Talk:Freedom Caucus

Anti-immigration

The statement under ideology that this group is "anti-immigration" is insufficiently supported, in that the only footnote referenced is to a single Breitbart piece which notes the group acknowledged delaying the vote on an "immigration" bill. In my view, assuming this group is "anti-immigration" because they wish to delay a vote on one bill is completely unjustified without much more support. Given that this nation permits more legal immigration annually than the entire rest of the world combined, and given that, at least to my knowledge, no member of this group has introduced or co-sponsored any legislation to reduce the number of legal immigrants, such a suggestion is not justified at all. Furthermore, given that the administration refuses to enforce existing immigration law, passage of ANY bill regarding immigration would be an action which effectively cedes the power of the Congress to the administration, suggesting, as it does, that if the administration refuses to perform the duties of its branch it can force the Congress to pass such legislation as it wishes. Nowhere else in our country can anyone behave in such a manner and expect such a reaction from any branch of government. In point of fact, there is reason to believe that acceding to such a demand by the administration is tantamount to abandoning the Constitution and the structure of ordered liberty the founders established in this country in favor of a government not representative of the people at all. Indeed, why should anyone bother to vote if when their Congressmen arrive in Washington they are to be ordered what to do by the administration. Given that, the actions of this group seem to be the most conciliatory response possible, while still protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, at least nominally. In my view, the stance of this group can only be seen as minimal, given the level of unemployment of the existing citizenry, current wage rates for our citizenry, and the views of the public as expressed in election results where the issue has been discussed.2001:5B0:29FF:2CF0:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Under Ideology, the terms "Nativism" and "Anti-immigration" are misleading and unwarranted. There is no source to support these claims. I believe these two labels are being used as quasi slurs in this context to discredit the subject of the article, and thus are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.34.184 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Far-right misleading

Calling the politics of this caucus "far right" seems to be misleading at best and deliberately prejudiced at worst, especially since the first paragraph of the wiki on far right politics mentions the Nazis. This borders on reducto ad hitlerum. I propose it be removed or a more neural term chosen.Inspectorenjorlas (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The page for far-right politics doesn't define the term as simply Nazism. It says "Far-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum." also that it includes "social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism". The sources used refer to this caucus as Far-right. This isn't exclusive for The Freedom Caucus. Here's an example The Blue Dog Coalition (a centrist, fiscally conservative caucus) is listed as center left even though when you go to the page it list "social democrats, social liberals, greens, progressives and also some democratic socialists" as center-left. The reason for it being list is because that's what the sources say. If you see a problem with the sources, I'm willing to listen. If you have an argument about the definition of far-right and want to discuss how it applies here, I'm all ears. But no one is trying to be deceptive, and it's possible I'm in the wrong. What would you propose and why? Also would you be okay with that argument/standard being applied to all other ideological caucuses (New Democrat Coalition, Republican Main Street Partnership, etc.)? Thank you for bringing this up. Alexander Levian (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Far right is totally wrong here. The correct term for a position to the right of centre-right is rightwing. "Far right" is a loaded term that simply doesn't apply for a mainstream party like the Republicans or any main fractions of it. If you check the "far right" category the groups there are of a different nature.As an example: in my country Norway we have a party the Progress Party which are to the right of the Conservative party, but are still not categorized as far right (even if there are multiple international newspaper sources that label them "far right") . Otherwise, I will acknowledge that the labels and categorizations here can be complicated; and the scholarly literature are not internally consistent as various scholars use different terminology and categorization. The far-right and right wing articles on Wikipedia are of bad quality and does not sort these things out. Iselilja (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so you think the articles on wikipedia for far-right are problematic. I hear you. I'll leave it off until we all can come to some sort of agreement. With that said, can you give me some sort of academic source to clear up the definition of far-right (at least as far as United States is concerned)? It's been my understanding that far-right doesn't just mean extremist and authoritarians, but can also include various radical or reactionary positions. That would be a good starting point and maybe after we figure this out, we can tackle the Far-right politics next. Alexander Levian (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Freedom Caucus has been described as Far Right by the Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Vox, Japan Times, MSNBC, the Guardian, and Newsmax. All reliable sources. What's the problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC

This is unfortunately a far too common misconception among Wikipedians that just because something is said in two or more reliable sources, we can state it in Wikipedia's voice. That's not so at all when it comes to complex, controversial and muddy concepts. A journalist here and a journalist there does not a scholarly consensus make. Many journalists will use "far right" in a loose way to describe an organization or so that are to the right of centre; but that does not make an organization "far right" in a scholarly and encyclopedic sense. An important feature to consider is the dog that doesn't bark: namely the great majority of sources that deal with the Freedom Caucus and does not label them far right, but simply "conservatives"; "most conservatives" etc. (CNN, Pew Research). Iselilja (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding our policies and guidelines. WP:V and WP:NPV make clear that content need only be supported by a single, uncontroverted reliable source to be included without qualification. (The CNN and Pew sources are not contradictory because an organization can be both "far right" and "conservative" at the same time.) There is no requirement of scholarly consensus, even for content that is "complex, controversial, and muddy." And in fact, this isn't a complex, controversial, or muddy issue at all. If it were, these mainstream sources wouldn't be calling the Freedom Caucus "far right." Our only requirement akin to what you're talking about is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. But in this case the claim isn't exceptional, and we do have exceptional sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Skip the political position in the infobox. This is done in the main article about the Republican party, and by the same logic that is used for that article, we should skip it here. Infoboxes and categories are for undisputed facts; not for muddy concepts and disputed labels. Iselilja (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, no need to put this is the infobox, but it belongs in the lead section due to its extreme noteworthines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans. The field "political position" is best avoided because while there is agreement over relative position in the political spectrum, there is usually none over absolute position. TFD (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your statement

The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans.

: You're making an assumption that's inconsistent with the reliable sources. "Far right" sometimes refers to fascist groups, sometimes it doesn't. As pointed out, multiple mainstream, reliable sources have come to the conclusion that the Freedom Caucus is "far right," regardless of whether it has any fascist associations. It's not for us to second-guess them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna look up sources describing the caucus as "far right", but I see DrFleischman did it already. It's absolutely fair and appropriate to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

See Webb, Clive. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era: "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists, p, 10."[1] If you have a textbook that disputes the general usage, please provide it. Regardless, if you think the term can sometimes mean fascist, using it here could leave readers with the wrong impression, i.e., that the Freedom Caucus belongs to the same political family as Golden Dawn, Jobbik and the BNP. TFD (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A logical fallacy. Just because the word is often used to describe white supremacists doesn't mean it's only used to describe white supremacists. Our article on far-right politics makes this clear. The mainstream media uses the term "far right" all the time to describe groups that have nothing to do with white supremacy, at least in the United States. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Google Book search for "far right." All ten books on the first page use the term to refer to fascist or near fascist groups. TFD (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, at least one of those books isn't about fascism. More importantly, you're taking those out of context. All of those are about Europe or WWII-era politics. This article is about a 21st Century American organization, which which reliable sources call far right. These sources have experienced editors. None of them are suggesting the Freedom Caucus is facist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Which of those books do you think is not about fascism? And the books do mention the far right in the U.S., which is identified with the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazism and Christian Identity. While most of the books are primarily about Western Europe, two are primarily about the U.S. and The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right includes entries for the U.S. However, search for "far right" "united states" and the results are similar. There is no exceptional use of the term in the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Racism and islamophobia are not fascism. Even the Ku Klux Klan wasn't (isn't) fascist. There are openly racist and islamophobic elements in the far right aside from white supremacists, I hope I don't need to explain those. To say racism/islamphobia equals fascism, equals far right, therefore "far right" implies fascism, is both logically and factually incorrect. The far right includes racists, islamaphobes, fascists, as well non-racists, non-islamaphobes, and non-fascists as well. Our article on far-right politics makes this perfectly clear. A link to it should alleviate your concern without ignoring reliable sources and creating the appearance of whitewashing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, "The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups." [17:56, 22 October 2015] Indeed some of these groups are not strictly speaking fascist, but they are closely related. That's why for example there is a book called The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. And no one has claimed that racism=far right, merely that racism is a feature of the far right. And racism in the far right is more virulent.

In any case, if fascist and the KKK are far right, why do you feel comfortable that readers may conflate the Freedom Caucus with them? If you want readers to dislike them, and you are confident in your view of them, then just present the facts and trust readers to make the correct judgments.

I suggest too that you not use Wikipedia as a source. You should be aware that anyone can contribute to it. In the meantime, you have failed to provide any sources for your definition of the far right.

TFD (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the far right, so there's no reason to define it. It's an article about the Freedom Caucus, and the question is whether the Freedom Caucus is far right. The reliable sources say it is. This has nothing to do with wanting readers to dislike the Freedom Caucus. It has to do with helping readers understand the Freedom Caucus's ideology and where they land on the political spectrum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a polemic. If we want to call a group far right or anything else, it must be clear to the reader what is meant. Reliable sources draw a distinction between groups like the Freedom Caucus and Golden Dawn, even if you do not. And even if you think at heart they are the same, you have to recognize certain differences, even if you find them superficial. For example, the Freedom Caucus does not use street violence. TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the "far-right" label is quite misleading here. The Caucus might be "far-right" in the American political spectrum, but has nothing to do with the extreme views espoused by far-right parties in Europe or Asia. "Right-wing" would be a more accurate description. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Left/Right is an axis along an X-axis which lumps together measures of social and economic views. This group is certainly very far right along the axis as to their traditionally conservative social views but they are more libertarian-left on some economic outlooks, as in their view on crony capitalism, where they are against welfare for the largest corporations thus aligning them with Occupy Wall Streeters[2], who are very far left. See their fight against the export-import bank and it's preferences towards mega-corps while disadvantaging small businesses. If you average this leftist view into their overall outlook, I think they are not the furthest possible right group, nor are they economic fascists whose governments exerted greater than regulatory control over their economies. Fascist economies made profit private but socialized corporate losses. Extreme far-right groups would be those that support monopoly capitalism, exert control on corporations to work for state interests, increase military spending, isolate from free trade with other countries while maintaining socially conservative values. The Freedom Caucus has been trying to cap all spending, including the military budget, including the increase in this last deal, which is not a fascist economic attribute. The hawks that pushed for increased military spending are more fascist. The extreme-right label might very well be a polemic being pushed by lobbyists of these largest corporations into main stream media outlets.

External image
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/10/FT_15.10.20_freedomCaucusDWNominate_640px.png

Anyway, if you stick with the X-axis measure of conservative spectrum, Pew Research has identified their membership and plotted a chart that does place them on the far-right [3] 97.85.173.38 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What distinguished fascists from other right-wing parties was their use of political violence and rejection of constitutional government. It may be that the Freedom Caucus would govern that way but so far it is not part of their path to power. And their economics is no different from the fascists. Both are willing to attack crony capitalism yet act in the interests of them. But that applies to groups across the political spectrum. BTW no one questions whether they are the most right-wing group in Congress, the issue is whether that places them on the far right. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I provided political science research data that places them on the far right. If you took a look at the image from the Pew Research study (linked above) they are much farther right than the general Republican party membership. From that Pew study they can be qualified as far-right by the NOMINATE (scaling method) measure.

As for them being fascist, they constantly claim to support the constitution and I disagree that they are behaving as classic fascists on the economic front. I already provided evidence that they opposed increases in the defense budget which is a 180 from fascists of Italy or Germany who always worked to increase their military. You are right that many of their policies are similar to the early days under Mussolini were taxes were reformed, sectors were privatized, there was a focus on cutting debt, but Italy retained control of the banking sector while this caucus was against the bailout and wanted to let banks fail. Italy also built up larger government bureaucracies, such as the National Council of Corporations, in an attempt to further privatize the economy but essentially caused more hindrances to their plans. This caucus is always talking about smaller government and wiping out bureaucracies. Maybe they are the 'new' fascist economists who have learned from the past mistakes, but has a reliable source called them that? I'm just looking for accuracy in representation in a Wikipedia article. Honestly, their social politics piss me off. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis says we cannot say they are far right if the source does not say that. They may be the most right-wing group in Congress, that does not make them far right. The most northerly part of North Carolina for example is not the far north. TFD (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts - Spending on a military does not make a person fascist. JFK ramped up military spending drastically, he was not a fascist. Fascism, is national socialism. Left and right on the modern political spectrum is based on economic ideology. They can be authoritarian or non authoritarian in outlook. Fascists are left wing economically, and authoritarian. As opposed to modern western socialists which share the same economic views of fascists, but are not authoritarians. The Freedom Caucus is not far right wing, far right wing would be true anarchists, (as opposed to anarcho syndicalists), libertarians and the like. Ron Paul is far to the right of the Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill with massive spending funding 1000s of government programs that will consume over 40% of the economy.~ John M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Several of your claims are incorrect.

• "Fascists are left wing economically" Except the left-wing includes a variety of economic positions including anarchism, social democracy, and Marxist-Leninism. There are various right-wing economic positions as well ranging from free market to nationalist economics. The difference between left and right isn't purely an economic one.
• "far right wing would be true anarchists," Except historically anarchist are classified as far-left. The early anarchist generally comprised of socialist and mutualist that were very skeptical of the state.
• "Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill" This is just outright untrue. The members of the caucus voted against the bill (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll579.xml). And

Sources still say they are far-right, and you haven't presented any reason why we should go against those sources. Alexander Levian (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Our thoughts and opinions on this are not important. What is important is what reliable sources have said, and they've said far-right. Ratemonth (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What indication is there that their use of 'far right' means what Wikipedia means by 'far right'? Toa Nidhiki05 00:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We need a source that says they are far right. Toa, if no sources say they are far right, it does not matter whether definitions of far right in reliable sources and Wikipedia differ. IP, generally "left-wing economically" does not mean placing economic power in major corporations. TFD (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Strange, we've already discussed the fact that multiple reliable sources say that FC is far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: far-right

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.

No, not without "of the House Republicans" or similar qualifier. As Toa Nidhiki05 writes, and unlike what Alexander Levian writes, the sources do not say "far right" without qualifier, and do, basically, say "far right of the Republican party". Following Dr. Fleischman's list, Japan Times: "GOP’s far-right"; MSNBC: "far-right Republicans"; Guardian: "far-right Republicans". The other references to "far right" are more debatable, but universally talk about the Caucus in the context of the other Republicans in the House, not in the context of all political groups in the world, or in the country. As TFD and others write, our far right article is quite clear: "The term is commonly used to describe Nazism,[1] neo-Nazism, Fascism, neo-Fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views". That's basically a WP:BLP violation. We need REALLY GOOD, UNAMBIGUOUS sources to describe a group of living people that way. These sources are not that. --GRuban (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the article say that the Freedom Caucus is a "far-right" organization? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. We should follow what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are completely unimportant. Ratemonth (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• No. Reliable sources usually reserve that description for groups such as klansmen and neo-Nazis. TFD (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• No. There is no indication that the meaning of 'far right' as used by sources (the far right of the Republican party) is the same as the wiki definition of 'far right' (fascist). I would also support removing the 'political positions' box entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Regardless of our opinions, the sources call them far-right. They don't say "far right of the Republican party". Reliable sources say far-right, so this is what they are labelled as. For example, the Blue Dog Coalition is labeled center-left (a label normally given to social democrats, social liberals, greens, and progressives) despite the fact that their political ideologies are listed as centrism, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism. The sources say center left, and so they are labelled as such. The same standard should apply here. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• This Washington Post column by a professor of political science calls them the "far right of the Republican Conference". I think this means that they're the far-right of a mainstream right-wing party, not the far-right of an entire continuum. Maybe "far-right" would be acceptable if it were described in-text, as I don't think we can really throw them in with the traditional far-right groups, such as fascists. Maybe "radical right" would be better? It still throws them in with the John Birch Society, but that's where this New York Times column puts them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot): It sounds like WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a good guideline here. If there are sources that describe the organisation as far right, then we can say that, but unless there is consensus between a broad range of sources, then we should clearly word it as the opinion of those sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. There is broad consensus among reliable sources that the Freedom Caucus is a "far right" organization. Examples: Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Vox, Japan Times, MSNBC, the Guardian, and Newsmax. These are edited articles from reputable outlets, not opinion sources, so attribution is unnecessary and potentially non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• No ran into this by accident. Its pushing a POV from sources that have bias. Im not saying they are not reliable sources, I'm just saying that reliable sources have bias and we must do our best to filter that when adding them to Wikipedia. Would you call the Tea Party or the Republican party far right groups? If anything its more libertarian. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This runs directly against our reliable sources guideline, which says that reliable sources are not required to be neutral. There is no basis for "filtering" content based on biased but reliable sources. Besides, if these sources are really so biased then one would expect there to be less biased sources that contradicted them. No one has presented any such sources; I've looked for them and couldn't find them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2016 (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.

A light-hearted moment: Thanks

I honestly thought my edit was a 'real' motto; though I was close to thinking it was not. I knew it was a critic who was my source; and I knew it felt awkward-to-overly provocative to ... cite such a critic with his ... jokingly disrespectful may I call it? ... headline about 'crazies' .... But I really didn't think it was made up. I researched it. I found nothing direct. I found Dred Scott in 1859; and fights in the House over who would be Speaker that year; oh, no; ... maybe it was Dred Scott too ... but what I found for sure was John Brown (in 1859). The raid on the federal armory ... sounded just possible ... as a true 'freedom' rallying cry. (I also had to research and find that it had to be 'slogan' not 'motto' for the purposes of fitting into the Template:Infobox political party fyi.) Anyway, the polite explanation for the reversion of my edit seemed, upon a moment's reflection just now, ... completely plausible and probably more plausible than all my previous thinking about it. It gave me, in the end, a good laugh. (These political matters can get SO serious ... these days.) Hope no umbrage here User:Brianhe or others. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Attributing Membership Accurately

Membership to the House Freedom Caucus is secret. Upon review, however, some members listed here are not necessarily confirmed as caucus members. I have removed Steve King of Iowa from the list after discovering multiple sources noting he was not a member.

On this same note, journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus. A link to a tweet from a journalist is barebones evidence for membership in this caucus. We should be much more careful in attributing membership, ideally relying on statements from members directly. With this being said, I think it would be wise of us to review whether or not Louie Gohmert (TX) should be listed as a member. He is often lumped in with the Freedom Caucus because he opposed Kevin McCarthy in the speakership race to replace Boehner, but it is not totally clear beyond the current citation whether he is a member or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zm11 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Please explain the basis for your belief that "journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus." The standard we follow is WP:RS, which essentially says that edited articles published by reputable news outlets are reliable. Tweets by journalists are presumably not fact-checked by editors and should not be used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, it does not sound like we really disagree about the point I was trying to make. I certainly concede that journalists have editors and are fact-checked. However, there are some members of the Freedom Caucus who have never confirmed, nor denied, being members. But, because of the secrecy surrounding the caucus membership list, sometimes two legitimate news sources (e.g. The Dallas Morning News and The Hill--in the case of Rep. Gohmert) will report conflicting information about their status as caucus members. Without the member owning or disparaging those reports, there is no way for us to know if that member really is part of the caucus. In summary, my point is that since there is no official member list, we should treat journalistic accounts of caucus membership with additional scrutiny. And, ideally, we should strive to seek out direct statements from members noting their participation in the caucus. Zm11 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

When there are conflicts between/among reliable sources, we follow our neutrality guideline and note the conflict. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

The map needs to be updated for the 115th congress. Wyoming should now be shaded for a former rather than current member.