Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 27 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Democratic Party (United States). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Democratic Party (United States) at the Reference desk.

	Democratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 27, 2005 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

1900s

The article currently states "New Deal liberalism meant the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights, and regulation of business."

I have objections to this phrasing

1. It should be noted that there were two "New Deals", The ideology started with some aspects of the economy but grew as the necessity of more programs was apparent
2. It could say "New Deal philosophy originally was to provide relief to different essential industries and relief to individuals to an extent, but later it was expanded to include more relief programs for individuals, including financial aid and workers rights."
3. The term "Civil Rights" within the context used assumes it did something to enhance the rights of African-Americans and other minorities, which it didn't. The New deal philosophy dealt solely with economic policy, not with the rights of minorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporemolux (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Second Sentence of Second Paragraph: Grammatical Error

Second sentence of second paragraph: "The parties philosophy of contemporary American liberalism has its origins in left-of-center liberalism, which seeks to create a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy." It should read "the party's," not "parties," which is the plural form of the word, not the possessive.

- Nickdab (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Third Way" label no longer applies

In the summary box on the right of this article, I've noticed that the "Ideology" of the Democratic Party is labeled as Social liberalism, Third Way, and Progressivism. However, after reading the article for the "Third Way" ideology, it seems to me that this is a wildly inaccurate label for the modern Democratic Party, for several reasons:

• Whereas the Third Way "reject income redistribution as the means to achieve" egalitarianism, contemporary "Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay the highest amount in taxes."
• Whereas the Third Way "emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets," contemporary Democrats systematically oppose budget-balancing measures related to just about anything except the military.
• Whereas the Third Way places "an emphasis on personal responsibility," many contemporary Democrats believe that equal opportunity is achieved through affirmative action.
• Whereas the Third Way advocates "decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible," the contemporary Democratic Party "seeks to create a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy...such as universal healthcare, social programs, equal opportunity, labor protections, environmental protection, and regulation on big business."(Intro, 2nd paragraph)

Though the Democratic Party may have flirted with this "Third Way" for a brief time in the 1990s, I think the contradictions with the Democratic Party as it is now, and as it was through most of the 20th century, suggest that the "Third Way" is not the defining economic policy of the Democratic Party. I would advocate removing the "Third Way" descriptor from the summary box, and replacing it with another descriptor that resolves these contradictions. I believe the content at the articles for Social Democracy or perhaps Democratic Socialism provide a better match for the policies listed in the Democratic Party article. However, I have been having difficulty finding reputable sources that directly acknowledge and label any change in the Democrats' ideology between the Bill Clinton era and today. Would others be able to help find a good source with an appropriate label for the economic ideology of the current Democratic Party? TBSchemer (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've now found two sources- one from a Comparative Politics journal in 1978 describing at least a portion of the Democratic Party as "consistently aspiring" to make America more of a social democracy, and one from a policy analysis in 2014 describing how the Democratic Party is the vessel for a new wave of Social Democracy in the United States. I have introduced those sources with my edit. TBSchemer (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot define a political party in that manner and claim "no longer true" based on your interpretation of a source based on a moment in history. Dave Dial (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This analysis is little more than original research, and for the two sources cited, one is horribly outdated (1978) and speculative, and the other does not assert that the Democratic Party is socially democratic; it merely speculates that the future of the country is socially democratic and talks about Obamacare. And regardless, we should not remove mention of a label (Third Way) based on insinuation and speculation that another label might apply (social democrat). If you can show that reliable sources predominately refute the "Third Way" label, then by all means, bring that evidence here and we can change the article. Otherwise, the current sources and material remain valid. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How would you resolve the contradictions I brought up between the definitions on the Third Way page, and on the Democratic Party (United States) page? Certainly we cannot allow a situation where one Misplaced Pages page says "Universally, X = 2" and another says "2 + X = 5." Why do you believe my sources are incorrect to suggest that the Democratic Party has social democracy in their platform? I would add that the second source you mention, doesn't just "talk about Obamacare." If you read further down, it actually discusses how the "social democratic future" of the country is dependent on Democratic Party electoral victories. TBSchemer (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no 'contradictions', your post is entirely made up of inaccuracies and extreme POV interpretations. I won't comment further on such inaccurate portrayals of policies. Dave Dial (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dave Dial, you're going to have to be more specific if you want to be constructive. The cycle is "Bold, Revert, DISCUSS," not "Bold, Revert, contradict everything and refuse to discuss your reasons." TBSchemer (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, The best course of action would be to find some recent reliable sources to back up the claim. Not sure how it even was put into the article in the first place. Third way was an option to Dem/Rep. Calling a WP:DUCK and removing it from the article. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, all of the sources to back up the claim are questionable or clearly not reliable sources. A couple of personal blogs are not sufficient to label a group in this manner, especially when it can be clearly shown that the label is ridiculous. And if anything the Democratic Party is even less in the center today. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Liberalism

Just because most Democrats aren't economic liberals doesn't mean the entire party isn't ideologically liberal. Plus moderate democrats are sometimes fiscally conservative (aka economic liberals) thus the party can be considered liberal a party. The Democrats have almost all types of Liberalism within their party: Social; Democratic; Green; Libertarian etc. There is no reason say the party is not ideologically liberal. TURTLOS (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I follow your logic. If most members reject ideology X, then ideology X certainly cannot be a defining descriptor of the party. In fact, I would argue that the Democratic Party platform, policies, actions, and arguments are mostly defined around stopping economic liberalism. Note that when I talk about economic liberalism, I'm deviating from colloquial American usage and referring to the globally recognized definition, which is well-summarized in the WP article:

Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.

...

Economic liberalism is often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital goods, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism or mixed economies.

• In the previous section on this same page, I was actually arguing that the Democratic Party is defined by social democracy, which is an opposite of economic liberalism. I can make a very strong case that social democracy has been the unifying principle for the Democrats for at least a century.
• The one American political party that supports both social liberalism and economic liberalism is the Libertarian Party, which is extremely critical of the Democrats' economic views. TBSchemer (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didnt not say that democrats completely reject economic liberalism, im saying that they aren't usually considered economic liberals. The democrats aren't based around economic liberalism but some Democrats are economc liberals. The New Democrat Coalition aka (moderate democrats) are sometimes fiscal conservatives which is pretty much the same thing as economic liberalism, there are also libertarian democrats many of whom are also economic liberals. i am not basing my catergorisation of the democrats as liberals from american colloquial usage (i am not even american)
• Social Democracy is the ideology of the progressive factions of the democratic party, fiscal conservatism an ideology of the more moderate faction. Most Democrats lay between those two terms and are called Social Liberal (which isn't really an economic ideology). Social Democracy isn't the underlying political ideology of democratic party because as i said before they represent the more leftist democrats not the majority of democrats.
• Political Ideologies don't really have opposites unless they are very broad or radical e.g. socialism is the opposite of capitalism, anarcho-communism is the opposite of the religious right. Social democracy and econmic liberalism are both forms of capitalism so they can't really be considered an opposite they are different but not really opposite, look at the liberal democrats in britan, they have some economic liberals and some social democratic factions, if they were opposite ideologies couldn't really exist within the same party. You could say they are opposite forms of capitalism but thats pretty much it.
• Oddly enough even this last point isn't 100% true even if we don't count the democrats. the reform party and the Modern Whig Party are to other parties that both atleast partially embrace social liberalism and economic liberalism (fiscal conservartism), there are even some socially liberal libertarian republicans so you could even say the the gop embraces both ideolgies as well (to a much lesser degree). TURTLOS (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the philosophy labels in the article reflect what the party is based around? I'm sure you can find elements of every ideology, from anarchism to totalitarianism, in somebody in the party. But the philosophy labels on the party's article should represent what unifies them, and what they push for as a party. Any economic liberals that may remain in the Democratic Party haven't had any representation in at least 14 years. The Democratic Party's members in Congress and legislatures across the country have uniformly voted against economic liberalism since then.
• I can point to dozens of policies that have come out of the Democratic Party in recent years that represent social democracy (Obamacare, the fiscal stimulus plans, tax hikes, Frank-Dodd, the contraception mandate, mandatory union membership, etc.), but I honestly cannot think of a single one that represents economic liberalism since Bill Clinton's welfare reform. But even Bill Clinton was lukewarm on economic liberalism, passing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995, for example.
• What I mean by "an opposite" is that one cannot favor social democracy and economic liberalism at the same time. They are mutually contradictory. Social democrats, by definition, choose to replace individual freedom of choice with democratically-decided community choices. Economic liberals, by definition, seek to enhance individual freedom of choice and stop imposition of communal will.
• Regardless of whether there are other parties share economic ideologies, I think the strict disagreement between the Libertarian Party and Democratic Party on economic issues represents very effectively how far away from economic liberalism the Democratic Party is. TBSchemer (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The philosophy labels should reflect what the party is based around i never said it shouldn't. I don't think that u can find anarchism or totalitarianism in the same party very often. Liberalism is one of the things that unifies the democratic party. Are you saying that there are no New Democrat coalition members and now democratic freedom caucus being represented in congress?
• "Economic liberalism opposes government intervention on the grounds that the state often serves dominant business interests" from economic liberalism wikipedia page, i dont either of the issues you mentioned served the interests of business interests. Actually "Adam Smith, who advocated minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of basic public goods", all of these issues tend to be for the provisions of public insurance which could be considered a public good.
• I haven't really heard of social democrats being against individual freedom, they often tend to support socially progressive courses even when democratically elected governments oppose them. The only mainstream ideology against individual freedom i have ever heard of is social conservatism. Economic liberalism is a economic ideology without much of an official stance on social issues. Some ideologies that incorporate economic liberalism are against many individual freedoms e.g. liberal conservatism (economically liberal and socially conservative). I don't think that economic liberals want to the imposition stop communal will because if that was the case they would be against the very essence of democracy which is the imposition stop communal.
• I think the strict disagreements that the democratic party has with the libertarian party on economic policy shows how far and how close members of both parties are to economic liberalism, many centrist and libertarian democrats are pretty close to economic liberalism/fiscal conservatism, most libertarians are classical and economic liberals but many are not, anarcho-capitalists in the libertarian party are not economic liberals because they are entirely against the concept of a state which is something the economic liberals believe should still exist just with less powers and responsibilities. Anyway im not saying that the democratic party should be considered economically liberal im saying it should be considered liberal as it has most variations and ideas of liberalism with in it. TURTLOS (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Economic liberalism is a pretty major component of liberalism. If a party only follows the "social liberal" component of liberalism, then that party is socially liberal, not entirely liberal.
• Anyone who voted for the Affordable Care Act certainly cannot be considered economically liberal. Only 34 Democrats voted against it, many of those because they thought it didn't go far enough in crushing economic freedom. Only 4 of those ACA naysayers from the Democratic Party still remain in Congress.
• Can you name any economically liberal policies the Democrats have implemented in the current administration? Like I said, I can't think of any. They're simply not a fully liberal party. They're socially liberal, but on all economic issues, they actively oppose individual liberty. The social liberalism label is already in the article. If we want to describe their economic beliefs, then we should include the social democrat or democratic socialist label in the article. TBSchemer (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Democratic party has some members who follow social liberalism some that follow economic and social liberalism and some that dont follow liberalism at all (blue dog democrats). Liberalism isn't just the two main types that you mentioned there are many other liberal concets and variations e.g. Green liberalism, national liberalism, liberal democracy. i think that u have over simplified the various components and variations of liberalism.
• I do not completely understand why you believe that Affordable Care Act is against economic liberalism. I'm not saying the the Affordable Care Act is a economically liberal idea, but i am saying that i dont see how someone for this bill is going against economic liberalism.
• when i looked at the link you gave me this is what came up "You’ve reached this page because what you were looking for does not exist or there’s been an error. Rest assured that we are looking into it. In the meantime, we have great content for you to choose from in the right rail of this page. You can also click the Slate icon at the top right of the screen to get back to the home page."
• I looked on democrats.org which i think is a website belonging to the democratic party and here are some policies that sound economically liberal and/or liberal

• Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
• 21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable

• I do not understand what you mean when you say that the Affordable Care Act is crishing economic freedom and i dont see how it is possible for this bill to be crushing individual liberty and i dont see how you think that a socially liberal party (based on an ideology that believes that right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation) crushes individual liberty. Democratic socialism and social democracy are ideologies supported by the progressive wing of the democratic party and maybe some blue dog democrats. economic liberalism is the ideology of many moderate and libertarian democrats, having either social democracy or democratic socialism on the ideology of the party when it doesnt represent the entire party or atleast a large majority of the party would be just as ridiculous as having economic liberalism as the party's ideology. The parties economic beliefs could be descride as progressive or ordoliberal but the latter is not used very often so i think progressive covers their economic ideology well enough. TURTLOS (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Green liberalism is not a different segment of liberalism, but a coupling of some liberal policies with some green policies. Do you see what I mean? It's not a subset of the philosophy that is distinct from social or economic liberalism. It's just a different grouping of people who favor various levels of social or economic liberalism depending on the issue at stake. The same could be said of the other groups you've described- you're naming groups of people who have incorporated bits of liberalism, rather than describing additional delineations within the philosophy of liberalism that are separate from social or economic liberalism.
• The Affordable Care Act set strict conditions on what sort of products health insurance companies are allowed to offer and then mandated that everyone buy them. That replacement of individual choice and free market activity with government regulation and mandate is one of the most anti-liberal economic policies the United States has ever seen.
• The Slate link still works for me. I'm not sure what the problem is. Well, the title of the article is "Only Four of the 34 House Democrats Who Voted Against Obamacare Are Still in Congress," and that mostly covers the point I was trying to make with it.
• I agree that the Party goals you listed could be used to describe liberal policies because they're so generalized, but we know that the Democrats have taken a wholly anti-liberal approach in achieving those goals. Every budget the modern Democrats have proposed has drastically increased federal spending. They have refused to reduce the deficit by cutting government spending, seeking only to hike taxes, which is necessarily anti-liberal. "Asking all to pay their fair share" has always been the Democrats' euphemistic buzzphrase for tax hikes. Transparency and accountability in government could be considered liberal, but regardless of whether or not the Democrats have actually implemented this policy, it's not really an economic issue.
• The US Democratic Party certainly is not founded in a belief in the freedom from coercion. If they were, they wouldn't favor tax hikes, they wouldn't favor mandatory union membership, they wouldn't favor mandated or government-designed health insurance, they wouldn't favor a contraception mandate, they wouldn't favor taxpayer-funded welfare programs, they wouldn't favor economic stimulus programs, they wouldn't favor minimum wage laws, they wouldn't favor the nationalization of any component of any industry, they wouldn't favor bans on firearms, they wouldn't favor nationalization of school curricula or lunches or whatever, they wouldn't favor government involvement in marriage or mandates for Christian bakers to offer wedding cake services to homosexual couples.... With all due respect, if you're looking for a party founded on a belief in freedom from coercion, you're at the wrong article. If that's what you're looking for, I would recommend heading more in this direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Your right on your point about Green Liberalism i'll give you that one.
• The fact that the Affordable Care Act sets conditions for health insurance companies isn't nesicarily against liberalism depending of course on what exactly those conditions are. The fact that people have to buy insurance a little bit is un-liberal but there are exemptions for the poor, people do have options on which companies and plans they chose plus there are some tax deductions and the act sounds like it is intended for the benfit of poorer people not big buisness. Liberal thinkers like Adam Smith thought were concerned more about the government helping buisness not goverment helping the poor.
• I think the link not working for me has something to do with me not being in America.
• The policies are abit generalized and vague but big parties usually tend to be vague about their policies. i don't really know were i can find a list of policies of the democrats or any politcal party that aren't vague, im sure there are some exceptions.
• Social Liberalism is an ideology that believes that right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation meaning that society should support the right to freedom from coercion. If you think that Democrats are not this that means your claiming that they are not social Liberals. Now im not going to dispute the every single issue you brought up (because there are just so many and it will take forever) in your last paragraph but I will dispute that your claim about Christian bakers. People are should not be allowed to discriminate against minorities unless they have a really good reason. Religious convitions don't sound like a good enough reason to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. On top of that im haven't heard of Christian scripture saying anything about not being allowed to provide serivices to people who's life styles they disagree with (homosexuals being one of them). So this last matter is more about the freedom to be bigoted not about the freedom of religion. Allowing people to refuse to offer services based on their prejudices is not liberalism its just unfair. You mentioned the Libertarian Party again for some reason. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that but wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote your political affiliation.
• some members of the New Democrat Coalition and the Democratic Freedom caucus are labebeld and/or consider themselves as Fiscal Conservatives/Economic Liberals. Do you disagree with this categorisation? TURTLOS (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Setting conditions on the sale of services is, by definition, necessarily against liberalism. Economic liberalism is when people are free to sell (or not sell) whatever they want, and people are free to buy (or not buy) whatever they want. Constraining those choices is anti-liberal, no matter how good the intention. Liberalism doesn't mean "helping underdogs." It means promoting liberty over government regulation and control, for the sake of liberty itself.
• The vagueness of those policy statements is deliberate for the sake of unifying a diverse crowd, sometimes against their own interests. That's why I asked if you knew of any economically liberal policy that the Democrats have actually implemented- as in drafted as law.
• Whether or not something is liberal is not a matter of whether or not you think it's a good policy. It is defined by whether or not the government is constraining someone's non-coercive free will.
• The Democratic Freedom Caucus has no national representation in the Democratic Party, and is not a true congressional caucus. The New Democrat Coalition characterizes themselves as "moderate" and "pro-growth," but not as economically liberal, and it wouldn't be accurate to do so. For example, the NDC members voted for all of the bank bailouts and stimulus bills in 2007-2009, as well as the Affordable Care Act. They seem to be moderate in the sense that they favor business, but not necessarily in liberal ways. TBSchemer (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• I think we will have difficult finding agreement on using the general "Liberalism" label for the Democrats, but perhaps we could find another mutually-agreeable label to describe their economic beliefs? Would you consider the Democratic Party to be social democrats? TBSchemer (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Setting conditions on the sale of services isn't liberal but it is sometimes required to run society. Without these rules people would sell things that they claim are one thing when in fact they are another and they would sell hard drugs without anyone stopping them. Stopping people from doing these isn't anti-liberal. Can you give me a credible source that states that "Setting conditions on the sale of services is anti-liberal" or did you make that up.
• I don't have list of liberal bills the democrats have implemented and i dont not know where i can find bills passed by congress without sorting through paragraphs of long details and long lists which i can't b bothered looking through.
• The New Democrat Coalition is categorised as fiscal conservative according to their wikipedia page and the washington post. Fiscal Conservartism is pretty much the same thing as economic liberalism so they are in that sense economic liberals.
• Social democracy is a good word to describe the economic ideology of the democratic parties progressive factions and of some of the economic left wing social conservative blue dog democrats but not for the democratic party as a whole because many modern liberals, new democrats and some blue dogs are not social democrats. TURTLOS (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Only 14 Blue Dog Democrats remain in Congress, and that number has been declining every election. That's less than 3%. Would you agree that the majority of elected Democrats are social democrats? TBSchemer (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fiscal conservatism is not the same thing as economic liberalism. All fiscal conservatism means is that you think that deficit spending should be avoided and/or that balanced budgets are a good idea. Those ideals can be established either by reducing government spending (a nominally, but not exclusively, conservative idea), by raising taxes (a nominally, but not exclusively, social liberal idea), or both. One could theoretically be a socialist and also be a fiscal conservative. Toa Nidhiki05 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up for me i thought they were the same thing. TURTLOS (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Social democracy is a good word to describe the economic ideology of the democratic parties progressive factions and of some of the economic left wing social conservative blue dog democrats but not for the democratic party as a whole because many modern liberals, new democrats and some blue dogs are not social democrats. Try reading what i typed properly this time. TURTLOS (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Would you agree that the Democrats' socially democratic, progressive factions currently occupy the White House and the majority of the Democratic Party's electoral positions in Congress? President Barack Obama very recently announced a proposal to further socialize the costs of 2-year college, showing that he still remains firmly aligned with social democracy. The Progressive Caucus remains the largest caucus in Congress, and is entirely populated by Democrats (and a few independents who caucus with the Democrats). In fact, 34% of the House Democrats are members of the Progressive Caucus. With these facts in mind, I would like to add the "Social Democracy" label to the ideology box of the Democratic Party article (with appropriate citations, of course 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). TBSchemer (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• First, almost none of those are reliable sources for this type of citation and most are far into fringe politics. So I would most definitely say, "no". I question why someone who would cite those type of outlets in an attempt to make the claims you are making has any business editing this, or any US political, article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at this article you can see all the ideological factions in the Democratic party and their various organizations. All faction mentioned have this except the Liberals (as in modern liberals or social liberals), this is because they are infused with the progressives, they are more a little bit more capitalistic than the progressives but socially they are both left/liberal. Liberals tend to be ordoliberalism while progressives are social democrats. Liberals and progressives are in the same factional organisations because their differences are not very big on a majority of issues but the main difference is modern liberals are not social democrats while other progressives are. social democrats are probably a small majority of the progressive faction but not of the overall democratic party because modern liberals are usually clasified as profressives to. TURTLOS (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued by your proposal to use the ordoliberalism label. I think that label does get close to the mark, but I've struggled to find any sources that use that label outside of Germany. Ditto with the related term, social market economy. Then I thought, "well, maybe there's another way to describe belief in a mixed economy that applies to the Democrats, and isn't as outdated as the Third Way label." I stumbled upon this article, which identifies the economic ideology of the Democratic Party by referring to the WP article for modern American liberalism. Perhaps this is the term we've been looking for? Though it's a bit clunkier than a one-word label, the "modern American liberalism" label manages to properly distinguish itself from classical liberalism, while capturing the Democrats' belief in mixed economies, equal opportunity, regulation of corporations, Keynesian economic theory, welfare programs, and opposition to state socialism. With that in mind...
• Would anyone object to adding "Modern American liberalism" to the ideology box for the Democratic Party article, using this article as the citation? TBSchemer (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I never advocated calling the democrats ordoliberal because the term isn't used very often. I can agree to the term third way. Modern American liberalism is pretty much the same thing as social liberalism and ordoliberalism but i dont mind if u add it. TURTLOS (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Democrats right-wing by international standards?

I don't quite understand why people are saying that the Democratic Party is right-wing by international standards, or that the "U.S political spectrum is different from the rest of the world". I live in Australia and our "centre-left" party makes the Democrats look very left-wing indeed. Imagine if Obama strongly and zealously opposed gay marriage, had an absolutely identical foreign policy to George Bush, had an illegal immigration policy just as brutal and sometimes more so than the Republican Party, had spent his entire presidency bending over backwards to the mining industry, the religious right, and the xenophobic demographic, had championed and implemented devestating cuts to single parent benefits, had proposed crippling cuts to the higher education sector, and had formulated a policy to avoid any real action on climate change whatsoever before being forced to abandon it. Imagine if Obama had done all these things that our last Labor prime minister did and you'll see how odd it is to hear that the Democrats are right-wing by the standards of every other western country. Granted, we do have the Greens, who forced Labor to implement proper strong climate change policies and blocked Labor's more brutal immigration policies in the senate, but they are still a long way from winning government themselves, and from the perspective of the mainstream Australian political spectrum the U.S Democrats look very much left of centre. Colonial Overlord (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Another thing: the Democratic Party platform says something like "make corporations and the rich pay their fair share". The Australian Labor Party wouldn't be caught dead saying something like that. The only tax increase they proposed in recent times was a mining tax that was watered down so much after negotiations with the industry that it raised virtually no money at all, and much of the tax was intended to pay for, you guessed it, corporate tax cuts for other industries. Colonial Overlord (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In our nation the Labor party currently is dominated by the Right faction which is sort of like a fusion of the blue dog democrats and the new democrats. The Labor Right is dominated by centrist and conservative trade unions. The Democrats are dominated by the socially liberal and progressive factions who are a lot like the Ferguson Left and to a lesser extent, the Socialist Left. The Democrats are centrist, centre-leftist by international standards, Labor is also in this space. Labor's traditional ideology has been unfairly discredited by the heavily corporate backed Australian media while the Democrats are moving into a more progressive stance in an attempt to appeal to the poor and the progressives because they fear that this demographic might leave them and vote for independents or smaller parties. Labor doesn't need to worry about this as much because progressive Australians will often vote green but because of the preference system their votes while help labor against the liberals. The Democrats can also afford to get behind progressive rhetoric because it takes longer and is much harder to pass american laws than it is to pass Australian laws, this means that their corporate doners to not have to worry as much about their leftist policies while in Australia it would not be as difficult to pass a law for the benefit of the people (in theory). The American media (beside fox news and their kind) is also much more balanced and impartial than the Australian media mostly due to the issue about corporations I mentioned earlier. TURTLOS (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Steve Israel is no longer the chair of the DCCC 173.166.108.161 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. E _C K _S A E _S  23:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not the Democratic-Republican Party

The Democratic Party was founded in the late 1820s or early 1830s after the Democratic-Republican Party had split and dissolved. It was not founded in 1792. 1792 is the founding date of the Democratic-Republican Party, not of the Democratic Party that followed with a distinct caucus system and distinct self-identifying labels. TBSchemer (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that "1792 (historical)" in the infobox isn't correct or useful. --jpgordon 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, it is the Democratic-Republican Party, or the only remaining party left. The Whigs broke away and the Party became the modern Democratic Party. The DNC states the Party is more than 200 years old and whose roots go back the the late 18th century, PBS states the Party was founded in 1792, Britanica also states the Party is more than 200 years old. It is historically the Democratic-Republican Party after the Whigs left. Dave Dial (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• This book states that the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved in 1825 (as cited in WP article, Democratic-Republican Party), and the WP article for the Second Party System is chock-full of historical sources pointing out (and explaining very clearly) that the parties after 1828 were entirely distinct from the parties that existed previously. Your sources don't even attempt to address the existence of the Democratic Republican Party as an institutionally distinct entity, the fact that this prior party called themselves "Republicans" while the new party called themselves "Democrats," or the dissolution and rebuilding of the caucus system from 1825 to 1832. So, you can't really make a convincing argument based on a modern party slogan ("more than 200 years") or based on a PBS article that incorrectly implies that the Democratic-Republicans simply "changed their name." TBSchemer (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Even the sources DD2K provided here don't demonstrate his point. The Britannica one at least is correct: the party traces its roots to the D-R party. --jpgordon 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jeffersonian Republican Party dissolved by 1824 and split into factions. One faction, led by Jeffersonian leader Henry Clay, became the National Republican Party, and then the Whig party. Another faction, led by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson, became the modern Democratic Party in the early 1830s. Both the Whigs and the Jacksonian Democrats could trace the connections back to the Jeffersonian Republicans, but only after a break in the 1825-32 period. All of the details can be found in Richard McCormick, The second American party system: Party formation in the Jacksonian era (1973). There is brief coverage in the Misplaced Pages article on the Second Party System. Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus mostly supports removing the 1792 date. I will try implementing the change again. If there are additional concerns, please discuss them here. TBSchemer (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose removing the reference to 1792. The party traces its roots to then and reliable sources do as well. -- Calidum 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the party can trace their roots through the Democratic-Republican Party that preceded them, just as the modern Republican Party can trace their roots back through the Free Soil Party, the Whigs, the National Republicans, and the Democratic-Republicans that preceded them. There's already a separate note in the infobox stating that the Democratic-Republicans preceded the Democratic Party, and I think that's entirely appropriate. But to say the Democratic Party was actually founded in 1792 is to suggest that the Democratic and the Democratic-Republican Party are one and the same, which denies the institutional distinction between the First Party System and Second Party System. This would contradict dozens of reliable sources incorporating centuries of historical analysis. Sure, you may find a source here and there that mistakenly blurs the line between the first two party systems (perhaps misguided by this Misplaced Pages article itself in a bit of circular referencing), but the sources that take a serious academic interest in the question pretty clearly describe the Democratic Party as a new entity, distinct from the old Democratic-Republican Party. TBSchemer (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dave Dial and -- Calidum, on what grounds are you still opposed to this change? We welcome your comments and would like to understand your objections. But, to continue denying consensus without discussing the issue is quite disruptive. TBSchemer (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC re the founding date of the Democratic Party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was the United States Democratic Party founded in 1828 after the Democratic-Republican Party dissolved and split up into several new parties? Or is the "Democratic Party" just a new name for the old Democratic-Republican Party, founded in 1792? Should the infobox give the founding date of the Democratic Party as 1792 or as 1828? 02:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded Discussion

• Comment - It states "Historical", not that it was exactly founded. There are plenty of sources that describe it that way, including the Democratic Party itself. If we have to put in multiple sources, we can. Dave Dial (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's in the "Founded:" field, so what exactly does it mean for something to have a "historical" founding date vs. a "modern" founding date? Is 1792 also the "historical" founding date for the National Republican Party (that arose out of that same split), the Whig Party (that arose out of a National Republican Party merger), and the Republican Party (that arose out of a Whig merger)? TBSchemer (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

^^ This above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• What does it mean for an institution to have two founding dates? Was the Democratic Party founded in 1792 or not? TBSchemer (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, having multiple founding dates, with footnotes and verification from reliable sources, would not be a bad thing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Jeffersonian party did not call itself "Democratic Party"-- it called itself the "Republican Party." The Jacksonian Democrats, the Whigs, & the modern Republican Party all had historical connections to that original Jeffersonian Republican Party. But "founding" is a specialized term that has to do with setting up organizational structures, like county and state committees and National conventions, as well as newspapers. In the American political system, actual political parties need loyal voters. The modern Democratic Party saw that happen about 1830-33 (different years in different states). The organizational structures the Jefferson and Madison set up in the 1790s had all disappeared by 1825. While it is true that since the days of FDR, Democratic politicians have like to talk about Jefferson as the party's founder, that is partisan rhetoric (due mostly to one author Claude Bowers) and not many scholars agree with that. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• • I'll defer to Professor Jensen here. My understanding was that Jackson was a D-R and the Adams faction left the D-R party and formed the National Republicans. Since the D-Rs were referred to as Republicans, Jackson just changed the name to the Democratic Party. But I remove my objection to remove the 1792. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Jensen's got the right of it. Everybody was a "Democratic-Republican" after the Federalists went down in flames, so really nobody was. The Jackson-Van Buren faction established itself solidly, and the National Republicans became the Whigs, whose very name is a cue that they were originally a coalition of folks opposed to Jackson the "King" (New England bankers allied with people like David Crockett, but for wildly disparate reasons). All claimed to be the true heirs of the Democratic-Republican tradition, not of the Federalists. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• We're talking about a number in an infobox. The article does discuss the origins in the D-R party, but the Democratic Party was not founded when its historical antecedents were, it was founded when it was organized as a distinct entity. No reason to introduce minor confusion in the infobox. --jpgordon 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Does anyone have any actual sources or data that contradict Rjensen's entirely correct historical clarification? The RFC doesn't really need to continue otherwise. (Yes, I know the Democratic Party likes to claim the older origin in their historical summaries of the party, but the key word is "founded", and the Democratic Party was founded on a particular date, regardless of its political antecedents.) --jpgordon 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• If you look at other encyclopedias and standard histories, you'll find that they all treat the Jeffersonian Republicans and the modern Democratic Party as two separate parties. Within the Jeffersonian party, there were Democratic and Nationalist factions. These became the Democrats and the Whigs. The logical founding date founding date for the Democratic Party is 1832. That's when the first convention was held. NotUnusual (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

POV edits by TBSchemer

We have an edit war going on here and it was caused by the POV edit by TBSchemer Who gave this as his edit summary: "Misleading. Democrats systematically oppose and block expansions and innovations in fossil fuels industries (e.g. Keystone pipeline))" Statements like that require solid evidence, not just the personal viewpoint of one editor. Furthermore the solid evidence should be presented in addition to the content that is already there. As far as the Keystone pipeline is concerned, neither the Democratic Party nor the Obama administration has opposed the pipeline. It is still under consideration. In a nutshell, the belief by TBSchemer that the Democrats are "misleading" the American people by their official statements is very heavy-handed POV that Certainly does not belong in this article. It is furthermore disappointing to see that TBSchemer keeps demanding that other people use this talk page, while he has failed to discuss this blanking of his. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; such personal opinions are not appropriate. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the issue is? The sources do state all-of-the-above energy policy. I'd be happy to hear his arguments. But apparently sourced statements can just be removed and the burden of discussion is on those that want to be given reasons for the deletion. Just seems backwards to me. But I get things wrong, so maybe somebody can explain to me what I'm misunderstanding. AlexanderLevian (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is, the editor is a POV warrior who does not seem able to edit some articles in a neutral manner. It seems the other editor who stepped in to revert professor Jensen aligns with TBSchemer, and needs to use the Talk page. There was no reason for the reverts. Dave Dial (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• This is an entirely inappropriate way of carrying out a discussion of an edit on Misplaced Pages. I have tried to maintain civility, but you have stretched my patience too far. @Rjensen:, I am reporting you to the administrators for harassment. TBSchemer (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• Top-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles