Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

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, [http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/poll-finds-12-of-dems-like-socialism/ 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 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

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.  B E C K Y S A Y L 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::==( o ) 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::==( o ) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

This RFC was ended because consensus to remove the 1792 date from the "founded" field has become clear very quickly. If there is debate over whether 1828 or some year in the early 1830s is the most accurate founding date, a separate discussion and/or RFC would be appropriate. 21:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Discussion1

  • 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::==( o ) 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::==( o ) 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)
The discussion above 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.

"All of the above" Energy Policy is a Misleading Platitude

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)
  • [Regarding the highly inappropriate thread title, "POV edits by TBSchemer," and the subsequent personal attacks carried out by Rjensen and Dave Dial] This is an entirely inappropriate way of carrying out a discussion of an edit on Wikipedia. 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)
not a credible answer nor a credible threat. Have you nothing to say in defense of your edits? 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; it would be nice if we could discuss the actual edits in dispute. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
First off, why are they to a WP:PRIMARY source rather than a secondary source? How can you verify that 'democrats.org' really speaks for the modern democratic party? Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Tutelary asks some good questions. 1) Can we verify that Democrats.org really speaks for the modern Democratic Party? I note that its website clearly states at the bottom "Paid for by the Democratic National Committee." The passage in question that got erased by TBSchemer states The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent." 2) That is a direct quotation from the party's platform, which calls for a primary source. The problem is that TBSchemer believes the Democrats are misleading the American people, so he erased that quotation and made an Edit summary that says it was misleading and makes a vague reference to the Keystone pipeline. (That is, is arguing with the Democrats using his own personal unsourced views.) I alleged that that is blatant POV editing in a highly partisan fashion dealing directly with a major national party. He refuses to use this talk page to justify his actions. Rjensen (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably the best solution is to simply quote from the 2012 Democratic national platform: We can move towards a sustainable energy-independent future if we harness all of America's great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas. at http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no nice way to respond to these uncivil accusations. Rjensen is simply lying (and he knows it) when he claims that my edit was the original one that started the war. All I did was revert one of several brand new edits by User:Blondeguynative to the previous version, and then try to maintain that last stable version. [1] There was NEVER any consensus to add this particular segment of information, particularly because it is contradicted by plenty of sources observing how the Democratic Party actually votes. [2][3][4] [5] There is NO partisan motivation behind my reversion of this content. You'll notice that all of the sources I just cited come from Democrat-leaning publications, yet they directly support my statement that the "all of the above approach" line is misleading (and therefore unencyclopedic). In addition to his lie, Rjensen has violated several Wikipedia policies by calling me out by name in the thread title (I have now changed it) and then engaging in a discussion that consists entirely of accusations of partisanship and insinuations about my character. Dave Dial has been wikihounding me and reverting all of my edits on potentially political articles, without giving any reasons (see the discussion of the Democratic Party founding date). These two editors are habitually disruptive POV warriors who strangely seem to trust democrats.org more than any other source for information on history and current events. TBSchemer (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The allegation is that TBSchemer made an overtly partisan edit about the Democratic Party. He erased the sourced statement: The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent. [ref name="democrats.org/] a& he deleted Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution. with the edit summary: Misleading. Democrats systematically oppose and block expansions and innovations in fossil fuels industries (e.g. Keystone pipeline)) He did call for others to use the talk page; I did so but he only used the talk page to issue threats and did not discuss his decision to erase the italicized text. Calling the Democratic platform "misleading" is blatant pov in my judgment; calling others (me) a liar is his normal style. As for the idea that "all of the above" is a "misleading platitude", he is misinformed, for it is a precise position on energy and is quoted directly from the 2012 Dem platform. Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Your allegation is false- I reverted a partisan edit, and then you came here to lie that my reversion was a new edit. TBSchemer (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the comments that TBSchemer removed; they are not personal attacks any more than his own claims that other editors are "POV warriors". You can't ban your cake and eat it too. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not restore personal attacks to the talk page. I have removed my own attack in the same manner for consistency. TBSchemer (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If we remove platitudes from politics, Wikipedia will be a lot shorter. The fact is, politicians always talk in terms of commonly used terms, and avoid esoteric technical terminology. In this particular case, TBSchemer Did not erase the material because he thought it was a platitude; he said that he erased it because he thought the Democrats were misleading the American people. ....Misleading the people = sounds like a platitude! Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If I were to demand to include in the article, "The Democrats misled the American people with their 'all of the above' platform," then you'd have a point. But that is NOT what I'm asking for. All I said at the beginning of this discussion is that the "all of the above" platitude is misleading, because it contradicts the party's actual specific policy proposals and voting record. It's just a feel-good statement that appeals to a lot of people without any actual meaning, especially given the fact that most elected representatives of the Democratic Party actively oppose it. I think we can include the "all of the above" line with attribution, but ONLY if it comes with a clarification from secondary sources explaining that this platform is not supported by most of their elected representatives. I would be willing to accept that, though it would probably be even better to not include that statement at all, and to purely use the analysis of voting records and proposals from secondary sources to describe the Democrats' policies.
  • Would you agree that "the Democrats support renewable energy projects, and generally oppose continued reliance on fossil fuels?" I think that is a far more accurate and encyclopedic statement of the Democrats' energy policies than the "all of the above" line that you've been trying to include in the article. And we have the sources for it (See the RFC below, particularly the LA Times source). TBSchemer (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is the unacceptably misleading text as it stands now:

    Democrats have supported increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon pollution. The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent.[existing ref] The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels.[existing ref][existing ref] Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

  • And here is a version that would be acceptable.

    The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent.[existing ref] However, few Democrats remain in elected office who support fossil fuel industry development, and the party has worked to prevent construction of new natural gas and oil infrastructure.[6][7][8] Democrats have supported increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels.[existing ref][existing ref] Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

  • This version would clear up any misunderstanding created by the text that you insist on including. Would you be okay with this solution? TBSchemer (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dabhat

I can see that there are some past discussions concerning matters of disambiguation but I cannot spot one that queries why we do not have a dabhat for Democratic Party. Should we? - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is only one Democratic Party of the United States. Doesn't seem to me that there is any risk of confusion with anybody else I can think of. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC re Democratic Party "All of the Above" Energy Policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that the way that the party describes its policy is to be used. As a side note there is a challenge of the source of the position statement as being primary, but it appears at least one secondary has been suggested. AlbinoFerret 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago, an editor added this text to the Democratic Party article:

The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent.

The source for this was the Democratic Party's homepage, democrats.org. Is this an encyclopedic description of the Democrats' energy policies, or is this a vague political platitude that requires clarification from secondary sources prior to being considered encyclopedic material? 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey2

Oppose - To me, that seems more like political platitudes than an actual policy position. Moreover, that's a deceptively edited quote from the full Democrat stance, which is:

We can move towards a sustainable energy-independent future if we harness all of America's great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas. President Obama has encouraged innovation to reach his goal of generating 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. Democrats support making America the world's leader in building a clean energy economy by extending clean energy incentives that support American businesses and American jobs in communities across the country. It's not enough to invent clean energy technologies here; we want to make them here and sell them around the world. We can further cut our reliance on oil with increased energy efficiency in buildings, industry, and homes, and through the promotion of advanced vehicles, fuel economy standards, and the greater use of natural gas in transportation. Harnessing our natural gas resources needs to be done in a safe and responsible manner, which is why the Obama administration has proposed a number of safeguards to protect against water contamination and air pollution. We will continue to advocate for the use of this clean fossil fuel, while ensuring that public and environmental health and workers' safety are protected. We support more infrastructure investment to speed the transition to cleaner fuels in the transportation sector. And we are expediting the approval process to build out critical oil and gas lines essential to transporting our energy for consumers. Building a clean energy future means that new exploration and production needs to be approached safely and responsibly. Democrats are committed to balancing environmental protection with development, and that means preserving sensitive public lands from exploration, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Pacific West Coast, Gulf of Maine, and other irreplaceable national landscapes. We are saving consumers money on their energy bills—both at home and at the pump—but Republican energy policy is full of empty rhetoric and bad ideas that would make their Big Oil donors even richer at the expense of the middle class. Republicans would keep giving billions of taxpayer dollars a year to profitable oil companies and increase costs on consumers. Democrats will fight to cut tax subsidies for Big Oil while promoting job growth in the clean energy sector, so we can cut the deficit and increase jobs and growth in America.

When taken in full context, it would be better to describe them as not being for oil or coal, but for increased use of 'clean energy', with the goal of surpassing oil and coal in use, as well as a general opposition to oil companies and a general support for investment in 'clean energy' companies. Toa Nidhiki05 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the new content on the grounds that there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that dispute the idea that the Democrats actually support new fossil fuels production. There are very few Democrats left who even still use the "all of the above" description for their own policies, and in practice, the party actively works to inhibit fossil fuels production, in favor of "cleaner" energy.

  • [9] The Daily Beast

    President Obama’s heavy-handed regulation of the booming old-energy economy—the moratorium on offshore drilling following the BP spoil, the decision to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, and the prospect of a fracking ban—and his embrace of green-energy policies has played well in the solidly Democratic post-industrial coastal economies that he also depends on for fund-raising. But it’s left him with few friends in the energy belt that spans the Great Plains, the Gulf Coast, Appalachia and now some parts of the old rustbelt, despite his election-year claims of an “all-of-the-above” energy policy.

  • [10] Huffington Post

    It's only a matter of how long it takes party leaders to accept that fossil-fuel Democrats aren't coming back either.

  • [11] Inside Energy (a project of PBS)

    In other words, Keystone XL has come to represent an "all of the above" energy strategy that doesn't discriminate against fossil fuels.

  • [12] CNN

    Democrats block Keystone XL bill

  • [13] Los Angeles Times

    Swift Senate approval of legislation to expedite the Keystone XL pipeline ran into trouble Monday after Democrats temporarily blocked the measure....Most Democrats contend that building more capacity for the oil industry will continue dependence on fossil fuels and worsen global warming. But supporters say development of the $5.3-billion pipeline will create needed domestic jobs.

  • [14] Time Magazine

    Landrieu worked hard to find the 15 Democrats needed for passage, garnering support from Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper. “We’ve been at this for six years,” said Carper who believes the pipeline has “impeded” efforts to pass clean energy bills. “We need to vote on it and move on.” Even some environmentalists agree with Carper’s assessment that the Keystone push has taken the spotlight from other issues. Michael Shellenberger, the President of the progressive Breakthrough Institute, says that the Keystone debate is symbolic of a broader problem for the environmental movement in which partisans with narrow interests fail to support potentially bipartisan energy plans with coal alternatives like nuclear and natural gas. “I think the greatest irony of it—and that no one really talks about—is that right in the middle of the thing we’re having a huge fracking boom,” he says.

  • [15] The Hill (newspaper)

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) used his response to Obama’s speech as an effort to criticize some of Obama’s top environmental policy priorities, including carbon pollution limits for power plants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).“The president’s war on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is most evident in his unbridled mandates being issued by the EPA,” Inhofe said in his response....“President Obama tonight spoke about expanding our economy and attaining energy security, but time and again, he has actively blocked the responsible development of our domestic energy resources,” he said in a statement. Meanwhile, the Republican Party used its official response to the address to criticize Obama’s inaction on the Keystone XL pipeline — an issue Obama didn’t directly confront.“President Obama has been delaying this bipartisan infrastructure project for years, even though many members of his party, unions, and a strong majority of Americans support it,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said in the GOP response.

  • [16] National Review

    Consider the fundamentals. Our economy runs on fossil fuels, yet an ever-growing number of Democrats at the heart of Obama’s base are literally convinced that the world is coming to an end because of it.

  • [17] National Journal

    Amid debate on the Keystone XL pipeline Thursday, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, and Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat hailing from coal-rich West Virginia, offered up nearly identical amendments declaring that man-made climate change exists and "has already caused devastating problems in the U.S. and around the world." But one major difference demonstrated the ideological divide among Democrats: the future of coal and other fossil fuels. After highlighting the threat of climate change, the Sanders amendment called on the U.S. to transition from using fossil fuels and ramp up renewable energy. The Manchin amendment, on the other hand, proclaimed that fossil fuels will continue to be used for decades to come and urged the U.S. to invest in technology to make fossil-fuel energy cleaner. Neither amendment came to a direct vote after the Senate approved a motion to table both measures. But the divide among Democrats over how to tackle global warming was still on full display.

The "All of the Above" line about energy policy was just a meaningless election year platitude, not a true description of party principles and actions. There are only about 4 Democrats in the Senate who even still use that line. TBSchemer (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion2

  • Comment -- This really isn't worth debating, since the editor/s who oppose this don't seem to have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies. We usually present descriptions of organizations, political parties and non-profit groups based on what those groups say that their objectives and policies are. We do offer counter examples and criticisms based on reliable sources. But we don't allow left-wing organizations(Daily Kos, Move on, Think Progress) describe the Republican Party's platform. And we don't allow oil companies and right-wing commentators describe the Democratic Party platform. More than half of the above links provided by Schemer are related to the Keystone XL pipeline. Which isn't even moving US oil, but is for Canadian oil companies. Regardless, criticism of that is not something that belongs on this article, but on the article/s concerning that issue. It's absolutely confounding to believe that with the complete history of the Democratic Party that one would think that that belongs here. Amazingly partisan. Dave Dial (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policy requires WP:CONSENSUS to allow new material to stand in an article. Wikipedia policy also forbids personal attacks, like those you have perpetuated against me and other users, and allows ANY other user to remove those attacks. You have behaved in an appallingly disruptive manner in all of my interactions with you, here and elsewhere. Furthermore, you have misrepresented the contents of the links I provided above. Most of the links I referred to are from sources that are actually sympathetic to the Democratic Party, not antagonistic towards it the way you imply. I encourage you to stop lying and start discussing Wikipedia content on its own merits, within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy. TBSchemer (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Your accusations and obsession with me seem unhealthy. Stop calling me a liar and stop accusing me of being disruptive. You have started a thread at AN3 accusing me falsely of edit warring and at ANI making more false accusations. I have not responded in kind because I am giving you a chance yo calm down and contribute to the project in a constructive manner. But if you continue along those lines, I will respond. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Democratic candidates all have their individual beliefs- and as Dave Dial said everyone has their own ways to describe what Democrats think; but if this page is supposed to describe the official views of the Democratic Party itself, that should consist of how the party itself describes its views, not how others do. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The section in question is an encyclopedic description of the Democrats' policies, not an official mouthpiece for the party that must repeat their official website's claims, no matter how unrealistic or contradictory. For example, see the above discussion about the founding date of the Democratic Party, in which one of the same editors (Dave Dial) was using the claims on the same site to try to justify inclusion of a clear-cut historical inaccuracy. [18][19] Policies are represented by the voting record and actions of the party members. In this case, the vast majority of elected Democratic representatives oppose the principle of a non-discriminatory "all of the above" energy policy, as demonstrated by the links I provided in my survey response above. TBSchemer (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That should be discussed on the individual pages of Democrats who hold those views. There is no requirement that Democrats must trumpet the official party platform; and few do(the same is true of Republicans). This page is for discussing the views of the Party itself. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Party itself is a group of members, the vast majority of whom reject the principle of "all of the above." For instance, it would be entirely unencyclopedic for the same reasons to describe Mitt Romney's political beliefs as "severely conservative" without putting that statement in context. Here is how that statement is handled at the Mitt Romney article:

    Days later, Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he had been a "severely conservative governor" (while during his term in 2005 he had maintained that his positions were moderate and characterized reports that he was shifting to the right to attract conservative votes a media distortion).

    ...and the phrase "severely conservative" appears nowhere on the article for Political positions of Mitt Romney. TBSchemer (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Then those members need to change the party platform. If readers do not understand that the views described on this page are those of the party itself and not its members, I'm not sure how that can be clarified. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This discussion appears to show a division between how to describe the views of a membership organization like a political party - as either the official views adopted by the organization, or the views of its individual members and leaders. While only the views adopted by the organization itself (here, the Democratic Party platform) can be characterized as the official views of the organization, the views of the members and leaders are still relevant to the topic of the organization, particularly if they largely diverge from the platform. However, the views of members and leaders should be described here in terms of neutral scientific polls and studies, not using opinion pieces or biased sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Our job here is not to argue with the official political platforms of the parties. Our job is to say what the official position is. Erasing the official position is not an acceptable solution because it violates NPOV rules. As to what the majority of the members of a particular party actually believe, that belongs in a different section and requires use of public opinion polling, rather than statements made by enemies of the party intending to degrade or ridicule it. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're explaining that to me. It sounds like we're in total agreement. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Including an official position that is not accepted by most members without explaining that also violates NPOV rules. TBSchemer (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That depends. There might be instances where including members' views would violate NPOV rules because those views are described in unreliable sources or so few sources that including them would constitute undue weight. The converse may also be true: intentionally excluding members' views that are reported in a reasonable number of reliable sources might reflect a bias. Certainly, so long as there is a clear delineation in the article between the official party platform and party members' views (with the former characterized as the official views of the party, and the latter characterized as the aggregate views of its members), and party members' views are described in terms of neutral, reliable scientific surveys, and those survey results have received sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be noteworthy and avoid issues of undue weight, there shouldn't be a problem with including the views of the members'--that information would enhance the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See, for instance, my most recent comment on the previous section, providing an example of a version of the text that would make this content acceptable. TBSchemer (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It is almost always better to use secondary sources. Here is one from 2008. --Precision123 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment TBSchemer Can't seem to tell the difference between primary sources,-- many which are polemical-- and reliable secondary sources. He quotes Bernie Sanders as a spokesman for the Democrats when he knows Sanders is not a Democrat. He goes on and on about the Keystone --a pipeline for Canadian oil which has very little to do with American energy production (it will take some Montana oil but it's over 90 percent Canadian oil). One signal regarding mangling sources is to quote a fraction of the sentence. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rjensen, once again, you violate Wikipedia policy by framing your discussion as an attack on me personally ("TBSchemer Can't seem to tell the difference between primary sources"). I know Sanders is not a Democrat, but the article (a WP:Secondary source) in question details an amendment offered up by Sanders to appeal to the Democrats, and describes how Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) was "not a fan" of the Manchin version because of the fossil fuels language. The source itself states that this represents "the divide among Democrats over how to tackle global warming." I provided plenty of other sources that back up this assessment, which you have ignored. The PBS article I cited states, "In other words, Keystone XL has come to represent an "all of the above" energy strategy that doesn't discriminate against fossil fuels." Your claim that it's only a pipeline "for Canadian oil" entirely ignores the booming shale oil and gas industry in North Dakota, and ignores the fact that the purpose of this pipeline is to refine the oil and gas from all of these northern sources in Texas. Is the oil and gas refining industry in the US not a part of the American energy industry? Don't accuse me of "mangling sources" when I'm the only one in this discussion who has bothered to actually provide links to WP:Secondary sources supporting my argument. All you have done here is attacked me, personally. You have not made a case for including this content without clarification. TBSchemer (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Correction: Precision123 has also provided a secondary source, and it also supports my argument, though it is a bit outdated. There are currently no sources here providing support for the idea that Democratic policy has actually reflected their "all of the above" election-year platitude. TBSchemer (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is the unacceptably misleading text as it stands now:

    Democrats have supported increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon pollution. The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent.[existing ref] The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels.[existing ref][existing ref] Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

    And here is a version that would be acceptable.

    The party's platform calls for an "all of the above" energy policy including clean energy, natural gas and domestic oil, with the desire of becoming energy independent.[existing ref] However, few Democrats remain in elected office who support fossil fuel industry development, and the party has worked to prevent construction of new natural gas and oil infrastructure.[20][21][22] Democrats have supported increased domestic renewable energy development, including wind and solar power farms, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. The party has supported higher taxes on oil companies and increased regulations on coal power plants, favoring a policy of reducing long-term reliance on fossil fuels.[existing ref][existing ref] Additionally, the party supports stricter fuel emissions standards to prevent air pollution.

    This version would clear up any misunderstanding created by the new content. Can we agree on this version, or something similar? TBSchemer (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Your proposed edits do introduce some clarity to the passage, but there are a few sourcing problems, which I outline below. I say this with the caveat that I cannot access the LA Times article.
  1. "However, few Democrats remain in elected office who support fossil fuel industry development," The Daily Speak article, which I assume is the source of this statement, speaks in terms of Democratic Senators; it doesn't address the dynamics of the House, state legislators, or county/city commissioners. In addition, it doesn't actually assert that few Democrats support fossil fuel industry development; it says "Today, Democratic senators in regions that depend on fossil fuels are becoming an endangered species." That doesn't mean that Democratic Senators outside of such regions oppose fossil fuels.
  2. "and the party has worked to prevent construction of new natural gas and oil infrastructure." One thing off the bat: "the party" needs specification; I suspect this is meant to refer to congressional Democrats. Also, if that statement is only sourced to the Inside Energy article that discusses Democratic resistance to Keystone XL, then it's far too broad of a generalization to make.
Perhaps the LA Times article I cannot access helps remedy some of these concerns, but these statements certainly need better sourcing than The Daily Best and Inside Energy articles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The key part of the LA Times article that I'm referring to is this: "Most Democrats contend that building more capacity for the oil industry will continue dependence on fossil fuels and worsen global warming. But supporters say development of the $5.3-billion pipeline will create needed domestic jobs."
If we replace the phrase "elected office" with "the federal government," and "the party" with "President Obama and congressional Democrats," would that alleviate your concerns? TBSchemer (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't work. The problem is that you're taking particular examples of them opposing specific things (where you say they have "worked to prevent construction of new natural gas and oil infrastructure") and using that to imply a conclusion about their overarching policy; but that's WP:SYNTH. If you want to imply something about the Democratic party's positions, you need to cite a source that says "their positions are XYZ"; if you want to implicitly say "they have opposed these particular constructions, whic demonstrates that they do not genuinely support the use of fossil fuels", you need to source someone explicitly making that connection (and depending on the reliability of the source, you may need to make it clear in-text that this is just their opinion rather than a fact.) As it is, I don't feel that your changes can stand; you're clearly using a combination of facts to try and force the reader into a WP:SYNTH conclusion that isn't necessarily supported by your sources. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Requires Clarification or Requires Attribution - You can't just can't take stuff that the party says about itself and present it in an unattributed way. Doing so would present a serious Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue. NickCT (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedic description, at least insofar as it goes; the section just describes their official positions, which are reasonably clear. There is room to go into a bit more detail, but as I said above, I feel that most of your proposals clearly violate WP:SYNTH, in that you're trying to cobble together an argument (based on your personal opinion of the relevance of various facts) to argue, using your own logic, that their stated position isn't genuine. That's not an appropriate way to write an encyclopedia article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Color

Just wanted to ask, why is #3333FF the color of the party used throughout the article? I do not see where this color comes from. I believe #00A6EF would be a more appropriate color as this is the shade of blue of the logo. Eamonster (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody with any thoughts? Eamonster (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Democratic party was the pro-slavery party

While today the Democratic party is the most liberal or progressive of the two major parties, in the nineteenth century it was exactly the opposite. The Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party before the Civil War, and afterwards it was opposed to Reconstruction, and to the right to vote and other civil rights for African Americans. The article does not deal adequately with this historical reality. It is whitewashed by saying that in the antebellum period, it favored "states' rights, [and] agrarian interests (especially Southern planters)". Those are code words for slavery. deisenbe (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the United States Democratic Party discusses this in far more detail. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Welfare state?

In the section 1900s it says that Roosevelt began "the American welfare state". I was unaware that the U.S. is or ever has been a welfare state. Is this a pejorative term, and is it neutral POV? deisenbe (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see why that would be a pejorative term. If you look at our article Welfare state, at first glance it seems to me that the US fits, though Bernie Sanders and I probably have some ideas on making it fare more well. The source is this book, so it doesn't come out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Democratic party is not the oldest

In the article it said that the democratic party was the oldest still used today. This is not true as some organizations still follow the democratic_republic party, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. I do not have time to research this but would appreciate it if someone else would. (Ty55101 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC))

As a voter-based party, it is older than any of the British parties and therefore the oldest in the world. Parties in the Congo formed after independence in the 1960s, and that one was not named after the Democratic Republican party of the United States. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of a "voter-based party" it simply makes the obviously incorrect claim that it is the world's oldest political party when Britain's Conservative Party clearly preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The Conservative Party's most recent manifestation is not as old as the Democratic Party. Dustin (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was confusing it with the old Tory Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Introductory section is lacking in information

The article's introductory section is pretty lacking and anemic. It doesn't really cover much of the Democratic Party's history pre-1930; it only mentions it in passing with fleeting references. I feel it would be better for the article if it mentioned the Democratic Party's planks, platforms, and principles from the 1820s/30s to the 1930s in more detail. For example, the Republican Party's introductory section covers the party's history from its founding from the 1850s to the present day in detail, but this article's introduction doesn't mention much of anything regarding the Democratic Party's history before the 1930s, even though that makes up almost 100 years of the party's history. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

I tried to improve the intro a little bit, but yes, it should say more of the 1928–1932 history of the party. --Checco (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)/Archive_12&oldid=1142758188"