Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

Political position

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)

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)

Can you point me to these discussions? I am having trouble finding them and I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. American political parties should not get special treatment simply because a lot of editors have opinions on it - but my mind is open. Carlp941 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

nevermind - found em. I still don't buy the arguments posed, I find them quite off base. Plenty of big tent parties that have a similar character to the Democrats and Republicans have their political positions labeled.

but I can accept that there is no consensus for change for now. I found the attempts at change to be poorly thought out as well. I think people can get "center left" from the ideologies for the democrats and can get "right wing" from the GOP ideologies. Carlp941 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you name any other parties that have no control over membership or who their members nominate for office? In some states, such as Vermont, the party has no membership at all. Can you name any other parties that don't have members? Also, neither party has a statement of ideology. Also, primary elections run by government is fairly uncommon. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitor. Unique party structures do not do away with a political position. Did the European Greens temporarily surrender their ideology by having open primaries for the 2013 European parliament elections? Did the French Socialists suddenly become non ideological because they started to hold open primaries in 2012? Of course not. Every political party has a unique context - they are still ideological and have a place on the political spectrum. Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Could someone revert the edit saying that the Dems are Centre-left? They have so many diverse factions and their economic policy certainly isn't Centre-left so this is inaccurate 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely agree. There are a number of sources noting that the party has notable centrist and conservative/right-leaning factions. While I don't deny that there are certainly some "social justice warrior" progressives in the party, they've become a big tent (even "conservative") party of anyone supportive of the constitutional status quo as opposed to the radical right (says The Atlantic). If we're going to put a political position in at all, it should be "big tent" or "center" (since that's where the party "establishment" mostly is) with a note that the party has also has a substantial left-leaning faction and a somewhat smaller right-leaning faction. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC) PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say the most accurate definition would be centre left to centre right. This would include members such as the squad, who fit the profile of centre-left social democrats in many countries, as well as moderate Democrats who are most akin to centre right politicians in peer countries. 184.145.1.225 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are these moderate Democrats akin to centre-right politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. TFD (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no way Obama, Biden or Harris would be members of the Conservative Party (UK), the Liberal Party of Australia, The Republicans (France) or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. I'd argue they're all to the left of parties such as the Australian Labor Party or the Labour Party (UK). Both those two parties oppose legalisation of cannabis while the Australian Labor Party has supported tax cuts for the rich, a questionable policy of turning back migrant boats on the open seas and indefinite detention of asylum seekers. The Australian Labor Party was in government opposing same-sex marriage while Obama and Biden were supporting it. AusLondonder (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Center to center-left versus center-left

It appears a general consensus has been reached across the several talk page sections about the political position of the party, and that the consensus is the political position should be added to the page. However, there appears to be disagreement over whether the text should state "center to center-left" or just "center-left."

I have included several of the sources I've found about this topic below. Thank you Toa for trimming some of the other sources I found that were not as reliable as these (I included the The New York Intelligencer as it is a reliable source as per wikipedia).

References

Notelist

BootsED (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support center-left, with centrist and left-wing factions. Some of your sources are older, before the Democratic Party lost its more conservative-leaning Southern faction in the 2010s, except for African Americans and some urban areas in the South. Sources:

References

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Center-left, the only stance with reliable sources. Our most reliable sources present the party as center-left, without qualifications; the most reliable presents it as a near opposite of the GOP. The center-left by definition includes both the center and left, making the clarification of "centrist and left-wing factions" utterly redundant. Also, re:Intelligencier - it's an opinion piece, and it's a wildly opinionated one presenting the Republicans as a fascist party. It's not reliable for anything other than Levitz's opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, as has been said before, the party is way too much of a big tent to make a definitive position. Both major parties in the USA are big tents, the ideology section is a much better way to figure out what the party stands for. And to reiterate another point made before, the party is not on the left on the international scale. The only compromise I'd consider is Big tent (perhaps listing centrist and centre-left factions). GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support, as there are Big tent parties that has political position listed for example Liberal Party of Australia is considered a Big tent conservative party listed as Centre-right to Right-wing plus political position is mostly listed from the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Liberal Party is considered a broad church by its members, sure, but broad strictly on the right. The Democrats have factions to the left of centre and right of centre. Hence my "big tent" suggestion. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democrats do not have any right of center factions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Toa Nidhiki05. The conservative Democrat faction has steadily declined in the 21st century, as Democrats lost power in the South. The Blue Dog Coalition has just 10 members (it peaked at 54 in 2009) and moved left in recent years, Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin became independents and won't run in 2024.

Bill Clinton would be considered a very moderate or Blue Dog Democrat by today's standards, not including his record on LGBT rights. Bill Clinton supported the death penalty, enacted a welfare reform law, deregulated the telecom and financial industries, and was lukewarm on labor unions (see my Vox source). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Clinton also did not support LGBT rights while he was president, so I'm not sure why you highlight his history on that subject as if he was anything but moderate on it. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Clinton was also incredibly tough on crime which is not typically associated with modern day leftism. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Political Positions are more based current stances and a countries standards

- No use comparing politics today to the 1990's plus Bill Clinton supports same-sex marriage since 2013.

- A center-left party in a non-western country is mostly more conservative than a conservative party in a Western Country Mhaot (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Since 2013... his presidency ended in 2001. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Of the four sources above, Guardino and Snyder are largely irrelevant. They do not describe the party as centrist, they comment on its efforts to reach agreements with the right-wingers. Marantz is talking about moderates dominating the party, not centrists. Rae describes the party as both liberal and center-left, attributing this direction of the party to the influence of the civil rights movement. Levitz describes the party as centrist (not center-left), but also implicitly describes it as militaristic and imperialist. According to him, the party's goals include the maintenance of a "globe-spanning military empire". Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am changing my support to center-left. I have found additional high-quality sources that I believe should put the question of whether the Democratic Party is "Center-left" or not to rest.

References

BootsED (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree @BootsED, political positions mostly takes into account the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times defines center-left as "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." (p. 5) Others, including most editors in this conversation, may define it differently so for example by excluding democratic socialists. It's circular: if by center-left we include the ideology of the Democratic Party, it is center-left. OTOH, if we define centrism as liberalism, then the party is centrist. TFD (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is covered by the factions section only having centrism and progressivism, not democratic socialism, greens, and whatnot. The book also describes European center-left parties, which are generally more left than the American center-left, and which it acknowledges followed a different historical path than the American Democratic Party. While I was collecting these sources I came across another one that expounded on this point. I will have to find it again and add it here. BootsED (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like @Mhaot said, political positions take into account the standards of the individual country and independent sources, and generally not international standards (which are hard to define). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Democratic Party is an outlier in the book because it is the only major that does not have Marxist roots. While Marx was advocating the overthrow of capitalism, Democrats were building capitalism. However, it is the most left-wing of the two major U.S. parties, is identified with minorities and labor, and like Marxist parties it has moved to the center. In Europe however, liberal parties tend to occupy the middle ground between social democrats and conservatives.

  While I understand that in some contexts, the Democrats can be seen as center-left, in other contexts, they can be seen as centrist or center-right. It is misleading to describe them as center-left without explaining what is meant. The footnote should say, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party." TFD (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"the only major that does not have Marxist roots" The Democratic Party was founded in 1828, when Karl Marx was 10-years-old. Both the Democratic Party and the preceeding Democratic-Republican Party were populist parties which represented the American variations of classical radicalism.Dimadick (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not socialist or green. There have been many discussions over putting in "democratic socialism" or socialism as a faction of the party and all have failed. Why would we put a footnote saying that the Democratic Party is "socialist and green"? BootsED (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of Europe uses a multi-party system, while the English-speaking world uses first past the post voting, which by Duverger's law incentivizes two parties. If you want to compare the Democratic Party internationally, consider comparing it to the Liberal Party, Australian Labor Party, or Labour Party (UK) because those nations have two major parties.

Because of the party's size, environmentalist and socialist positions tend to be represented by say the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not individual coalitions. 2610:20:6B73:240:0:0:0:B096 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic party began before the Communist Manifesto, and before the Civil Rights movement, was a combination of two coalitions--Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats, symbolized by Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) and Martin Van Buren (New York). See the article on Southern Democrats for their full history, while Martin Van Buren stayed loyal to the Union (he died in 1862).

Northern Democrats became pro-labor after William Jennings Bryan toppled the Bourbon Democrats in the 1896 presidential election, and continued with FDR's New Deal in the 1930s. Southern Democrats, which for nearly a century (1877 to 1964) became known as the Solid South, were obviously not a left-leaning coalition; it was reactionary and white supremacist, disenfranchising African Americans and poor Whites. User:JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would you presume defining centrism as liberalism is agreeable to anyone other than your singular self? 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

An additional source with more information on how the Democratic Party is further to the right than European left-wing parties, and how there is no strong socialist or equivalent "left-wing" movement in the United States. I think with this source, there shouldn't be any more confusion that there are "socialist" elements within the center-left Democratic Party, which I believe should satisfy TFD's concerns.

References

BootsED (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Democratic Party is not a Labor party like the UK Labor Party or Germany's SPD. Part of the reason is the Southern United States, which is heavily racially polarized--White evangelicals in the Bible Belt vote nearly as Republican (80-90%) as African Americans vote Democratic (85-95%). But a party can still be center-left without relying on organized labor, and instead be focused on issues such as abortion rights and environmentalism.

The party is instead comprised of well-educated White voters and racial minorities, particularly African Americans. It could be called postmaterialist among White voters, because educational attainment in the United States is highly correlated with income and wealth. I have three sources for this.

References

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends what your definition of center left is. It seems like a term created in order to group European Socialists with Democrats. What information does it provide readers about the Democrats that the ideology box doesn't? TFD (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

TFD, the very Wikipedia page for center-left politics does not list European Socialists with the Democratic Party. Specifically in the lead of the page, "Centre-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution." I don't think people will be confused and think that the Democratic Party are socialists. Also, we have a lot of sources now that use center-left to describe the current Democratic Party. Pending some change in this, I think the argument for center-left is strong at this time. BootsED (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Current proposal

For a refresher for those confused with all the references listed and the addition and removal of some of them, this is currently how the political position and the sources used to describe it are proposed to appear.

Political position Center-left

References

BootsED (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, because it explains the Democratic Party as ideologically less cohesive (though the Republican Party in recent years has more factions) and center-left. The "Polarized by Degrees" source explains how the Democratic Party is center-left but differs from Europe's center-left because it relies more on the college-educated instead of organized labor. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I went ahead and added center-left as there's very clearly an overwhelming consensus for it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Support center left as the sole position. These sources are excellent. Carlp941 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support (see sources and comments above). DN (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mixed oppose Change to "center to left wing" to encompass both the Blue Dog and New Democrat Coalitions, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Dhantegge (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I really dislike this usage, it is ambiguous and confusing. What does it mean? That reliable sources have variously described it as "centrist" and "left-wing"? If so, why not have a footnote explicitily saying this with a list of sources? I would avoid "Left-wing" at all for the same reasons explained by TFD. Is it meant to describe the factions within the party, as you seem to imply here? Why not actually add a proper "Factions" parameter to the infobox as I tried to do years ago because users keep adding anyway an artificial Factions: parameter (as is also done here for the "Ideology" parameter in this very article) so we can list either official factions and/or ideological wings? In such cases, I would just put "Center-left", "Centrist", "Center-left", "Left-wing", or "Right-wing", and have a footnote explaining why the party has also been described the other way and the scholarly debate.

In the case of Democrats, I would go with "Center-left" as that is the more common indicator in the United States (or "Centrist" if we go by scholarly groupings as explained by TFD) and "Right-wing" for the Republicans to underscore their much more significant rightward case. Same thing for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK, as the Labour Party is a member of the centre-left European grouping whereas the Conservatives are members of the right-wing (not center-right) European grouping and also underwent a rightward shift. In all cases, I would just have a footnote concisely summarizing the debate rather than ambiguous and confusing "Center-left to left-wing" or "Center-right to right-wing". Same thing for "Ideology": in the case of Democrats, I would just list liberalism, linking to the "Modern liberalism in the United States" article, and have a footnote explaining the other ideological factions within the party and do it at an historical level not limited to recentism (after all, if we are going with the ambiguous "to", why not actually summarize the party's historical position on the spectrum and explain the reversal between the Democrats and Republicans from left-wing to right-wing and vice versa? That would be much better and clear than this ambiguous "to" usage), while finally creating a proper "Factions" parameter where we would list and link the Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the like. Davide King (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As I mentioned earlier, these terms have no fixed meaning and therefore create ambiguity rather than clarity when used without context. Note that "What's Left of the Left" cited above defines center-left as the Democratic Party in the U.S. and social democratic parties abroad before saying the grouping is controversial. Can anyone explain what additional information this field provides beyond what is already stated in the ideology field? TFD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support either "Center-left" (per the reliable sources and because it effectively acted as the center-left party in the United States) or "Centrist" (per TFD, who I think raises several important and interesting points and that I hope can be further discussed at Talk:Centre-left politics but that a footnote can address), with a footnote. Oppose any "to" wording usage, which is ambiguous, as I outlined above. While personally favouring "Centrism" (per TFD), I think the presented reliable sources are enough to support "Center-left". I also support the current footnote, and as long as it explains this, discusses the scholarly debate (I would add a summary of the whole evolution of the party and do the same for the Republicans), and reflects that, to quote TFD, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party", I am perfectly fine and in full support of "Center-left (with footnote)".
• Personally, I like "Centrism" because it represents the "Big tent", which I would not use because it is not a proper political position on the spectrum, of the Democratic Party, which is a liberal, not social-democratic, party. Internationally, even left-liberal parties, despite its ideological name, are centrists who effectivly act as the center-left parties, such as in Canada (with the social-democratic NDP as center-left) or the United States. But I would still group them as centrists because the centre is always moving, and just because they may not be equidistant between the Left or the Right, and thus be closer to the center-left, it does not mean they automatically became center-left just because the spectrum and thus the center moved rightward
• At the same time, I think "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners" does not necessarily exclude left-liberal, and thus I would include both democratic socialists (e.g. left-wing social democrats) and social liberals, rather than exclude one or both; I would group more radical democratic socialists as left-wing and closer to what was known as "Marxist centrism" (e.g. even many radical democratic socialists are in fact both reformists and revolutionaries, and even when advocating revolution, they see it more as a democratic revolution rather than a violent one). Also there is a fact to consider left-liberals as center-left, even in the United States: there was an early 20th century liberal, whose name evades me (never mind, I found him: it was Herbert Croly) who rejected the view that American liberal tradition was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. So even from a more left-wing perspective, American liberalism can be considered center-left. And that is why I also personally support "Center-left" as an accurate grouping for the Democratic Party.
• As an addendum, I think that I believe must be discussed in regards to Center-left politics is its evolution, because it makes it appear as though anti-capitalism is only a far-left position when in fact it was taken by center-left social democratic parties in the 20th century, with the difference being that the center-left was more moderate and pragmatic, and attempted more to trascend capitalism through reforms rather than overthrow it by revolution. Thus, were the pre-World War II social-democratic parties left-wing or center-left, or did they become center-left in the post-war period? I always assumed they were center-left (like the modern center-left, they were more reformists than revolutionists) and that was changed was the political climate and the Overton window. Plus, were the revolutionary liberals far-left? The French Revolutionaries were not all far-left, and in fact far-left was used to refer to those further left of the Jacobins, like the Hébertists, and the Jacobins (revolutionaries) were left-wing. I think this should be clearer and discussed within the context of center-left politics, with a section expanding on the American context. Davide King (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Woodrow Wilson has an RfC

Woodrow Wilson 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) 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Biden's presidency in the lead

I'm looking for a consensus on whether to change or remove this sentence in the lead. I support keeping the sources.

• "During Joe Biden's presidency, the party has adopted an increasingly progressive economic agenda."

Reasons:

• Biden withdrew from the 2024 election, and he will serve only one term. This itself is extremely notable, and may be worth putting in the lead instead.
• The sentence fails to mention the 2021-2023 inflation surge, or that Biden ended 2023 with a job approval rating of 39 percent, the lowest of any president since 1979. Biden's presidency has not been viewed favorably by the public, even if the party's agenda is ideologically increasingly economically progressive.
• Biden is still the incumbent president, and there are other events that could be mentioned. Also, Biden's presidential legacy will almost certainly be affected by the winner of the 2024 presidential election.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Being forced out of the 2024 race publicly by members of your own party & donors, because it's believed you've no chance of winning re-election, isn't an overly good legacy. I'm not certain how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Remove The statement isn't supported by sources, is an extraordinary claim and happens to be false. TFD (talk) 18:21, 25 August 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) 01:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Final Reference to Consolidate

I consolidated most of the references that were duplicated except for the NYMag.com one. This particular one has one source with no quote and another with one. Should they remain separate or should they be consolidated in some way? Ztormtrooper (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Political position: "Center Left" and "Left"

I suggest adding "Left" to the political position of the Democratic Party.

Brookings Institution: Have Democrats become a party of the left? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/have-democrats-become-a-party-of-the-left/

Washington Post: Biden’s Democratic Party is to the left of Obama’s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/why-progressives-winning-inside-democratic-party/

Center for Politics: Both White and Nonwhite Democrats are Moving Left https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/both-white-and-nonwhite-democrats-are-moving-left/

Classifying the Democrats as only a "Center Left" party seems outdated. This is not the 1990s Bill Clinton Democratic Party anymore. MoldciusMenbug (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See Headlines: "News headlines...are not a reliable source." In your first example, the article actually says that the Democrats have shifted left because a thin majority is now liberal whereas thirty years ago a plurality was moderate. It does not say it is a left-wing party.

No reliable sources consider U.S. liberalism, which is committed to capitalism, to be left-wing. TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD. There are probably also far more sources labeling it as centrist than full on left-wing (see and the current efn note in the infobox-- plus one or two sources currently under the center-left label either directly mention centrism or don't refer to the party itself as center-left but as having built a "center-left coalition"). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Preceded by

preceded by the democratic-republican party needs multiple citations as it is a very dubious claim. I'm not sure any US political historian worth their salt would contend that Thomas Jefferson set the stage for what would become the Democrat party. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Historians argue that the Jeffersonian party was an ancestor of BOTH the modern Dem Party and the modern GOP (The Republicans in 1850s explicitly named their new party after the Jeffersonians). However it was more a 'grandparent' than a 'parent'. FDR made a big deal about Jefferson founding his party and you get that in old popular history books. Since 1970s historians largely agree the old Jeffersonian party was dead for years when the modern Dem party was created by Van Buren and Jackson in about 1830-1834. see Second Party System For recent scholarship look at Michael Kazin, What it took to win: a history of the Democratic Party (2022) online. Kazin gives Van Buren the major credit and explicitly states: "The fact that Jefferson neither created the Democratic Party " [p 8] Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Undefined reference

Hello JohnAdams1800! You made this edit the other day which is dependent on a citation named "cambridge.org". But no such citation is defined on this article, so your edit leaves the article with a referencing error. Are you able to supply the missing citation definition so this error can be fixed? Maybe it was meant to be <ref name="Polarized by Degrees"> -- mikeblas (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Party membership

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. These are not party members and should not be presented as such. TFD (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for party position

There's a few issues with the current sourcing for the party's position centre-left. That is currently backed by the following sources:

• Be Careful What You Wish For: The Rise of Responsible Parties in American National Politics: This source does support the claim, but is 17 years old. A newer source would be better unless there's no disagreement between sources what the party's position is.
• Are We Entering a New Political Era?, quoting "Moderation may be relative, but moderates still run the Democratic Party". That is not the source stating in its own voice that the Democratic Party is a centre-left party. That is stating that it is run by moderates. Unless this source also confirms that it equates "moderate" with "centre-left", this does not support the claim.
• The Oxford Companion to American Politics, quoting "Observes that the terms "progressive" and "liberal" are "often used interchangeably" in political discourse regarding "the center-left". That is likewise not the source stating in its own voice that the Democratic Party is a centre-left party. The citation also doesn't link to the actual entry about the Democratic Party, which I can't read because I don't have subscription to this site.
• What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times: This source does confirm the claim, but is likewise old.
• Center-Left Politics and Corporate Governance: What Is the 'Progressive' Agenda?, quoting "This article has argued that a widespread and fundamental reorientation of the Democratic Party toward decidedly centrist national politics over recent decades fundamentally altered the role of corporate governance, and related issues, in the project of assembling a competitive electoral coalition". That "quote" - which doesn't appear to be one, but a summary of the source of sorts - only confirms that the party is centrist. The term "left" doesn't appear anywhere in that quote.
• Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats' New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution: This source is recent and does actually call the party a centre-left party in its own voice.
• Polarized by Degrees, quoting: "Democrats have become the home of highly-educated citizens with progressive social views who prefer credentialed experts to make policy decisions, while Republicans have become the populist champions of white voters without college degrees who increasingly distrust teachers, scientists, journalists, universities, non-profit organizations, and even corporations." Once more, no confirmation.
• Manifesto Project Database, quoting: "According to the Manifesto Project Database MARPOR dataset for 2020, the Democratic Party has a RILE score of -24.662, putting it within the range of being a center to center-left party. Historically, it has classified the party as centrist or center-right, but the database has noted a relatively recent shift to the left in the party's politics." This source confirms that in 2020, the party had a centre to centre-left manifesto. However, I can't find a breakdown of the RILE score on that website. It would be nice if someone could link me to one.

There's a distinct lack of recent sources here that plainly state "The Democratic Party is a center-left party". There's about as many claiming they are a moderate/centrist party. At most, the sourcing is good enough for "center to center-left". Cortador (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed in the past, including recently, in large discussions spanning a broad number of editors. I don't really see any reason to relitigate it again. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there were four editors supporting that position, which two being explicitly opposed and another casting doubts. That's weak support, and even ignoring that, this doesn't change that if you cite sources for a claim (which is what this discussion is about), they actually need to support the claim. Here we have a low number of sources supporting the claim, some simply not supporting it, and other outright contradicting it. Cortador (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It does appear several of these sources should be removed because they don't actually make a claim about the party. The ones that do are eminently reliable and say center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, they do not. Four of the remaining sources as per quotes/excerpts don't use the term center-left/centre-left at all. One does, and another one states that the party is centre to centre-left. Right now, we only have a single sources that 1) is somewhat recent, 2) states that the party is centre-left, and 3) exclusively states that. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A paper from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung called "Where exactly is centre-left" defines it as the position of the social democratic parties of Europe. It's confusing to lump in a liberal party such as the Democrats which would have more similarity with parties such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK.

I realize that social democrats are not particularly radical, but it's hard to imagine them going as far right as the Democrats. I can't imagine for example the Labour Party suddenly deciding to support executions without some media attention. TFD (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why, if we want this article to state that the party has position, we need sources that explicitly state that. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The (UK) Liberal Democrats would be more opposed to reintroduction of capital punishment than the Labour Party, if you're implying that the LibDems would be in favour of it due to perceived similarities with the US Democrats.-- Autospark (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the above issues with the sources and the fact the prior discussion's consensus (if described as such) was weak, I would be fine with a center to center-left labeling as it appears a wide body of sources don't agree on explicitly defining the party as one of the two. This is also supported by the Manifesto Project Database note. Any sources currently present that state centrist (see above) can be moved to support that position if included. See also HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d strongly oppose this. Toa Nidhiki05 06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with above, as in oppose. (To be honest, I think Infoboxes for political parties should just remove the "position" field as it causes more problems than it solves, and if they have to be kept, should be restricted to a one position per Infobox/article limit.)-- Autospark (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with above, as in oppose. I also agree with the other comments by User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the political position for the time being since, as per this discussion, there's no consensus on what the position is supposed to be, the current one has insufficient backing, and several users have questions whether a position should be included at all. Cortador (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted back, because we already had a discussion and consensus on this in a broader discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed it again. You have not demonstrated that there is consenus to include a position, nor that there is consenus for a specific position. Even if there was, I've demonstrated above that the sourcing is very weak and inconsistent. If you want this included, start a RfC. Cortador (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We already had an extensive discussion that resulted in consensus; this consensus has stood for months, and is even on the talk page infobox here. Now, you're edit-warring to remove content that's been standing here for months. Not only that, you're blaming... me, for returning to the consensus status quo. This is borderline disruptive behavior. I'm going to go ahead and ping the voices from the relevant discussion. You clearly feel strongly about this, but your personal opinion doesn't outweigh consensus or reliable sources. You don't need an RFC to have consensus, but the discussion was formatted similarly.

Pinging from the previous discussion that resulted in consensus: JohnAdams1800, Carlp941, Darknipples, Dhantegge, The Four Deuces, Davide King, Mhaot, GlowstoneUnknown, BootsED, Dimadick. Toa Nidhiki05 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the inclusion, as demonstrated by this discussion here. The discussion you linked above have almost equal support and oppose votes, and even if support was stronger: saying "support" isn't a replacement for sourcing: I've shown above that almost none of the sources support that position, with some not even mentioning the term.

Lastly, you are being challenged here on something you added to the article, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that your addition has support and is properly sourced, and you have failed to do both. Cortador (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

...what are you talking about? I didn't add it. It's been here for months as a result of a discussion with nearly a dozen participants. We extensively reviewed and analyzed sources for months to reach this consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 21:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You just re-added that three times. If you want the position as it is in the article, you need to demonstrate that there's consensus for it, which you repeatedly failed to do. Cortador (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snarky, but did you read that discussion? Not sure how you're getting "no consensus" from it. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the current consensus is unsatisfactory - not pretend that consensus doesn't exist so you can enforce your preferences. Carlp941 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. There's only four editors (BootsED, Toa Nidhiki05, Carlp941, DN) who specifically supported the addition (Position = Center-left). Everyone else either opposed it, supported a different position, or opposed it as the sole position. There's no "overwhelming consensus" (as Toa Nidhiki05 claimed in that discussion).

That aside, support doesn't replace sourcing. The majority of sources cited either doesn't support centre-left/center-left as the position, or also cite another position. I've already stated that above. E.g. look at the source "Are We Entering a New Political Era?" It is quoted with: "Moderation may be relative, but moderates still run the Democratic Party". How does that support that the party is centre-left/center-left and only that? The term doesn't even appear in the quote. Is "moderate" supposed to equal centre-left/center-left? That would be original research i.e. drawing something from the source that it doesn't outright state. Cortador (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As said above - I agree with you a handful of the sources can be removed. What I disagree with is your belief that removing a few sources topples the general consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a few source - it's all sources but one. Cortador (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not true. We have at least three sources there, four if the Manifesto Project is included (~-25 is center-left). Toa Nidhiki05 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article for two days due to the recent edit war over this issue. I'm hoping editors will not return to edit warring after the protection is over. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

I want to change the president of the party Kamala Harris and the Vice Tim Walz 74.75.160.126 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They aren't the party president or vice-president. They were candidates for president and vice president of the United States. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Social democracy

I Have a source justifying social democracy, in an article of Business Insider of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explaining what socialism is for her. She’s looking at the Scandinavian social democracy. I don’t understand why I can’t add social democracy to ideology. Some democratic representatives align with the Socialist democratic caucus, so I see social democracy as an important ideology within the party presently. Johnymin (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That Ocasio-Cortez supports social democracy does not mean that the party is social democratic. Where is the "long-standing connection with trade unions and the broader labour movement" that is a regular feature of social democratic parties? Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A large part of the unions identify with the Democratic Party. More representatives support social democracy. The left wing part of the party would never vote for the liberal party of Canada, they vote the new democratic, that is social democrat 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering also that a part of the liberal party of Canada would be republican in USA, the moderate wing. 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Susan Collins or Charlie Baker would be liberals in Canada, also Lisa Murkowsky. THE liberal left of Canada is only akin to Kamala or Pete Buttigieg, more similar to the Colorado Party of Uruguay or the Radical Civic Union of Argentina than the Democratic party that is clearly more to the left. 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Progressivism is probably the 40% of the Democratic party, including social democracy, while maybe is only 10 or 15% of the liberal party of Canada, much more to the centre 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is a faction, the core is modern liberalism 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In Canada Liberalism is more akin to what americans call centrism or fiscal conservative, only the social liberal part is akin to modern liberalism 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The LIberal Party (UK) once sponsored trade unionists for parliament. This only stopped with the creation of the Labour Party. Of course in the U.S., there is no labour party, hence no reason for unions not to support the Democrats. In Canada, there was a long relationship between Liberals and some unions. Note that in the British Labour Party unions had decisive votes and supplied most of the party's funding. TFD (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are saying it, as in the USA a social Democratic Party never emerged a part of the Democratic Party is the social democracy presently, the modern liberal tradition is like a moderate social democracy. Johnymin (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

USA is bipartician, the real “liberalism” in a worldwide view are the republican governance group and the blue dog coalition, plus a part of the Clinton democrats Johnymin (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The rest is oversimplification because you have only two parties. Johnymin (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The liberals of Canada and UK in the past were the popularist or the left wing, but since decades, especially in the UK they are never more that, even the UCR ot the Colorado Party of Uruguay 15 o 20 years ago were to the left of Canadian and British liberals, but not the democrats, that have a wider left wing part. Johnymin (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

or* the colorado party. Correcting my mistake Johnymin (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The word that was a mistake also Johnymin (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority is modern liberal, but substancial part is progressive, another is social democratic, and there is also a centrist part. Obviously there are conservative parts and populist and democratic socialist but are marginal. Social democracy and centrism are not marginal, they have to be as factions in box of the Wikipedia article of the democratic party Johnymin (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Various representatives are members of the democratic socialists of America caucus for example Cori Bush or Greg Casar also Ocasio-Cortez, and part of the progressive politicians align with more state control in the economy. A Part of the Roosevelt tradition is the American social democracy. Pramila Jayapal voted for Bernie Sanders that is a social democrat and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez works with trade unions. Summer Lee was a member of democratic socialists of America. There’s no way they are only progressives, they are social democrats. In Canada they would be New Democratic Party politicians or labor left in Britain. Johnymin (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Warren supports worker representation on corporations' board of directors, breaking up monopolies, stiffening sentences for white-collar crime, a Medicare for All plan to provide health insurance for all Americans, and a higher minimum wage. This is kind of social democracy, more moderate than the others maybe.

Democratic Socialists of America has links with Sao Paulo Forum, that’s different than progressive or social liberal. Chuy García also aligned with Bernie Sanders, who is social democrat or democratic socialist (with some populist views) Johnymin (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A great part of the politicians that endorsed Bernie Sanders work with unions so they are a kind of social democracy. Modern Liberal is clearly a different tradition Johnymin (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, politicians like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are not even social democrats in the European mould, but democratic socialists! The Democratic Party, of which Sanders is not an official member though, is a big tent, as also the Republican Party is. While its dominant ideology is American liberalism, I would not oppose having "social democracy" as second ideology, while I am less convinced by the infobox's current factional ideologies: "centrism" is no ideology and "progressivism" is quite vague ("social democracy" would suit better!). --Checco (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And why cant We put social democracy in the box? Johnymin (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Bu centrism could be read as classical liberalism or fiscal conservatism, or very moderate conservatism, and progressivism a more left wing ideology than modern liberalism Johnymin (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But* Johnymin (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But an important part of the “progressives” are more to the left, they are social democrats and even there is minor democratic socialism.

With Sanders I said that if a great part democratic politicians aligned with himself, they are not only progressives they are at least social democrats. Johnymin (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I added social democracy to the edition part, and if you go to edit the source stays, but the public page doesn’t shows social democracy Johnymin (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Although a handful of elected Democratic politicians describe themselves as democratic socialists, there is no socialist organization in the party and no politicians have been elected on socialist platforms.

Also, it's misleading to say that because some progressive Democrats support policies supported by all major parties in every other developed country in the world that they are social democrats.

The only Democratic politician who talked about democratic socialism was Bernie Sanders, but none of the policies he advocated were social democratic per se, and all of them had been carried out in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. And he isn't even a member of any socialist/social democratic organizations.

To paraphrase Bernstein, the ideology is nothing, the movement is everything. But there is no social democratic movement within either party. TFD (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a caucus called democratic socialists of America with various members of the Democratic Party. Ocasio-Cortez self described as socialist, and explains that for her is Scandinavian social democracy Johnymin (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s not true that Bernie Sanders is the only that talked about democratic socialism. There is a caucus for democratic socialism where there are some democratic representatives. And being an a observer of the São Paulo forum (this caucus) is a clearly prove that they are not only progressives. Social democracy is not an insult, you can’t call liberal or progressive people who are clearly more left wing Johnymin (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no DSA caucus in Congress. I found an inaccurate article on the Heritage Foundation website that attempts to link the DSA members of Congress to the San Paolo forum. Note it falsely claims that Sen. Sanders is a member of the DSA. It's not clear how many members of Congress remain members of the DSA and significantly, only two members were endorsed by them. TFD (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have "liberalism" (meant as "modern liberalism in the United States", as it is now) and, possibly, "social democracy". Contextually, I would remove "progressivism" and "centrism" for the reasons stated above: progressivism is vague, redundant and arguably superimposable to "modern liberalism" (partially at least) and "social democracy" (partially at least), while "centrism", far from being confusable with "classical liberalism" and "fiscal conservatism", is merely a position. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But progressive could mean more state intervention without principles of socialism, I agree with you, but we can’t change completely the box, we can say that various progressives are not enough social democrats, as in republicans some conservatives have traditional views but are not part of the Christian right Johnymin (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say add social democracy and keep the rest Johnymin (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And add social democracy to an ideology of the progressive caucus, at least in factions. Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush ,Greg Casar, Nithya Raman and Rashida Tlaib are not progressives really, or progressives, they are social democrats, we have to say the truth. Johnymin (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure progressives I mean Johnymin (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Who can add social democracy without messing the box info, my source is put, but not applied, I have that phrase that says do not add socialism. If you borrow it the box disappears and it’s all messy Johnymin (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Im the spanish wiki social democracy is as an ideology as faction. As in other language wikis Johnymin (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete not borrow, I'm am spanish speaker Johnymin (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is no democratic socialist caucus. We don't know who is still a member of the DSA and they don't have an organization or meet to together to promote an agenda. Can you point to any example where they voted as a block? TFD (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)