Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

Recent edit disputes regarding connection between Democratic-Republican Party and the Democratic Party

Recently there have been several edits by User:174.134.115.13 (contribs) a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (contribs) on this page. I've reverted several of them and kept others, but to avoid an edit war, I want to list the main points under dispute.

1. Claim: The Democratic-Republican Party is, in some sense, the same party as the modern Democratic Party.

My response: I think everyone recognizes some continuities and some discontinuities here. The vast majority of modern historians treat these as separate parties. The "first party system" (DRs versus Federalists) collapsed before 1820, and thus in the 1820 Monroe was unopposed, and in 1824 every candidate called himself a "Republican". The second party system arose from the dispute between J.Q.Adams and Jackson; the DRs loyal to JQA became the "National Republicans" (later, "Whigs") and the DRs loyal to Jackson became the "Democrats".

It's also true that the modern Democratic Party claims Jefferson as its founder. But this is self-serving (they'd rather point to the author of the Declaration of Independence than to the person responsible for ethnic cleansing of Native Americans). The fact that they claim this is encyclopedic, but our main sources need to be historians -- who largely recognize the modern Democratic party as distinct.

Moreover, even 174.134.115.13 admits this distinction. He listed Martin Van Buren as one of the leaders of the DRP, but if it's the same as the modern party, then Barack Obama is also a leader of the DRP.

2. Claim: The DRP's leaders include Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren.

My response: This is false, unless we identify the DRP with the modern DP. In that case, why stop with Van Buren? Barack Obama is a leader of the DRP too.

3. Claim: When the DRP split into the Democrats and the National Republicans/Whigs, the former was the "majority" and the latter was the "minority".

My response: This requires a reliable source. Both the Democrats and the Whigs won several elections between 1828 and 1852, and I am not aware of any historian who categorially calls the former the "majority" party.

4. Claim: Jackson's party "still went by the Republican name under Jackson and his chief political ally and successor Martin Van Buren, but adopted the name 'Democratic Party' in 1844".

My response: Again, reliable sources are needed. There are already many sources in the current article pointing out that the DRP used a variety of names inconsistently -- most frequently being called "Republicans" outside of New York. Moreover, the DRP never had an "official" name, nor did Jackson's party. So even if it can be established that the name "Democratic Party" became official in 1844, that doesn't mean it lacked that name beforehand. Reliable sources show that Jackson and Van Buren used the term "Democrat" often, even before 1844.

Moreover, this relates to a controversy that has been frequently litigated on this page: What is the name of the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe? Following the practice of some historians, Wikipedia calls it the "Democratic-Republican Party" -- even though that name was virtually never used in this period. We can't change that without rejecting the results of previous RfCs.

So I think we need to stick to the consensus of historians: the party from 1792 to 1824 should be distinguished from the party of 1828 to today, and for convenience the former is called "Democratic-Republican" and the latter is called "Democratic" to distinguish them, even though each of them used various names at various times. To change that would change hundreds of Wikipedia pages and would require a major RfC.

Finally, the edits of User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have removed perfectly good information from this page, such as the statement that John Quincy Adams "was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I don't know if this was accidental, or if it's part of his attempt to argue that the Democrats are the same as the D-Rs (which obviously puts John Quincy Adams in an awkward position, as he is therefore expelled from his own party). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The following comments by User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have been moved to this location, as they apply to this discussion:

The Democratic-Republicans are often referred to as Jeffersonian Democrats and, simply, Democrats, especially when historians, political scientists, and pundits consider them essentially the same party.

This has been a common practice for centuries.

Thomas Jefferson uses the term "Democrat" interchangeably with that that of "Republican" (as well as "Liberal," "Jacobin," "Radical," "Whig," and "Cote Gauche" [left-wing]. He writes:

"in every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. the last appellation of artistocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Note that while he uses "Republican" as the formal name of his party, "Democrat" "is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Democrats themselves claim continuous function since Jefferson and claim him as the party's founder and first President. I recommend reading through the Democratic Party's platforms on this issue: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

The House Democratic Caucus, citing Political Science Professor Ross K. Baker, also traces its institution to the 1790s: [1].

In A Magnificent Catastrophe, Edward J. Larson writes (in the first chapter):

"Having seen what he perceived as the benefits of strong monarchies in Europe, Adams thought that only an effective central government led by a powerful president could forge a stable, secure nation from a multitude of weak, wrangling states. He supported the new Constitution as a means toward that end and thereby gained prominence among those proponents of ratification and a strong national government who called themselves Federalists. Jefferson, in contrast, saw representative democracy and states' rights as the bulwarks of liberty, as against the potential corruption and tyranny of a powerful executive, and he stressed those aspects of the new constitutional union. Although Jefferson did not oppose ratification, he became a leading voice within the faction that included both Anti-Federalists, who had opposed ratification, and more moderate critics of a strong national government. Collectively, its members became known as Republicans or, later, Democrats."

He also writes in that same chapter:

"The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the so-called democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others."

And, more clearly:

"By 1792, Madison, who always acted on Jefferson's behalf in such matters, was calling for a "Republican" party to oppose Hamilton and the Federalists. For his part, Adams never thought Jefferson did enough to restrain the extreme democrats among his supporters. On both sides, the outlines of party organizations emerged in the rise of partisan newspapers, the coordination of voting by members of Congress, and party endorsements for political candidates. Washington and Adams were not the primary targets of the Republicans, but they came under fire to the extent that they supported Hamilton's projects. The Republicans embraced policies that favored popular sovereignty, individual freedoms, low taxes, farms over factories, and a limited national government. During the next three decades, the party's name would evolve from Republican into Democratic, leaving the former label for a later, indirect descendant of the Federalist faction [i.e. today's G.O.P.]."

These are just a few written examples from Jefferson to the Democratic Party itself to political scientists and historians today, but the Democratic-Republican Party was and is still considered the Democratic Party in continuity, so much so that in 1992, legislation was drafted in the U.S. Senate to potentially commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Democratic Party's founding in 1992.

So it's not exactly inaccurate to acknowledge references to the Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party as essentially continuous institutions, if not the same political institution.

Feel free to share to the Talk:Democratic-Republican Party page. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence King has a much better case. Larson wrote a book on the 1800 election, which is not at issue here. He wrote one sentence on the post 1820 situation (During the next three decades, the party's name would evolve from Republican into Democratic p 22) with no footnotes or further comment--he never mentions Henry Clay or Andrew Jackson or Martin Van Buren. That is too ambiguous and ill-sourced to count as a decisive reliable source in the face of dozens of scholars who have written full-length books on the post 1820 party confusion. Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Most recent edits

Explanation of my most recent edits:

1. I restored the deleted "dissolution" date. There are only two possibilities: the DR party had a dissolution date, or the DR party still exists. If it still exists, we should list Barack Obama as its most recent leader -- which is absurd. If it still exists, then how can it have any "successors"?

2. I restored the information about John Quincy Adams. He was a member of this party when he was elected, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The sentence before the table makes it crystal clear what happened in this election: "John Quincy Adams was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I added a citation

3. I removed Andrew Jackson as a party "leader". The DR party ended in 1825, and Jackson was not the leader of any party until 1828.

4. I restored the language at the end of the first paragraph. Every historian agrees that this party splintered in the late 1820s, leading to the Jacksonian and anti-Jacksonian factions. So to say that the DR party "coalesced" into the Jacksonians is false: one faction coalesced into the Jacksonians.

I also added some citations.

I left the other new edits by User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 untouched. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to these edits

1. From a political standpoint, the latter seems most true, and I would instead argue, based on the citations given and on primary sources that the what is now called "Democratic-Republican" is merely just another term for the early Democratic Party, which is very often called the Party of Jefferson and has been celebrating Jefferson as the party's founder since Jackson. There's a reason why Fairfax County, VA Democrats hold the Jefferson Obama Dinner. From that, I would take your lead and clarify further that Democratic-Republicans have no successors, but rather that they merely changed their name, as historians and political scientists have attested.

2. A member of a party (the "democratic members of Congress") which did not nominate him and which he dissociated with to form the National Republican Party, which he represented in the 1828 election. Jackson still ran as a Democratic-Republican and was nominated by a "convention of Republican delegates" in 1832. So, by 1824, many DRs were calling themselves Democratic AND Jackson was calling himself a Republican, the party of which he was the unrivaled leader. Hell, Van Buren was running as a Democratic Republican in 1840! So there's no dissolution, merely gradual shift in name, with the terms being interchangeable into the 1840s.

3. Refer to part 2.

4. Similar has been said in part 2, but considering that National Republicans bolted from the party to oppose Jackson, while Democratic Republicans remained and renamed themselves Democrats.

All this said, I'm fine with the page remaining as you recently left it as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the continuing efforts to use the terms left-wing or center-left. I realize that the terms originated in the French Revolution, which was around the same time. But, these were brand new terms at that time and have different current meanings. Placing such terms in the infobox without detailed explanation is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson literally refers to his party as cote gauche, which translates from French to "left-wing". Historians such as Edward J. Larson back this up. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they would mean in this context. Jefferson sympathized with the more radical French Revolutionaries, but he seems to have had an idealized view of them; he certainly did not want to implement their program in America. Here in the USA, he was a strict constitutionalist and for a very small federal government -- and those views were essentially non-existent in France in this era, so they aren't represented by the European "left", "center", or "right" of that era. Strict constitutionalism and small federal government were called "right-wing" ideas in the United States from 1964 to 1980, but Jefferson didn't live then. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Those views are seen as "right-wing" because the size of government relative to business interests (Federalists to GOP) or to economic populism (Democrats) evolved with the rise of industrialization, financialization, and urbanization. Democrats upheld small government until they accepted that a larger government could rein in the excesses of corporate capitalism, which Jefferson and Jackson had warned would challenge the government if left unchecked. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Modern Democratic Party does claim the Jeffersonian Republicans were their ancestors, so I made that point explicit. That claim is fading--the modern party is renaming the Jefferson-Jackson dinners since both of these have come under a cloud esp re racial issues.Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But you delete a citation that explicitly show historians support the claim? That's not suspicious at all... And the claim is not "fading". The Democrats are still referred (and not just by themselves) to as the "Party of Jefferson" (not the "Party of Jackson") and still celebrate Jefferson annually. As I noted above, the Jefferson Obama Dinner is a thing, celebrated this year even. Democrats have been honoring Jefferson since the beginning; hell, it was a Democrat who had the Jefferson Memorial built in Washington for crying out loud. And unless Jackson and Van Buren were idiots who didn't realize they had founded a "new" party when they called themselves Republicans and Democratic Republicans, as late as 1840, it would be appreciated that you undo your oversimplified erasures and take away citations simply because it disagrees with you or you understanding of the history of the subject matter. Thanks. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The term “cote gauche” (left side) originated with where you physically sat in the Estates General. Marx wasn't even born at this time. There is a tenuous connection to the present. 200 years have passed and politics is not stable. I believe it is misleading to use the terms here as readers will assign modern definitions to the words. I’m also concerned with efforts to draw direct connections between the words Democratic and Republican between centuries. O3000 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And the term was used by major liberal figures such as Jefferson to describe his party in contradistinction to the Federalists, which was seen as right-wing (and still is by modern historians such as Edward J. Larson). Left and right, as you mentioned, predate Marx, who is irrelevant to early American politics, but do not predate Jefferson or Paine, who I wouldn't exactly describe as politically illiterate or irrelevant as to the use of these terms. And if editors believe the readers would be confused about their modern usage, then it seems that those pages need better content to clarify what left and right meant on both sides of the Atlantic in the period when those terms were introduced into their politics. Like you said, politics are not stable, but acting like these terms have no use in describing politics over a period of 230 years, despite the fact that they've been used for that very purpose, is disingenuous. Again, if readers can't distinguish between the left and right in 1798 and in 2018, then those pages need to be updated, not pages such as this one held back by suppressing their use and erasing citations that uphold that usage. In terms of the connections between the party (or parties) that went by the name of "Republican," "Democratic Republican," and "Democratic" early in its first half century of existence and finally settled on the last, we can't pretend like politics and political terms were neat (or as if it is now or ever was). A liberal Democrat then espoused Jeffersonian democracy; a liberal Democrat now espouses social democracy, yet they were/are called liberals and Democrats (and Democrats called the "Party of Jefferson") all the same. I can't change the fact that Jefferson and Madison called members of their party "Republicans" and "Democrats," but we can make that historical record more available and present readers with facts and sources. If we want to treat DRs and Dems as two distinct parties, go ahead, but ignoring the fact that primary sources from the 1790s to the 1840s use the three aforementioned terms near interchangeably, whether it came from its leaders (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson), its opponents (Washington, Federalists), and contemporary documentation (letters, convention records, campaign posters), seems more unhelpful than being as thorough as possible. I'm not saying I buy into all that 1798 name change business from Britannica, but ignoring the historical record seems contrary to this site's purpose. At the very least acknowledging the reality on the ground at the time would be what we should all consider a step in the right direction. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Then describe the terms in the text. But, don’t put them in the infobox. O3000 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's omission that requires description and explanation. Inclusion is given citation. If you think the terms "left" and "right" in the contemporary context need explanation, you should look into updating those pages, not purposely omitting information in this one because we might underestimate people's ability to distinguish self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800 and self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who might support someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020. Politics evolve, philosophies evolve, parties evolve; it's no one's fault terms have stuck. These pages and their infoboxes should reflect the reality of the historical record, not the discomfort some editors might have with that reality. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My “discomfort” has to do with the fact it is unnecessarily misleading, not because of some personal opinions on the matter; and I have no idea what Senator Warren has to do with this. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking back, taking issue with using Sen. Warren as an example of a present-day Democrat doesn't come off as very "objective," and only adds to my concerns that personal politics has a role in this discussion. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Now you are throwing up another strawman and simply being uncivil. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You did take issue with my mentioning of Sen. Warren, it's literally right there with your signature. And now who's engaging in strawmen? I'm not being uncivil or trying to be. Not sure why you take it as if that's that case. Simply trying to make a case, based in verified citations, for the inclusion of a short string of words. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

One, it's only "misleading" if those pages are severely lacking in relevant content. Two, it's an example of a modern Democrat, lol. The whole "some like... in 2020" should've tipped you off. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I note that you've added these left/center/right terms to several other early parties, including the National Republican Party, the Know Nothing party, the Whig Party (United States), although some of these have been reverted. I agree with O3000 that these terms were very rarely used in America at this time, and you have to use them in a very elastic sense to apply them to American political debates. What makes you think the Know Nothings were "right wing"? Is it because they disliked immigrants and Catholics? In 2018, some associate such views with the right. Ask someone on the street if racism is "right wing" and some will say yes. But in that case, the Democratic-Republicans and pre-1865 Democrats are far right, since they defended the enslavement of African-Americans! The Whigs wanted government spending on infrastructure, like FDR would do a century later -- so how can they be "right wing"? These terms simply aren't useful. In your last comment you referred to "self-described 'left-wing,' 'liberal' 'Democrats' who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800". I don't believe you can find a single case of someone in 1800 who supported Jefferson and described themseves as a "left-wing Democrat" or a "liberal Democrat," but even if you could, that would be one outlier using terminology that was rare. If I found an actual diary from someone in 1796 who said "Because I'm a right-wing crypto-monarchist I am voting for John Adams" it would not allow me to describe Adams or his party as "right-wing crypto-monarchists". — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Rarely used" isn't the same as not used at all. As I've mentioned over and over again, Jefferson used these terms to describe the two parties. (In describing his party, he used the terms "liberal," "cote gauche" [left-wing], and "Democrat"— not to mention "radical" and "Jacobin," the latter of which our fellow Wikipedians describe as "distinguished for its left-wing, revolutionary politics." Considering he is the party's founder and longtime leader, I consider his characterization very authoritative as he would have understood his own political terms and context as well as, if not better than, any other major political figures of the era. Speaking of which, Paine endorsed such characterization in his supporting Jefferson's party and vehemently condemning the Federalists.) And there's nothing elastic about it. The terms aren't eternally fixed. In a hundred or so years, American socialism may very well be right-wing and some other theory the focus of a new left. Why? Because contexts change, ideologies evolve, and interests shift. No where have I ever made the case that racism is a left-right issue, either in 1798, in 1858, or 2018. Now, some of us are overlooking a major theme that can be traced from the Federalist Party through to the Republican Party, and, likewise, a major theme that can be traced from Jeffersonian Democrats through to present-day Democrats. The former has generally been characterized as being the party of the upper classes, business interests, and more cultural-nationalist interests, that is the social and economic "in-groups" of the era. The latter, on the other hand, has generally been the party of the lower classes, economic egalitarianism, and more liberal-pluralist. Lipset's Political Man, listed in References, goes into this in a bit more detail. Now, are these terms entirely consistent? Of course not! As we've made clear, politics isn't neat, but history shows us that while it may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. It's not a coincidence that Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and many modern Democrats have in some way or another been consistent in railing against economically and politically powerful corporate interests, whether they called/call them the "aristocracy of our monied corporations," "economic royalists," or the "one percent." It's also not coincidental, that one party has had a historical trend of opposing new immigration, while the other has been more receptive. Perfect? No, because no group has been anti-all immigration or pro-all immigration, but one is more restrictive and the other more receptive. I don't think I need to clarify which side is which. One side has also generally been more receptive toward democratizing governmental institutions and expanding the franchise, while the other less so. Again, not perfect since sectionalism made the former Democratic fortress of the South a hub for voter suppression, while early Republicans fought for suffrage rights for black men, and were major contributors to the women's suffrage movement. But the general trend has more or less been one party supports the political regime of the haves, the other, the rights of the have-nots. One side favors democratization, the other suggests that that would needlessly result in mob rule and anarchy. Same goes for religion. Established, and typically dominant, religious groups have sided with one party while typically minority religious groups and the unaffiliated have sided with the other. Again, the implication should be clear as to which party is which. One party has been the home of the wealthy, the other of the lower classes. One party has favored the interests of business first, while the other the interests of labor first. Some may argue that such distinctions don't matter since their stances on the role/size of the federal government are, in effect, reversed, but for this, I invoke Paine, who asked, "Are those men federalized to support the liberties of their country or to overturn them?" That is for what ends have they embraced these means (of advocating bigger/smaller government)? To make society and government freer, fairer, and more democratic for the masses? Or to make society and government more hierarchical, more convenient for business interests, and more oligarchic for those who already possess wealth, status, and power? While not perfectly, history shows that these two currents, while at some point swapping their views on government, have been generally (though with periodic interludes and sectional infighting) consistent on that. Again, there's reason why Jefferson and Paine have been regarded with high esteem in the Democratic Party and on the left, while Hamilton and Burke have been regarded with high esteem in the Republican Party and on the right. This is no secret, as this site has entries saying as much. While particular policies and issues have changed over the course of the last 230 years, the general divide between left and right has been present (and consistently observed as such) from the start. To pretend that Jefferson and his party did not epitomize the nascent political left of their time would be more than disingenuous, it would be deceitfully revisionist. I know that no one here has that intent, but we shouldn't give anyone reason to suspect that that may be the case. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

We can add positions in the text. We do not need tp make such simplistic, nuance-free categorizations in the info box suggesting modern positions. Information which is controversial should not be added to info boxes. O3000 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox text doesn't suggest "modern" positions. That's like saying James Monroe is a "modern" leader. (That said, Wikipedia describes "modern" as occurring since about 1500. U.S. politics falls safely within that time period.) If it "suggests" anything, it's that in the period between 1792 and 1825, the party was in what was then considered the political center-left/left of that period. (Again, if you take issue with potential confusion, then update the pages on left and right-wing politics, but if your issue is with how left and right were defined 220 years ago, and consequently how this party's founder saw himself and his party within that dichotomy, then I can't help you because the historical record confirms it. And this information isn't controversial. If it's deemed "controversial," it's either because sources are nonexistent (which, as we have seen, isn't the case) or because editors and readers who hold certain political views are uncomfortable with the historical record. If it were controversial, it wouldn't be simply suppressed, but would instead remain visible, citations intact, AND have its own section in the article, just like the issue of the name of the party does. Or are you telling me that the use of the name "Democratic-Republican Party" for this party has not been controversial? This talk page proves quite the contrary. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you're just posting strawmen. These walls of text aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm simply heeding your own advice: "WP must be honest in its presentation of any subject. Otherwise, it’s useless, and no one wins." Unless you've suddenly reversed yourself on this position, the issue at hand remains: the terms of left and right have been used since (and were used by) Jefferson, and he used it to describe his party. Historians such as Larson confirm this. Hiding behind the veil of supposedly posted "strawmen," doesn't dismiss or refute that. Suppressing that historical characterization doesn't make it untrue either. That said, that you took issue with the last part of my response as opposed to the first 3/4ths of it doesn't exactly convince anyone that that last part doesn't hold some truth to it. I'm not saying it does, but saying that something would be "confusing," "misleading," or "controversial", but then not working to improve the pages on left and right-wing politics to help readers, since "helping readers" seems to be your claimed goal, makes that entire argument come off as a little less sincere. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT. And, your WP:TEXTWALLs still aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Supposed appeals to rules doesn't make anyone objective, just dismissive and suppressive of the article content being discussed. And anything I've contributed to this talk page I did with the intent of being thorough and by providing as much information in the least amount of space as possible. It's not my fault I have to repeat myself, but I think article pages should be as thorough and useful as possible and if we can't argue an article's content with similar considerations, why are we here? (That's a rhetorical question. Please feel free not to respond since you clearly don't care to constructively contribute to the talk page or to the article in question.) The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:CIV Personal attacks are boring and will never lead to consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks have been made on my part. I literally just asked for constructive discussion. If that's a "personal attack," then not sure why talk pages exist. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Strict constitutionalism" and "small government" were not inherent features of right-wing ideology in America from the '60s and '80s, they were careful dog-whistles that only applied as a reaction against the civil-rights movement and left-wing economic policy that threatened wealthy donors... But, every right-wing President during that time oversaw a continually increasing budget, a continual addition of new government programs, and larger budget deficits. The right-wing of politics demonstrably did not actually produce smaller government, they instead selectively used the talking points to only fight select things they disagreed with for other reasons. They said they don't want the federal government legislating civil rights, but they did want that power to be used by a federal government for all sorts of things like fighting flag burning and promoting religious doctrines. It's not an actual, honest argument, and it is not at all informative as to how we can classify the politics of the Democratic Republicans and Federalists.SecASB (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This was not a left wing party.

Why is the democratic republican party left wing? They are nothing like modern democrats. For one, they supported slavery, which is something dems don't. They also did not support big government. To me the Jefferson party was closer to modern libertarianism than progressivism. 76.137.118.7 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" originated from the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Opponents sat on the right. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French Revolution. By the most literal of definitions, they were left-wing. The rest of your statements are dubious, but this is really the only thing that bares saying on the topic. --2601:19C:4480:DF90:95DD:C1CA:6929:CE37 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Political spectrum

The hidden comment at the very top of the page says to not add a political spectrum. However, there is a "center-left to left-wing" spectrum in the infobox. One of these should be removed, but I don't know which one. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IIRC the comment was added this year, and the guy who added it was dragged to ANI over it. Regardless, the sourcing is marginal (one source is a consultant and professor of "instructional leadership"), and it's misleading to have in the infobox, since we know that 60% of mobile readers read no more than the infobox and lead, and won't see this information contextualized. Readers will wrongly interpret this in the context of the modern politics they're familiar with. It promotes assimilation over accommodation (Piaget), which an encyclopedia should avoid. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title

The title at the top of infoboxes usually contain the official name of whatever organization the infobox is about [ex: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)], so I think at the top of the infobox it should say Republican Party, as that was the name the party actually used. MattiasLikesOxygen (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren has an RfC

Martin Van Buren has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)