Talk:Republican Party of Texas

TALK (discussion)

The article looks great — and I'll add a simple improvement tomorrow when I have time. Traveling just now, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Zigzig20s: per WP:BRD, please explain and discuss your recent revert[1]. The edit you reverted was made per WP:LEAD, and summarizes a notable aspect of the subject. The platform of the party has attracted controversy for its opposition to critical thinking. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain here what you mean by "critical thinking" and who suggested they were controversial.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to explain--it's already in the article and I summarized it per our LEAD guideline. Surely you read the article you were reverting? Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the first paragraph in the "Platform" section, it makes no sense. It either needs to be rephrased, or removed completely. We can't have nonsense in an encyclopedia. It would also appear to be a case of recentism.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It makes complete sense, it received an enormous amount of reliable source coverage, and is phrased accurately and appropriately. There's no "recentism" here at all. It appears that you revert and object to anything factual, much like the Republican Party of Texas. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please rephrase that paragraph. If I find it confusing, others will too. And please refrain from making personal attacks...Zigzig20s (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reality is not a personal attack.

The Republican Party is dominated by candidates who are proudly, even boastfully ignorant. Rejecting the clear science on vaccines or climate change is practically the price of admission even to be considered a legitimate presidential candidate. Playing on xenophobic fears of immigrants by lying about the economic costs and threats to American workers — pro forma. It reached a point Wednesday night when a candidate actually saying something true was an event worthy of note...The descent of the Republican Party into dishonesty, lies, and cravenness is no joke. It’s a national crisis.[2]

Them there's the facts. The Republican Party of Texas opposes critical thinking. This is a notable controversy. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Factions section removed?

Why was this removed Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing "Right-Wing" classification to "Right-Wing to Far-Right"

I feel like it would be fair, now that the official TXGOP platform includes things like:

- Wanting a Referendum for Texan Independence - Overturning the Voting Rights Act - Declaring that Joe Biden is Illegitimate, and that the 2020 Election was stolen - Declaring that Homosexuality is an Abnormal Lifestyle Choice, and wanting to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges - Wanting to...leave the UN??? - A lot of other insane stuff

I feel like it'd be a part of the Far-Right that doesn't want to COMPLETELY overturn democracy, maybe radical right? 78.184.175.236 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There are all sorts of things they're up to verging from the distasteful to the abhorrent, but until you can find multiple reliable sources that describe them as far right there's no reason to change the description.Unbh (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Texas Republicans Approve Far-Right Platform Declaring Biden’s Election Illegitimate (New York Times), At Texas GOP convention, loyalists embrace far right, anti-gay rhetoric (Washington Post). Endwise (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I get this is 10 months ago but I need to mention that the New York Times isn’t reliable for this New York and Texas hate each other and as such ny times probably was just trying to slander Texas 2600:8801:1187:7F00:C920:9915:91FA:7449 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that Texas is paradise for spree killers, I doubt any insult to it would qualify as slander. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have made the edit the IP suggested. Endwise (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! Unbh (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted it as problematic on several levels. The major one is that party platforms in the US are effectively meaningless as they have no binding authority over politicians, and party conventions in general tend to attract the craziest elements of the parties (see the somewhat misleading "Democrats booed God and Israel" stuff at their 2016 national convention). The second is that a platform is not equal to a party organization, and defining it as such makes little sense especially in an American context, where grassroots party members express comparatively little control over the elected officials and party organization is fairly unimportant. Short of an actual, organized takeover of the party organization itself (see: the Nevada Democratic Party, where the Reid machine was overtaken by Democratic Socialists of America activists, or the Nevada Republican Party, which has been run by Ron Paul-adjacent lunatics for around a decade now), its not an accurate claim. However, the fact this platform exists (or will exist - it's not finalized yet) is notable and should be mentioned in the article due to the large number of reliable sources discussing it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional context from NPR:

"It remains an open question as to how closely the priorities outlined in the 2022 platform reflect the views of regular Republicans in Texas."

and Texas Tribune

Party platforms are mission statements rather than legal doctrines and, in Texas, they have long reflected the opinions of the most activist wings of the parties. Republican elected officials are not bound to adhere to the platform, and party activists at times have expressed frustration that some parts of their platform and legislative priorities have not become law, despite complete Republican control of the state Legislature. But the platforms are broad indicators of the sentiments of the most active Republican voters — those who dominate party primaries. Republicans have controlled every statewide elected office in Texas since 1999 and both houses of the Legislature since 2003, so the wishes of the party’s populist, pro-Trump base inevitably affect actions taken in Austin. “The platform is largely symbolic but important as a measure of ideological drift,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston. “Party platforms are often used as a cudgel in party primaries. A more muscular ideological platform eventually leads to a more conservative legislature as challengers knock off more moderate members.”

Texas Tribune also noted the "relatively low profile of top officeholders" at the convention. In other words: unlike in Europe, where platforms are binding documents drafted by the mainstream of the party, in Texas, platforms are drafted by the most hardcore partisan activists within the majority parties. It is notable mainly as a statement of ideological drift among party activists, but it isn't really reputable as a statement of the party itself beyond an activist base due to its lack of a binding nature and the fact that people with actual power aren't really given any say in what it says. There are potential WP:BLP ramifications for making claims of far-right affiliation, which is generally associated with extreme racism, fascism, and Nazism. Toa Nidhiki05 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

What an odd and unusual comment. I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn’t a parody. The current manifestation of the GOP is classified as "far-right", having purged their moderate members over the last twenty years or so, and having entirely embraced the lunatic fringe that Buckley, Goldwater, and to a far lesser extent Reagan, formerly distanced themselves from in the past. Those times are long over. Your edits tell me that you are pushing a POV not reflected by our best, most reliable sources on this subject. John Birch Society talking points, which were formerly ignored or relegated to fringe GOP candidates, are now mainstream in the current Republican Party. This is a fact, supported by data and evidence. Although many writers anticipated this change during the early post-9/11 era, and wrote voluminously about the Republican descent into authoritarianism and right-wing violence, Arthur S. Goldwag was one of the first writers to take a wider, historical view of the phenomenon in 2012. The move to the right is so extreme, that progressives have been completely alienated by their own party since the Overton window shifted, turning most Democrats into left-leaning, Rockefeller Republicans. The current GOP is appropriately classified as far right. More importantly, we can trace a direct line from far right donors to policies and politicians. For example, the Koch and the Bradley family are both connected to the original formation of the far right John Birch Society. When we look at the far right extremist rhetoric, policies, and legislation in the United States today, we can trace almost all of it to funding from the Koch, Scaife, and Bradley families, and their interconnected network of hundreds of foundations and so-called charities. This is academic. The GOP is primary a far right enterprise today because of funding from those three families, but there are many more. Our best professors, investigative journalists, authors, writers, and insiders have all come to this same conclusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

" which is generally associated with extreme racism, fascism, and Nazism" Our article on far-right politics identifies them as a combination of authoritarianism and ultranationalism. Does the Republican Party of Texas embrace American nationalism and related ideologies? Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call really any of that "far-right". Gay marriage is still a relatively new thing and wanting to remove it isn't really extreme given this context. Calling homosexuality an abnormal out style wouldn't have been abnormal in 2004. Leaving the UN is isolationist, not "far-right". Again, overturning the VRA isn't exactly unpopular, as many people support getting rid of it because they believe it is either obsolete or it infringes upon a state's right to draw it's own legislative boundaries. And finally saying Biden is illegitimate, while false is more conspiratorial than anything else.

I find it to be highly dishonest and insulting that Wikipedia would pretend like it is some sort of objective fact that the TXGOP is "far-right", especially with centrists Cornyn and Abbott. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Continuous edit warring in ideology and political position sections

This article has recently been subjected to multiple edits per day, warring back and forth over the usual infobox sections like Ideology and Political Position. For sake of accuracy and to prevent repeated IP editing, I think we should consider requesting semi-protection for this page until the matter is sorted. StrongPencil (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This would certainly be beneficial. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Illinois State University supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit on "position" section

Why exactly would this section be necessary? In United States, there are only two parties which usually align with the general left and right wings of the political spectrum. It is incredibly difficult to justify describing an entire party in the second most populous state in the United States as Far-right. Some members who may be Far-right do not represent the mainstream of a political party by any means. To say that the political range of the Republican party in Texas is from Right-wing to Far-right is to say that the substantial moderate conservative section of the party in this state does not exist or does not vote Republican, which is categorically false. This is obvious Wikipedia:Advocacy. In any case, this debate has no foundation at its roots. This section should no even be included in this page as it is not included in the main articles for either the Republican or Democratic parties. This is precisely due to the fact that it is impossible to generalise a large amount (in this case, about 6 million that voted Repubican in 2020) of people and fit them into one box. The fact of the matter is, the Republican party does not share a base with fascists or other national-socialists as the label "far-right" suggests. It is better to delete this section as I have done to avoid debate and possible POV pushing. Norge17maii (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)