democrats) or a position between Center and Left (Labour's Third Way). Usually it refers to a coalition between socialists and liberals (even if the liberals are "center-right"). I would accept mediation. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Toa, you've pretty much exhausted your chances of ever being taken seriously. You have said some real whoppers in your back and fourth with TFD. First of all, where and when being pro gun control became left wing, I would like to know. Gun control is authoritarian, which makes it right wing. You believe (ignorantly I might add) that because Democrats support it, it must be left wing, but this is just not true.

Secondly, you claim the Democrats support gay marriage, universal healthcare, and abortion rights. I don't know where you get this, as almost no Democratic senator favors full marriage rights for gays, or unrestricted abortion, and the only person I can think of who favors universal single payer healthcare is Dennis Kucinich.

You're suffering from a bad case of perception overtaking reality. You believe that the Democrats support these issues because the Republicans don't. Even though the vast majority of elected Democrats are against gay marriage, and instead favor either nothing, or civil partnership only, you try to claim they "secretly" want gays to get married.

As for abortion, there are many Democrats who are completely anti Abortion. Bart Stupak, Tim Roemer, Harry Reid, Bob Casey. All are pro life Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards oppose gay marriage. As for healthcare, the Democrats have 58 sitting senators, and they struggled for months just to get the bill passed as a compromise, which included no public option, and no public funding for abortions. Not exactly a sweep for the Democrats on that one.

Thirdly, you have come to the conclusion academia is slanted leftist. This again is simply untrue. You believe this because you consider your own point of view to be centrist, and anything left of it is leftist. This is a fundamental mistake people make when trying to define the center of an issue.

So, as you can see, your comments are mostly unfounded. The Democratic party is seen as centrist or mildly right wing against the vast majority of the worldwide point of view, and as left wing in the United States. ReignMan (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments are not unfounded; assuming that anything authoritarian is right-wing is ridiculous and makes you seem politically naive; have you ever heard of communism? Gun control is a liberal agenda, as the left supports more control. Find me a major conservative/centre-right party that supports gun control.

Here's something that may shock you. The Soviet communist party was both extreme left, and extreme right wing. Economically, they were extreme left wing, but socially, they were extreme right wing. The reason people like you have so much trouble defining this is because the Soviet communist party didn't fall along the "traditional" left/right axis. Left and right are so useless because you can be both at the same time. The idea of capitalist/collectivist and authoritarian/libertarian is a much better system.

As for gun control, your assumption that it must be left wing because the left supports is is childish at best. The reason American liberals support gun control has more to do with geography and history than political ideals. ReignMan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Democrats do support 'gay marriage' as in a civil union or marriage rights.

But not "gay marriage". A true left wing party would never allow anything less than full on gay marriage. ReignMan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said 'unrestricted abortion', I said they favor abortion. The majority of Democrats, including all their leadership, favor it. A small minority in both houses do not like it. There are maybe 4-5 in the Senate, and 20-30 in the House.

Totally unfounded. There are a huge number of pro life Democrats. Read the few I listed earlier. ReignMan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The lowest amount of professors considering themselves liberal in any group of teaching the United States are in business, at 49%; others go up to 80% considering themselves liberal. Is that not slanted left?

Finally, I do not consider conservatism centrist, because it is not; it would be considered centre-right, and liberalism would be centre-left. For an example of centrism, look at Senators Lieberman, Collins, Snowe, Nelson, and Brown.

All of those senators you mentioned are moderate right wing. ReignMan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to be hell-bent on changing this page to centrism, I'll go ahead and add 'Far-right' to the Republican Party article; if you push one right, you push both right, and I doubt you will find many people that consider the Republican party far-right. TN 05 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, totally ridiculous. You really think the two parties have to be separated? That's childish at best. The Democratic and Republican party overlap more than they differ. ReignMan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The world's two largest conservative parties, in the UK and Canada, support gun control, and there are gun control laws in every US state. The UK leader says he supports same sex marriage, while the Canadian prime minister refuses to pass legislation against it, and neither have any plans to outlaw abortion. And your understanding of Democratic Party policy is incorrect. TFD (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gun control: What type (No guns, no assault weapons, registration, etc.)?

So does Dick Cheney; not everything about every conservative will be conservative. Is there a broad consensus in the UK or Canadian parties for gay marriage rights?

David Cameron has voted for reducing the time limit on abortions and is pro-life. I believe Harper is not, but there are pro-abortion Repubs like Scott Brown.

How is it?

TN 05 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

None of these issues play a major influence in the political differences between left and right outside the US. If they come up they are voted upon by free votes in legislatures or executive action and rarely as election issues. In the US however, where both parties are centrist they assume a major role because they represent most of the few issues that divide liberals and conservatives. There are btw socialists who oppose abortion, same sex marriage and gun control, and universal health care was originally introduced by conservatives and only became accepted by socialists after WWII. (Canadians were opposed to same sex marriage by the same margin as Americans, but 61% now approve.) TFD (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean... you mean... these issues aren't black and white? My fragile world view is collapsing.

Seriously though, he's correct, these are all examples of parties and people's views. In the end, the definitions of "right" and "left" stay the same, no matter what any party supports or opposes. ReignMan (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: Then what are? Please educate me about this.

Also, socialism is not, by definition, liberalism. Socialism supports government control/ownership of industry; it never says anything about gay marriage, abortion, or gun control, despite those issues being left-leaning. American liberalism on the other hand, supports Keynesian economics and social liberal issues, like SSM or Abortion. Thus, you could have a socialist that is a 'social conservative' by US standards, but a fiscal/economic socialist. By the same regard, a fiscal conservative could support 'social liberal' issues; a common example would be an American Libertarian. In either case; the result would be a centrist.

Neither the Repubs or Democrats are centrist; there are centrist factions in both, but neither are centrist. If what you say is true about the Dems being centrist, then the Republicans have to be far-right or right-wing; you cannot say both are centrist.

Also, Theodore Roosevelt, the president that first supported universal health care, was an progressive, not a conservative by any means. By modern standards, he would be placed on the left of the American political spectrum.

@ReignMan: I would much appreciate it if you stop trolling; if you have do not something positive to contribute to this discussion, please stay out of it.

TN 05

You have very clearly explained the difference between socialism and liberalism, the difference between the left and the center. TFD (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly makes liberalism centrist and socialism center-left? Would you consider Hugo Chavez, and socialist, to be center-left? TN 05 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism is centrist because it stands between the Right (support of monarchy, social hierachy and the established church) and the Left (social ownership of property). Since you call yourself a libertarian, I would like to recommend Friedrich Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative"[5] which explains this. I never said btw that socialism was center-left. I said that the term center-left was ambiguous because it could include the right section of socialism. Chavez is actually to the left of most socialists. TFD (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, your comment about TR is unfactual. He copied his health care plan from the German Conservative Party, who introduced it in 1883. Clinton Rossiter includes TR in his Conservative Hall of Fame. TFD (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only are the sources given by Deuces above not particularly great, but Deuces continues to perpetuate this absolutely misguided argument that liberalism is "centrist" without realizing that centrism is just a buzzword created in response to the division between left and right. Any idiot with a political agenda can call herself or himself centrist (and plenty do all the time). To call any party "centrist" is like giving up entirely. It would be much better to find other terms to describe the party in such a case. Centrist is too vague and meaningless in any political context (American, European, etc).UBER ^(talk) 00:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Hayek because TNo5 claims to be libertarian. But Hayek was reflecting mainstream undertanding of these terms. But if you revert to a bipolar classification, it makes multi-party systems confusing. Will the UK Liberal Democrats for example will be a right-wing party if they support the Tories, but left-wing if they support Labour? What if they form a government on their own - will they be left or right? TFD (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen Democratic candidates placed on the political compass; they are right wing. Here are things that left wing parties support that the Democratic Party does not as a whole: gay marriage, ending the war on terror, single-payer healthcare, abolishing the death penalty, nationalization of key industries, green energy, lowering age restrictions, higher miniumum wage, free education, etc. Need I go on? sbrianhicks (talk) Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said they were left-wing (although there are some socialist democrats like Bernie Sanders), I said they were centre-left. TN 05 —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

One should also try not to define what constitutes "left" or "right" with a list of particular policies; in an already relative issue, the policies are the most relative elements of all.
There is no policy "litmus test" to reliably determine what set of stances constitute left- vs. right-wing; policies, and therefore a political party's attitude towards them, arise according to the unique circumstances of each nation's political culture. What may be considered solidly "left" in the US may be a widely agreed-upon part of the state in others, with single-payer health care being a prime example.
Furthermore, given the rise of cultural/identity politics as a foremost (if not dominant) element of politics in the United States, it is necessary to differentiate between cultural and economic issues when attempting to designate a party as left- or right-wing. Stances on issues such as gay marriage, age restrictions, the death penalty, marijuana legalisation, etc. are therefore insufficient in making such a designation, unless the designation exclusively concerns the cultural dimension. Similarly, geopolitical concerns are another very relative issue, as the difference between opposing something like the "War on Terror" (Overseas Contingency Operation?) due to one's country playing a central role in its mechanisms vs. opposition to it due to general pacifism, neutrality, or wars in this context is a profound one, compounded to various degrees by the proximity of one's nation to the responsibility for its execution.
I am not so presumptuous as to propose a solution to this problem that will satisfy all sides; personally, I'm in favor of scrapping these antiquated sorts of designations from every political party article in every country. Instead, I would suggest that any who persist in the continued attempts to use this system focus not on the means used to achieve ideological goals, but the ideological goals themselves. The teleology of politics in the context of a specific ideology is a far more universal concern than the policies designed to realise the full implementation of a particular philosophical view of the state as compared to competing views. Perhaps paradoxically, it also seems less divisive. --Apjohns54 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not a left-wing party. It has a very large left-wing base, but the parties politicians are mostly to the right. Most democratic politicans support capital punishment (which, anywhere else in the world, is considered an extreme right-wing positition and a is also considered a human rights violation), multinational corporations having control and influence in politics and life in general (something left-wing parties are oppossed to), do not support gay marriage (only around three U.S. Senator support gay marriage: Feingold, Sanders, and another, I forget), do not support universal healthcare (88 congressmen support the United States National Health Care Act), and generally have conservative views on alcohol (keeping the second highest age restriction in world on alcohol), drugs (keeping them illegal), and sex (keeping prostitution illegal). And is anyone going to say that they still think Obama is a leftist, I mean, come on. Plus compare the Democratic Party to other parties Wikipedia considers "centre-left" such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Liberal Democrats in the U.K., the Australian Labor Party, etc.

I saw someone mention socialism. Socialism and "Liberalism" are completely different and highly opposed to each other (although socialists and social liberals have formed coalitions before to keep out far-right parties). Socialism wants the economy to be controlled by the people and believe in more direct democracy (both in the economy and political system).

And yes the Republican Party is far-right. A British news article even compared it to European fascist parties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/03/usa.comment). Most Republicans want to outlaw homosexuality, and think that the constitution says the United States is only for christians, and believe that the United States has some covenant with God and is thus supperior to all other nations (don't believe me, then TiVo "Fox and Friends" for a week). With respect, Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of American politics is terrible; Republicans oppose legalizing same-sex benefits, not outlawing homosexuality. Some republicans, and by that I mean a small minority, think America is a christian nation, but I have NEVER heard anyone say America is 'only for christians'. Also, your last comment is just stupid; I have never heard anyone even SUGGEST that. Also, the GOP cannot be fasist, since they support free trade and capitalism. Study up before you make dumb comments. Toa Nidhiki05

Personal insults are not an acceptable way of discussing items here.Jbower47 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are..? Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"First of all, I didn't call the Republican Party facsist, the British media did, and secondly, the Texas Republican party calls for the banning of sodomy. And Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, John McCain, etc. have all stated that they believe the United States is a "Christian nation." Google and The Daily Show, they're amazing things . . .

And I just read your userpage and your political beliefs are appauling. "I'm a libertarian who thinks that we should use the death penalty much more often and loves Reagan . . ." That's not libertarianism . . . Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I read that article, the word 'fascist' only appeared once, referring to not the GOP, but suburban fascist parties in Europe. Also, saying we are a Christian nation by no means means someone thinks America is 'only for Christians'; it means the predominant religion in the U.S. is Christianity, which is a fact, as 78.4% of Americans, a large majority, are Christians, while only 4.7% identify as another religion and 16.1% are athiest/agnostic/no religion. Considering the fact the House whip, Eric Canter, is Jewish, I seriously doubt the party believes the Constitution is 'only for Christians'.

Also, I consider myself a libertarian-conservative - that is, a conservative with some libertarian ideals. As such, I support some ideas supported by libertarians, and some supported by conservatives. The death penalty is something I support that conservatives support. Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Third Way

I propose that "Third way" be added to the ideology section. Third way has played a huge role in the party since the late 80s. The DNC has played a huge role in shaping party policy and if you go to onetheissues.org, you'll find that it says that many Democratic congressmen have embraced third way and the modern party ideology was pioneered by third way Bill Clinton. Plus, you have to notice that the party is alot more to the right that it was in say, 1988. Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it being added alongside Liberalism and progressivism, but I disagree with your last statement; what they have been doing recently is liberalism or in some instances mild socialism, not anything close to centrism. Toa Nidhiki05 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't think that you know what socialism is. Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what socialism is; the ideology that the government should take control of private business and redistribute wealth, among other things, to create an 'equal' society. One thing the Democrats did was taking over auto companies, which seems like light socialism to me, as well as Obamacare. Toa Nidhiki05 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fail. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns many essiential industries but most industries are owned directly by the workers. Most socialists favor limited Federal government influence (i.e. local control of the economy). And the gov't has not taken over any large corpoartion. Obama took the largest amount of private funds in American history in 2008, thus making him arguably the most capitalist president in history. Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To Americans, socialism is the bogeyman, but that view has nothing to do with what socialism is. One type of socialism is opposition to the state. TFD (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are describing is syndicalism; I was describing state socialism, which is the view most Americans such as myself see socialism as. There is also libertarian socialism, (anti-state socialism) and green socialism (emphasis on environmental issues), among others. And I never said Obama is a socialist; I said some of his policies are light socialism. Just because he took private funds does not mean he is the 'most capitalist president in history'; it simply means he figured he needed them to win. Keep in mind, unions give a ton of money to Dems like Obama. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

State Socialism was the derisive term liberals applied to the welfare state policies of the German Conservative Party. It was actually right-wing, designed to help German industrialists and to prevent socialism. TFD (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From the State socialism Wikipedia article - State socialism is an economic system with limited socialist characteristics, such as public ownership of major industries, remedial measures to benefit the working class, and a gradual process of developing socialism through state action. State socialism may also be used to classify any variety of socialism that relies on, or advocates, control of the means of production by the state apparatus, either through state-ownership or state management.

Also - In the traditional way, achieving public ownership of the means of production through nationalization of industry is advocated as the method for establishing a socialist economy. State socialism is often referred to simply as "socialism"; the attributive "state" is usually added by socialists with a non-state based method for achieving socialism, to criticize state socialism

Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The means of production in the United Statesa are privately owned and although the Bush and Obama administrations placed some companies in public ownership these were temporary measures. TFD (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the US government still own near 80% of AIG 2 years after they bought the stock? My point is, the Dems have light socialist policies at some point, mainly to pander to the 'progressives'. Toa Nidhiki05 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AIG became government property under the Bush administration when it became insolvent. Since then the government has been selling off assets. The return to private ownership has been hindered by the weakness of the insurance industry. However there is no intention to keep the company under government ownership. TFD (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Only in the United States, and only in the less sophisticated circles within this country, could the policies of the Obama administration be deemed socialist or Third Way. They are basically Eisenhower Republicans: socially moderate, politically centrist with a bias towards big companies and Wall Street (except that during the Eisenhower administration the top marginal income tax rate was 91%). Obama was the center-left candidate for the Democratic nomination, and has drifted to the right since then. Third Way (the original topic of this thread) is about a sincere effort to break through the left-right paradigm. Even if you believe it is possible, such a sophisticated philosophical goal is totally alien to the grimly pragmatic nature of U.S. politics. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what planet you are on, but Obama has done anything but 'move to the right'; he has, if anything, gone slightly left. He has, among other things, taken over the auto industry, passed a trillion dollar stimulus bill, passed center-left health care 'reform'. Look at Obama's positions, and you will see he is a center-left, near socialist president, the most liberal since L.B.J. I don't believe he is a socialist; I think his policies are what would be considered 'progressive' or 'liberal' in the American political spectrum. In terms of social aspects, Obama is not moderate; how could the most liberal senator be a social moderate? Toa Nidhiki05 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama continues to operate the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the crusade against Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan, the support of Israel over Palestine, the boycott of Cuba, unfair trade polices, the continuation of the Patriot Act, bails out big corporations and refuses a public health care option. What part of that is left-wing? TFD (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, how was a war of self-defense against Al-Quada in Afghanistan a 'crusade against 'Muslims'? I understand the War in Iraq controversy, but attacking Al-Quada in Afghanistan for killing near 3,000 innocents is not a crusade, and it would be twisted logic to think otherwise. Second, Obama has said in the past he wants single payer, and, from what I can tell, the health care bill is just a stepping stone to that goal. 'Bailing out' corporations is most certainly not right-wing; why did the Republicans oppose it? Would that make them left-wing? I've never heard supporting Israel is right-wing, and boycotting Cuba, a communist dictatorship, is not anything left or right wing; if anything, dropping it would be right-wing, since riwght-wingers want free trade. You also fail to see that, when polled as a senator, he was more liberal then Bernie Saunders, a socialist. Does that seem moderate to you? Toa Nidhiki05 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the corporations against the people, the rich against the poor, the strong against the weak and the majority against the minority is right-wing. Whether or not Obama appealed to the Left is irrelevant. Your are mixing up right and left with right and wrong. You agree with Obama's agenda, but that does not make it left-wing. TFD (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When did I ever say I agreed with his agenda? I disagree with almost everything he does. And stop with the socialist rhetoric, please; my opinion of 'right and wrong' is not yours. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You just said you supported Obama on Afghanistan and Cuba. In reality very little separated Obama and McCain, and none of the issues they supported were socialist. If you want to say that Obama is a socialist then please provide a reliable source that says that. Incidentally I am not using left-wing rhetoric but how these terms are normally described. TFD (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is why I said 'almost' everything; Afghanistan was started under Bush and the Cuba embargo has been in effect for decades, and I've always supported it. In regards to the rhetoric, I was more talking about the 'It's not left vs. right, it's right versus wrong' thing. Also, Obama and McCain differed on many issues, including:

Free trade (McCain supports, Obama opposes)
Health care 'reform' (McCain opposes Obamacare, Obama supports)
Bush tax cuts (McCain supports, Obama opposes)
Privatizing Social security (McCain supports, Obama opposes)
Net neutrality (McCain opposes, Obama supports)
Iraq war (McCain supported, Obama opposed)
Judicial activism (McCain opposed, Obama supported)
Civil unions for gays (McCain opposes, Obama supports)
Abortion (McCain opposes, Obama supports)
Gun rights (McCain supports, Obama opposes)
Education vouchers (McCain supports, Obama opposes)
Patriot act (McCain supports, Obama opposes)

These are just the ones listed on Wikipedia. While McCain was a moderate running against a liberal, and as such agreed more with Obama then, say, a conservative, there were still many differences. Toa Nidhiki05 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have projected a lot of positions onto Obama that he does not actually advance. He and McCain both voted for the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,[6] both supported the judgment in District of Columbia v. Heller [7] both voted against ending the wars,[8] both voted against the 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment,[9] and McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.[10] BTW none of these issues have anything to do with socialism. TFD (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Obama supports the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, McCain does not.

2. McCain voted against the bill because, like myself, he views it as a state, not federal, issue. He supported the ban in Arizona. Obama, on the other hand, supports benefits and civil unions.
3. How is government-run health care not socialist?

Oh, and you are taking my one line I said out of context, as if I think everything the Dems do is socialist; I said that, in some instances, such as cap-and-trade and Obamacare, their policies are light socialism.

Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama does not support repeal of the Patriot Act, voted to extend it and enforces it. McCain supported tort reform, which is also a state issue.

Although government-run health care is not socialist (please find a source that it is) Obama's health care plan is not government-run health care and McCain refuses to close Walter Reed and other government run health care. McCain supported cap and trade during the election, a policy originally introduced by Ronald Reagan. Can you please point out whether in the Communist Manifesto it mentions civil unions? TFD (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you are basically saying universal health care, a massive takeover of an entire industry by the government, is not socialism? What the heck is it then, genious? Also, FYI, Socialism and Communism are two related, but different, things. Communism wants no government, so civil unions would not be an issue. And about the PATRIOT Act, I messed up; he called for its repeal in 2003, but supported it as a senator. Toa Nidhiki05 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Government is not taking over an entire industry. Did you even follow the health care debate? TFD (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of Medicare and Medicade, there are no federal government owned or ran healthcare corporations. As of 2010, the United States is the only first world nation that does not provide universal healthcare to it population. You seem to have no idea of politics. You simply make up laws and policies that don't exist, and then criticize them. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know I made up Obamacare; you socialists sure are smart!</sarcasm> Considering that, among other things, the bill requires everyone to buy health care (which is unconstitutional, BTW), and the fact that two reliable sources (not conservative) have stated that the legislation will lead to a UHC system by 2014. ^[1]^[2] Oh, and you still didn't answer my question over what UHC is if it is not socialist. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Requiring everyone buy health care insurance is not "government-run health care". It is not even government-run health insurance. Socialism by the way is not about helping big business, bailing out banks and auto companies and making people buy services from private corporations. TFD (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Obamacare now, I'm talking about single-payer. And I never said those other ones were socialism, either. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are a 2004 report from the Institute of Medicine that recomments UHC by 2010[11] and the other is the outline of talk given to Green parties in 1999 recommending UHC.[12] Your theory that Obama is a socialist because he secretly intends to do something in the future is unsound. TFD (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It said so on the page I found it on here. *shrug* Regardless, I don't believe Obama is a socialist, he is a progressive/liberal. Also, you have yet to answer why Universal Health Care is no socialist. Toa Nidhiki05 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all services can be successfully provided by the private sector all the time and in those cases government is often required to provide those services. For example the road outside your house may be owned by the municipality because it would be difficult for a private company to collect road tolls. Water, sewers, policing, etc. are all normally run by government. Where UHC was introduced, there were no private companies that were willing or able to offer insurance to the public. In the U.S. however government was able to involve the private sector first in setting up HMOs and later in compulsory health insurance. However some parts of health insurance and health care delivery are government owned. In fact the U.S. government spends more on health care than any country that has UHC. So if you lived in the UK, fewer of your tax dollars would go towards health care, you would be entitled to free health care and you would still be able to buy insurance for private health care. Saving taxpayers' money and allowing choice is not socialism. TFD (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives are making up Obamacare. Calling it "Obamacare" implies that their is some sort of healthcare organization involved, which there is not. The government has not established any healthcare organization. And I know that forcing everyone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional (that isn't an opinion issue, it's a simple matter of reading the constitution). And no, UHC is not socialist; every other developed nation on Earth has it, yet there has never existed a socialist nation. Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is that since UHC is widely considered mainstream, it can't be socialist? That makes absolutely no sense; capitalism is mainstream, does that mean it is not right-wing? Just because something is regarded as mainstream does not alter its political affiliation.

Also, I am both surprised and impressed you actually believe that, Sbrianhicks; obviously, you have read the Constitution and understand it, unlike the majority of the Democratic Party. :) Toa Nidhiki05 13:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning every political party in the Western world is left-wing, except possibly the LPUSA, because they all support the delivery of some services by government. Incidentally if government delivered no services, then there would be no reason for it to exist. TFD (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not my reasoning, yours. Government has some role to provide public utilities; the difference is that conservatives and libertarians believe that the government should not provide social welfare, which is a different issue entirely. No one besides an anarchist would oppose that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Constitution. Sbrianhicks (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Name one "conservative" government that has abolished welfare. TFD (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Impossible, since conservatives want to keep government from expanding, not decrease it. Libertarians want government decreased. Toa Nidhiki05 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we add the new Democratic logo?

Kaine just unveiled this: http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2010/09/16/democratlogo_s160x148.jpg?026c56702e27e4286d2a331ea8c52dee3ba7084d. Should we add it to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.42.149 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So the new logo is Ⓓ. I added File:Light blue D in a blue circle.png. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo

The New Logo is claimed to be in the public domain. I do not understand how that possibly could be the case when it is a trademark logo akin to, say, the face of Mickey Mouse or the Golden Arches. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Read {{PD-textlogo}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding Native Americans

"The Democratic Party also has strong support among the Native American population, particularly in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Though now a small percentage of the population (virtually non-existent in some regions), most Native American precincts vote Democratic in margins exceeded only by African-Americans."

The preceding comment is incorrect and even the information from Politico that it is attributed to doesn't agree. Please do more research on our voting patterns before posting such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.100.120 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Democrats.com versus Democrats.org

These websites have confusingly similar names, but different relations to the Democratic Party. Democrats.org is the official site of the party, i.e. the Democratic National Committee, whereas Democrats.com is a more left-leaning site founded in 2000 by a group of Democrats who describe themselves as "Aggressive Progressives". I added Democrats.com to the list of Democratic organizations with a note to help disambiguate it from Democrats.org.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

one of the oldest parties in the world

"one of the oldest parties in the world." Founded 1828 (1828) (modern)[1] 1792 (1792) (historic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Whig_Party Founded 1678

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Tory_Party 17th centurie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.69.155 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are defunct. Oldest means the party has existed longer than other current parties. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the Tory Party is not defunct as I am a Tory Party member, I do wish the Americans would stop trying to pretend that their country and political structure is either A: Based in History or B: Has any history whatsoever, we get it your country is young no need to try and push this oldest political party nonsense on other people, feel free to reply I won't check back here again reading Americans ramble on about complete nonsense drives me insane and makes me glad that there is a huge ocean inbetween the USA and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.218 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're way out of line. Both the parties you listed are defunct as said above, there are no Tory or Whig parties currently in existence in England. The major parties are the Conservatives (1912), Labor Party (1900), and Liberal Democrats (1988). And for you to come on here and deem all Americans to be stupid is indeed, extremely ignorant. While there are many, many Americans who are ignorant, you'll find we're not much different from any other country. For me to take your comments out of context and apply that all Britons are pompous and arrogant because of your comments would be just as asinine. ReignMan (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

he probably refers to the fact that the britisch conservative party is often referred to as 'tory-party' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.80 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW you didn't have to clarify you're a tory it became apparent when you started rambling off with hateful useless diatribe. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to lack reading comprehension. It clearly says "ONE of the oldest". Finding two defunct parties that are older doesn't invalidate the claim. 76.30.244.221 (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

^ Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science.
^ The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States.

[1] Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science.

[2] The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States.

[1]

[2]