Talk:Rockefeller Republican/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article must be restructured with clear definition of Rockefeller Republican

This article is a mess because it never actually defines Rockefeller Republican, apart from vaguely characterizing it as "liberal Republican" or "moderate Republican". Applying the Rockefeller label without defining it clearly is harmful. It confuses more than it educates. The labels "liberal" and "moderate" are literally meaningless in this context without enumerating the actual positions held on various issues of the day.

The first section should be a list of positions that distinguish the Rockefeller Republicans from the then-mainstream Republicans led by Taft. The primary split was on the issue of foreign military interventions/war which Taft and most non-coastal Republicans vehemently opposed in almost all circumstances.

Eisenhower was not an ideological person at all, he was a pragmatist. Both Republicans and Democrats recruited him HARD to be their candidate because he was a sure-fire winner in the general election. He was not backed by Dewey because of philosophy, he was backed by Dewey because he would win.

Old discussion

This article needs some clarification and work, which my weary mind isn't up to at the moment. The Democratic Party reference is valid, but some fine-tuning needs to be done to explain exactly why Rockefeller Republicans are today more rare. Doesn't quite explain it correctly here. Moncrief 07:08, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Moncrief, I got your message about seeing what I could do about augmenting this page -- BTW, glad you liked my additions to the Nelson Rockefeller page. You know, I've heard my father use the term "Rockefeller Republican" several times. I think I'll start with him as a reference! :) I'll see what I can do. Take care.
• Ah, I just saw your augmentations, Moncrief, to this page...nice work. I'll see if I still have anything to add...I wonder if former New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would qualify as a Rockefeller Republican...I think that former Connecticut congressman Lowell Weicker probably would (although he became an independent when he ran for, and got elected to, Governor of Connecticut.)

Speaking as a Republican, a large part of the reason the term "Rockefeller Republican" has fallen out of favor is related to the circumstances of Nelson's death, not the party becoming more socially conservative- I cannot think of any time in US history when having a heart attack while in bed with one's mistress would not be considered in poor taste, regardless of what party one was affiliated with.

Would anyone care to try to phrase this in a way unlikely to cause controversy?

I come from a family that's mostly Republican and traditionally I vote Republican, but consider myself independent. However I didn't know Rockefeller died that way. I think what's more important to the term declining is that he died about 26 years ago by the looks of it. The media is traditionally about appealing to the "18-34 year olds", even if we don't vote much, so it generally wants to keep terms current. One new variant I heard for awhile was "Schwarzenegger Republican", but that might fall out of fashion because of the veto. I've also heard "South Park Republicans" which strikes me as a little bit confusing and too pop-culture oriented. There's also terms like libertarian Republicans. I hadn't heard the term RINO much except among real GOP wonks or wannabe wonks. I think "Scoop Jackson" Democrat also used to be a term for Republican-leaning Democrats. Later there was "Reagan Democrat" and in time "Truman Democrat" I heard being used to mean an old-fashioned Democrat. (Morally conservative and aggressive foreign policy, but to the Left on economics or race) I think for awhile it was replaced by "Zell Miller Democrat" to mean a strongly conservative Democratic party member. Not sure what's popular right now.--T. Anthony 05:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A conservative Democrat is a "blue dog". 67.10.133.121 08:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is wrong to identify Prescott Bush with Rockefeller Republicans, because Prescott Bush was an opponent of Nelson Rockefeller and a supporter of Barry Goldwater and was a conservative. FDR MyTalk 15:41 6 August, 2006 (UTC)

Liberal v moderate

This article does seem to be a bit inconsistent as to whether Rockefeller Republicans are "liberal" or "moderate." I'm aware that the definition and distinction of the two is very vague and sometimes they are used interchangably, but maybe the article should stick to one term or explain the difference if both are considered to count as "Rockfeller Republicans." EJB341 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush=Liberal

Is it really necessary to have links to articles that say these things at the bottom of the article? It seems to distract from the topic at large and seem opinionated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing it as I can see no reason to compare Bush with a "Rockefeller Republican". --74.232.40.20 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think Bush was a liberal (although Nixon probably was). His record was pretty conservative. And actually he was closer to Goldwater than Rockefeller and supported Goldwater when he ran for president and considered himself a Goldwater. He even once said in a letter to Nixon reproduced in his memoirs "Rockefeller's brand of liberalism just won't hunt here" and "under no circumstances will Texas take Nelson Rockefeller" so it doesn't seem like Bush was a fan of Rockefeller either. So for what possible reason should Bush be compared to Rockefeller, Bush was a conservative, Rockefeller was a liberal, the comparison makes no sense. --198.51.130.244 (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Bush is best described as a Rockefeller Republican when you look at his policies and record. -- Chester polarbear

RE: MODERATE REPUBLICANS.

Don't forget T.R. Theodore Roosevelt. He went futher than anybody at at that time with TRUST BUSTING, NATURE, AND LABOR/ MANAGER FIGHTS. He was a great person. See the Book Theodore Rex.

Robert Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.109 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted. The term itself is obsolete and the left-wing of the Republican Party could just be covered in an article about the Republican Party rather than getting it's own article. --192.251.163.183 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The term is historically notable and history is an encyclopedic term. See Mugwump and Bourbon Democrat. Granted there really ought to be a Scoop Jackson Democrat article as a counterbalance, but that's life in the Wikipedia for you. (Although I have an idea on that)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to cover Liberal Republicans in its own article, with maybe a section dedicated to the Rockefeller Republican movement. MavsFan28 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I can live with a Wikipedia page specifically about Rockefeller Republicanss but I don't believe that the phrase moderate Republican is exclusively associated with the conservatism of Nelson Rockefeller. Shouldn't there be a page on Moderate Republicans in general existing separately from this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Positions

Could someone please put what are the positions of the Rockefeller Republicans on the following issues:

Abortion

Affirmative Action

Death Penalty

Government regulation of the economy

Public education vs school vouchers

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Energy

Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide

Global Warming/Climate Change

Gun Control

Health Care

Airport security

Immigration

Private Property

Religion and Government

Taxes

Same-sex Marriage

Social Security

War on Terror/Terrorism

Welfare

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny 42 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnny, the answers to some of those questions could get rather involved. But as to abortion: I've just added a brief passsage on that issue to the Nelson Rockefeller page itself. Rockefeller supported and 'moderate Republicans' in general support the right of a woman to have an abortion, although I would say the issue of the taxpayer subsidization of abortion divides them. --Christofurio (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to know in what ways were they still considered conservative.--24.62.109.225 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then you might have tried ASKING that! --Christofurio (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You might have tried telling me what ways instead being an asshole!--Johnny 42 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's an effort. First, Rockefeller Republicans harbor no doubts about the rightness of capitalism as a system. Indeed, Nelson R. himself felt no guilt over the way his family had made its money from creating a giant petroleum corporation. In defense policy, the Rocky Repubs are often rather hawkish -- which may explain Colin Powell' use of the term as a self description. Also, they often take a "tough cop" view of law enforcement issues. Rockefeller as Governor of New York, for example, ordered the assualt that broiught a bloody end to the Attica Prison riot. In such respects as these, they may well think of themselves as appropriately staying within the Republican Party and even as having a conservative side. In future, ask what you mean to ask and not something else. --Christofurio (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on that I find myself wanting to know where Rockefeller Republicans stand on Capital Punishment, Affirmative Action, Homosexuality, religion, gun control and immigration. Not just why we should consider them conservative. With all due respect to both of you( and don't you hate it when people say that) I actually would like these questions answered on account of not knowing and unfortunately not being able to find them on Wikipedia. Thank you

John D. Rockefeller?

I always thought the term "Rockefeller Republican" originated from the dominance of the Republican Party by the Rockefeller/Standard Oil interests in the 19th century?

A disproportionately large number of US presidents came from the geographical area around Ohio during that time, if I remember it correctly.

/Halsingpurg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halsingpurg (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what "Rockefeller Republican" has meant for the last 55 years or so. In any case, Mark Hanna was more dominant over the GOP than Standard Oil in the late 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos is right. After Hanna died in 1904 Senator Nelson Aldrich became the very powerful GOP Senate leader. His daughter married John D Rockefeller Jr. His grandson was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the governor & namesake of Rockefeller Republican. Aldrich was to the right of Taft and was a leading conservative. He is best known for designing the Federal Reserve System. Rjensen (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Only East Coast?

As far as I know, Republican Califoria Governors Earl Warren (1943 to 1953) and Goodwin Knight (1953 to 1959) were also liberal Republicans. The artcle does not provide information about the West Coast. Only Richard Nixon is mentioned, who was a moderate on domestic issues. --Jerchel (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

These folks were liberals but they were not usually associated with Rockefeller. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater?

How is Barry Goldwater listed as a Rockefeller or Liberal Republican? He was the main opposition to Rockefeller and it even says so in this article. I read the source listed with him, and it seems to be a tongue-in-cheek quote from him suggesting the Republican party is moving even more right of his far-right views. He should not be listed here. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

While I think the Republican Party eventually did move to the right of Goldwater, do we have third-party sources that call him a Rockefeller Republican? Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody is playing humorous here--all the RS present cold water and Rockefeller is polar opposites. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP rules

Wikipedia's wp:BLP rules are very strict. They require high quality clear-cut reliable secondary sources or have to be immediately removed. Blogs and dead links don't make the cut. Statements like "is Senator X a liberal?" don't make the cut. And it is false to assert that "moderate" in 2015 really equals Rockefeller-Republican of 1970s. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, many of these should be removed because surely websites like "salon.com" do not count as high quality. Some that were added, like Bush and Huckabee, do not belong here. However, Romney governed a northeastern democratic state with liberal policies and absolutely fits the Rockefeller billing, a lot of his policies in Massachussets were to the left of most of the people listed here. Here are a few (of many) articles that mention Romney's either liberal stances or directly label him as a Rockefeller Republican.

• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/16/newt_gingrich_romney_a_rockefeller_republican.html
• http://dilemma-x.net/2012/01/16/are-conservative-republicans-having-issues-with-mitt-romney-because-he-is-a-rockefeller-republican-moderate-republican/
• http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/17519-hugh-hewitts-plan-to-stop-ted-cruz-2016
• http://www.politico.com/story/2011/10/newt-likens-romney-to-rockefeller-066085
• http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/98542/rockys-ghost
• http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/nelson_rockefellers_lesson_for_mitt_romney.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mitt-romney-and-the-fall-of-republican-moderates/2012/01/18/gIQAQ2BC9P_story.html
• http://spectator.org/articles/37437/mitt-romney-new-nelson-rockefeller - MavsFan28 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable Republicans classified as "Liberal"

I don't believe this list belongs here at all. As @Drmies: said, anything with scare quotes is already suspect, and this article is about a specific concept--not for a hitlist pertaining to something possibly related. There are several other comments above supporting this position. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Toddst1, for reverting the unwise revert by The Independent Greek 100. The article obviously falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2; I assume the (new) editor did not know this. I don't think there's an edit notice for the article or a note here on the talk page, let alone a note on the user's talk page (I just put a welcome template there). Maybe someone (hint hing) can remedy that Independent Greek, it is a good idea for you to read that ArbCom decision, which allows uninvolved administrators to sanction those who disrupt articles that fall under, broadly speaking, "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". In addition, for a number of people on that rather silly list it is a BLP issue--please also read WP:BLP. We can't just apply this tag to politicians who get dropped in here in a somewhat haphazard fashion; just about anyone can be called a liberal and probably has been called a liberal by some news medium which may well be reliable but not necessarily neutral. Besides, there is really no point in this kind of listing. It's all just too random. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with the position taken by Toddst1. First of all, the category, which list Republicans who identify as "Moderate or Rockefeller Republicans" is not derogatory.

Your interpretation is that it is not derogatory. Your interpretation is far from fact. In the context of your other deceptive edit summaries, your agenda of WP:POV pushing is clear. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright then Toddst1, what is it that were objecting to having a list? It is just listing examples of politicians who strongly identify with Nelson Rockefeller's ideology of Republicanism (Republican Party). I would like to wait until another Wikipedia administrator or moderator rules on this issue. Thank you. - The Hudson New Yorker (talk) 17:13, 02 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins don't give "rulings." This has already been discussed - see above. It seems consensus has been formed with @Drmies:, @Rjensen: and me all agreeing that they should not be included without highly reliable sources. WP:EXCEPTIONAL and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 both apply in this case. You are free to strongly disagree, but you have to live with WP:CONSENSUS. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"La Guardia" Republicans

@Edgarde:The term La Guardia Republican(s) is used in these places: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. It appears to be an older term applied to the allies of Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia of New York and others like him who supported FDR's New Deal; modern use would probably appear anachronistic. Still seems relevant enough for inclusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Thank you for sourcing this. Do you think these sources demonstrate that La Guardia Republican is synonymous with Rockefeller Republican in referring to Republicans on the national stage? Or is the term implying something more regional, perhaps more specifically to a faction in the New York Republican Party? If the latter, I'm thinking this might be worth a mention in the article body, but not posed in the lede as a synonym. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edgarde: It does seem to be a more regional term, though Rockefeller Republican seems to have almost always referred to politicians of the "Eastern Establishment". Most do seem to stick to the time period (1930s-1940s) though at least one source refers to the faction in the 1950s and the first source describes Senator Javits in 1979 as "the last of the La Guardia Republicans". This seems more significant, as Javits was never a contemporary of La Guardia, he was just one of the last of the liberals in his party. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rockefeller Republican. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130223045123/http://beta.academicearth.org/lectures/nelson-rockefeller-still-influencing-people-christine-todd-whitman to http://beta.academicearth.org/lectures/nelson-rockefeller-still-influencing-people-christine-todd-whitman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)