Former featured article candidateDemocratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Ideology[edit]

There are a lot of DP members who have far left and left-wing views. It should be added to "Factions" Ruhrob (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer independent reliable sources that describe "far left" as a wing of the Democratic party. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding such a statement, as while the Progressive Caucus and self-described progressive members of the party are the most left-leaning, the Party is a big tent and there's no category (i.e. center-left, left-wing, far-left, etc.) for the Party as whole. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd and unsourceable to use the term "far left" for any element of the Democratic Party. People like Bernie Sanders barely qualify as social democrats. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. I will provide several sources per point made.
Wiki defines "Far left" as : "The terms far-left and ultra-left are used for positions that are more radical, more strongly rejecting capitalism and mainstream representative democracy, instead advocating for a socialist society based on economic democracy and direct democracy, representing economic, political and social democracy" Article: Left-wing politics#:~:text=The terms far-left and,economic, political and social democracy.
Now, thats not a source, it's just using Wiki's own definition to match the issue. So let's take a dive at dictionary.com to see what "Far-left" means Dictionary.com says "The term far left is often used to refer to those who are considered to have more extreme, revolutionary views, such as those who espouse communism and socialism https://www.dictionary.com/e/leftright/.
Let's see if we have any prominent wings of the Democratic party that are revolutionary in nature, espouse Socialism, reject capitalism and support direct democracy. Let's go!
The United States has socialist members of congress. https://inthesetimes.com/article/democratic-socialism-dsa-aoc-bernie-sanders-congress
https://www.wsj.com/articles/socialists-are-no-strangers-to-congress-11546530927
https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/the-three-factions-of-the-american
Not to mention, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, or Jamaal Bowman are all self-described socialist.
Illhan Omar strongly condemns the concentration of wealth and the failures of the capitalist system, more strongly rejecting capitalism https://ilhanomar.com/issue/economicjustice/
AOC strongly rejects capitalism (source 1); https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-aoc-capitalism-democratic-socialism-pursuit-of-profit-not-redeemable-2022-2
(source 2) https://fee.org/articles/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-she-opposes-capitalism-a-recently-taken-photo-suggests-otherwise/
So we can check "Socialism" off the list. But do we have any more examples from the definitions above? Lets check the "revolutionary views"
Bernie Sanders literally calls for a revolution: https://berniesanders.com/get-involved/our-revolution/
Wrote a book about political revolution for socialism : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/nov/17/bernie-sanders-book-political-revolution-its-ok-to-be-angry-about-capitalism
Okay, but what about others? Let's see!
AOC calls for a political revolution in her campaign https://bronx.news12.com/n12primaries-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-revolution-38452590
Specifically socialist revolution: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/10/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-new-establishment-ranking
Rashida Tlaib calls for revolutionary change in foreign policy https://www.pressherald.com/2023/11/15/commentary-why-palestinian-americans-believe-rep-rashida-tlaib-spoke-the-truth/
So it's clear this "Wing" of the party is both socialist, identify as political revolutionaries... but what about the other defintions? Let's go to "Economic democracy"
Under "Issues" and "Labour" AOCsupports Economic democracy https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues
Rashida Tlaib supports economic democracy: https://tlaib.house.gov/posts/tlaib-barbara-lee-summer-lee-bowman-introduce-oligarch-act-to-tax-the-rich
Bernie: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-bernie-sanders-plans-bring-economic-democracy-united-states/
So, this wing of the party are self described socialist, identify as political revolutionaries, advocate for economic democracy and are more extreme than those elsewhere in the party- regardless of international standards- they do make up the far left in the United States Sufficient half (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in the rest of the developed world, parties with the same ideology usually alternate in power with right-wing parties. Essentially they want to go back to America before the Reagan revolution (which is what people actually call it.[1]) And add universal health care which every other developed nation has. TFD (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a person describes themselves as something doesn’t mean we can reliably describe them as that in an article. For example, Donald Trump describes himself as the victim of a political persecution but he isn’t called that on Wikipedia. 166.199.149.4 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

The Republican Party's intro has a link to this page. Therefore this page's intro should keep its link to the Republican Party page. I'm mentioning this, because somebody tried to change the link to point to the History of the Republican Party (United States) page. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If I see that link in the into, I'm fully expect it to lead to an article on the GOP as a whole, not a link to its history. That would be an WP:EASTEREGG to avoid. Zaathras (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for the two articles to be mirror images of each other. The contents of each article must stand on its own. TFD (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political position[edit]

Why don't the American political parties have "political position" as a category in their info boxes? Like where it would say "center-left"? Almost all wiki pages about political parties in other countries have this category. 150.108.240.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed before. Everyone has a different opinion on where various ideologies fit into the political spectrum. The articles already state party ideology in the info-box. There is no need to add where Wikipedia editors place these ideologies in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

political position 2[edit]

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Democrats are centre-left and it needs to be stated just like the Republicans being centre-right/right-wing. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions. Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editorial discussion, Admins have no extra authority over the rest of us regular users when discussing editorial issues. Zaathras (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum.
Also, is center left part of the center or the left, or is it midway between the two or does it just combine the two? TFD (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Center-left is defined here on Wikipedia. The entire first paragraph in the lead explains it without mentioning the word 'right', and the definition is supported with citations later in the article. Ray522 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your link begins, "Centre-left politics is the range of left-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre." That's a clear reference "to other positions in the political spectrum."
Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My definition does not matter; that would be asking me to do original research. However, center-left is a compound word which requires understanding both parts of the word and that it is referencing a spectrum that is used in comparison. If the goalpost is now defining something on a spectrum without referencing other things on the spectrum, and the individual words that constitute the compound word, you will most likely never find a satisfactory answer. Ray522 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously we could not discuss article content without using editorial judgement. TFD (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best if the political position was similar to the one used for the Republican Party, whereas that one says "Right-wing" with a citation noting center-right and far-right factions, maybe the political position for the Democrats could be Center-left with a citation noting center and left-wing factions? CY223 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and note the far left factions too (everyone knows about the Republican party’s far right factions because it’s a very loud faction. but do to how quiet they are and the fact it’s not as big the Democratic far left goes under the rug.) 2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that point your note is essentially "Republicans encompass all portions of the right and Democrats encompass all portions of the left", making it utterly pointless. It's almost like both are big-tent parties of the entire right and left. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s pointless for American parties then what’s up with the UKs conservative and labour parties having political positions? They are also coalitions it’s almost like giving some of the european tent parties official positions makes it only fair you do the same of the American ones. or is America exempt from the rule again? Like it always is? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:D09E:8BBF:7C30:15D4 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think American politics and European politics can be painted with the same broad brushstrokes, then you really don't know much about the topic. area. Zaathras (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to include position in the political spectrum in the info-box has to stand on its own merits. TFD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. The majority of the Democratic Party is centre-left, and has some centrist and leftist factions. Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by center left? TFD (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social liberalism and moderate progressivism.[1] Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Credmaster 20 The Democrats are quite big-tent as we have the New Democrats which most non-Americans would consider centre-right and they are one of the biggest factions of the party (I mean both Clintons and Biden were or are considered New Democrats at some point) and since there is such a divide between the New Democrat faction which controls the party's leadership and their more centre-left voter base. I would say the Democratic Party as it is big-tent. ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC mayor 'note', in the infobox[edit]

It's been pointed out that the Washington DC mayor's wikinote, should not be included with the state governors and/or territorial governors in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I removed it because the Mayor of Washington, DC is not considered a governor, as DC is the federal capital and not a state however it is considered a territory, albeit with different rules treatment than other US territories. Furthermore, I believe granting statehood to DC brings up a constitutional issue and can be controversial. Best to leave the Mayor of DC out of the list of governors of US states. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies in Wikibox[edit]

The page currently has Democratic socialism as an ideology of the party, which I personally disagree with but I understand that Wikipedia:No original research exists for a reason and that the term is much more frequently used in American discourse than Social democracy, which had previously been included in the wikibox previously.

However, the sources cited for the former ideology largely use the term Progressivism to describe the left flank of the Democratic Party and never mention either "social democracy" or "democratic socialism."

The other source from the New Yorker uses both of the latter terms, claiming that while Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," he would be more reasonably described as a "social democrat." This could be used as evidence for the party having a social democratic faction around Bernie Sanders but more sources should probably be necessary for such a high-profile page.

So, either there needs to be citations to multiple sources that actually characterize the party as having a significant 'democratic socialist' faction, as having a significant 'social democratic' faction or of both.

Alternatively, the labels "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" could be removed from the ideology section of the page entirely because "progressivism" already covers, both in many sources and by self-identification, most of the party members/politicians that could be classified as either or both of the former two categories.

Thoughts? Enderdragonpig (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the infobox back to "social democracy" for the time being while this is discussed. I do not support "democratic socialism" being in the infobox and would agree with stripping social democracy as a whole. Neither are terms commonly associated with the Democratic Party, while progressivism is. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic distinction is arbitrary and depends on the writer. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin for example were Social Democrats, while Tony Blair is a democatic socialist.
My concern is that these are not ideologies of the Democratic Party and the party itself has three factions: progressives, blue dogs and New Liberals. Their main proponents are Sanders, Manchin and HIllary Clinton respectively. But Sanders is not actually influential in the progressive caucus. Something like four out of eighty (and probably less) backed him when he ran for president. TFD (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Dog/conservative Democrats don't even count as a faction any more, frankly. There's all of 10 of them in the house, or all of 5%, compared to 46% that are part of the CPC and 46% that are New Democrats. There are more Democrats in the Forethought Caucus than in the Blue Dog Coalition. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some mention of the effects of Democratic Party ideology: - High Taxes - High cost of living - Increased crime - Higher numbers of homeless people - Open border These are just a few, but they merit mention TopShelf99 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are biased opinions of the opposition, not fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable and independent sources, including reputable polls, journalism articles, or studies that say that? Please provide such sources to make such claims. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Israel relations[edit]

The Democratic Party is much less supportive towards Israel than the Republicans. דולב חולב (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that say this, and if so can you provide links or citations? Also which parts of the Democratic Party--its voters, elected officials at the national level, President Joe Biden, etc. are much less supportive per your sources? Are your sources polls, journalism on the actions of elected officials, views by the Israeli government, etc.?
Note that the Democratic National Committee's main roles are fundraising and political organization (i.e. hosting the Democratic National Convention), not public policy or directly influencing elected officials. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International affiliation[edit]

But why aren’t you adding the Progressive Alliance as an international affiliation? דולב חולב (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't. Zaathras (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. TFD (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point this question should just be added to the infobox and all discussions preemptively closed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has been discussed. But on the Democratic Party page, it says we can't use the PA's page as a source to include it in the infobox but the IDU's page is used as a source on the Republican Party's page. I feel like they should have the same standards. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. GOP is a signatory to the International Democracy Union's founding. Apples and oranges. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's according to the IDU's website, just like according to the PA's website, the Democratic Party is a founding member. However, we're allowed to use the IDU's website as a source but not allowed to use the PA's site as a source. I'm not being sarcastic. I have autism and have comprehension issues so I'm sorry for being confused. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a simple listing on a website (Progressive Alliance) vs. a contemporary document noting the RNC chair's signature at their 1993 founding (IDU), bud. If you have a problem with a listing at the other article, the place to raise it is at Talk:Republican Party (United States), not here. Zaathras (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise it there, too. But nobody responded. But now it makes sense, the way you explained it. Thank you. 😊 GamerKlim9716 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this repeatedly. The Democratic Party as an organization never joined the Progressive Alliance. One Democratic officeholder (not a national party official) attended their convention, and that's repeatedly been used as an excuse to show the Democrats as an organization as members of the P.A.

==

Conservative ideology in the Infobox?[edit]

See section Democratic Party (United States)#Conservatives

A conservative Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party with more conservative views than most Democrats. Until the 2010s, the Democratic Party had a large conservative element, mostly from the South and Border regions.[2] Their numbers declined sharply as the Republican Party built up its Southern base.[3]

After the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Blue Dog Coalition was formed as a caucus of conservatives and centrists willing to broker compromises with the Republican leadership. The Blue Dog Coalition has at times acted as a unified voting bloc, giving its members some ability to influence legislation.[2]

References

  1. ^ "The Biden victory and the future of the centre-left". Social Europe. 4 December 2020. Since the New Deal, the Democrats have broadly represented the centre-left of American opinion and often exercised enormous influence over social-democratic parties in Europe.
  2. ^ a b Kane, Paul (2014-01-15). "Blue Dog Democrats, whittled down in number, are trying to regroup". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2014-07-23. Four years ago, they were the most influential voting bloc on Capitol Hill, more than 50 House Democrats pulling their liberal colleagues to a more centrist, fiscally conservative vision on issues such as health care and Wall Street reforms.
  3. ^ "The long goodbye". The Economist. November 11, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2023. In 1981 Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time since 1953, but most Southern elected officials remained white Democrats. When Republicans took control of the House in 1995, white Democrats still comprised one-third of the South's tally. ... white Southern Democrats have met their Appomattox: they will account for just 24 of the South's 155 senators and congressmen in the 112th United States Congress.

The longstanding version omits this and it seems there is no consensus supporting mention of this ideology in the infobox. While I would agree conservatism in the democratic party is well documented historically, I also agree with Toa that it seems misleading to keep it in the infobox, especially in 2024. It's coverage in the article does not appear substantial enough to warrant it's inclusion there at this time IMO. DN (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Conservative Democrat section "2000–present"... "The Blue Dog Coalition was reduced to eight members, the lowest number in its history. In 2023, Joe Manchin, described as the most conservative Democratic senator in the nation, announced he would not seek re-election in 2024 United States Senate election in West Virginia|2024...DN (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing that section from the Factions section, and instead incorporating it into the history of the party and/or in the initial paragraphs about the history of the party's factions. I agree the Conservative Democrat faction has largely died out, but it's worth mentioning that the Democrat Party used to have a prominent conservative faction in the article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories