Republicans: What faction do you belong to?

[TNF]

The New Right takes its cues from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Militarily aggressive, socially conservative (but not loud about it), and fiscally pragmatic. The New Right tends to not be concerned with deficit spending and isn't skittish about enacting new or expanded social welfare programs. Key interest is foreign policy, however, and the promotion of a 'New American Century.'

The Religious Right includes Mike Huckabee. Foreign policy tends to be pragmatic, with isolationists and interventionists lump together, and social conservatism is paramount. Typically fiscally in the center or to the right, but again, not one of their highest priorities. The number one priority for the religious right is social issues.

The Corporate Right was once the dominant faction of the Republican Party, but has largely been eclipsed since the rise of Reaganite conservatism as the dominant force in the party. Corporate Right leaders include Presidents Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. The motto of this faction might be "What's good for general motors is good for America." Realist in foreign policy, socially moderate or liberal (with nearly no emphasis on social issues) and fiscally conservative. Should not be confused with the Libertarian Right, which is much different.

The Libertarian Right developed in the 1930s in opposition to the New Deal. Largely focused on economic issues, they go a step further than fiscal conservatism and actively seek to reduce the functions of government altogether. Socially libertarian (which is different than being socially progressive; i.e. let to each his or her own), fiscally to the right of the Corporate Right and isolationist or non-interventionist in foreign affairs. The Tea Party is the modern manifestation of the Libertarian Right, with leading figures such as Gary Johnson.

The Old Right descends from the anti-state politics of Thomas Jefferson. To the right of even the Libertarian Right, the Old Right combines social reaction (actively repealing socially progressive legislation) with economic reaction and foreign policy isolationism. Tough most of the Old Right are not openly racist, there are some quite interesting views within the movement on race, much of which are racist in origin. Leading figure is Pat Buchanan.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Were I in the Republican Party (a move that I have considered), I would fall in the Libertarian Right (although I doubt that the Tea Party (specifically its Palinesque figures) would fall there) and would be very sympathetic to the similar policies of the Old Right (which could be better symbolized by Paul maybe and entitled paleoconservatives/paleolibertarians).

[Cobbler]

I'd be in the Corporate Right. I'd also be sympathetic to the Libertarian Right, but I'm not fiscally conservative enough to classify my economic views as libertarian.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Old Right

[Prez Duke]

Corporate right. Everyone knows I am still a Republican because I'm a corporate whore.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Libertarian Right, with a few teaspoons of Corporate Right and Old Right thrown in.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

I'm probably a mixture of Libertarian Right, New Right, & Corporate Right.

[Governor Maxwell]

Libertarian Right and Old Right, some sympathies to the Corporate Right.

[Zuza]

To which faction belongs Romney? Corporate Right?

[Governor Maxwell]

To which faction belongs Romney? Corporate Right?

He has a bit of Corporate Right, but he leans New Right and even a bit of Religious Right, especially since the primaries.

[TJ in Wisco]

Religious Right would probably be the best fit, though not being a Protestant puts me at odds with much of the Religious Right on occasion.

[TNF]

Republicans, is this pretty objective? Are these good categorizations for Republican factions?

[Speaker Dereich]

Right in the middle of the Corporate Right. Nothing else comes close.

[RogueBeaver]

Mixture of Libertarian (economic) and New (social/military).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Either new right or corporate right, I don't fit especially well in any of these.  And Pat Buchanan is not a racist.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Where the Old, Libertarian, and Religious Right meet.

[shua]

Republicans, is this pretty objective? Are these good categorizations for Republican factions?

It's a good attempt. Some of the descriptions are not how people would describe themselves (ex. I don't think Eisenhower would choose to call himself "corporate").  I think there also needs to be a place for people who are conservative in the sense of traditionalist, but not movement conservatives, who focus on small business and localism, and social conservatism without much sectarian overtones - "Main Street Right", perhaps. There's some overlap with the Old Right, but these are people whose views are less strident than the descritpion suggests, and may be inheritors of Burke as much as Jefferson.
The thing to consider is, these are strands held in common as often as they are factions,  with the greatest number drawing on more than one and not identifying with any one exclusively.

[Supersonic]

The New Right is probably closest to me. If only because of foreign policy.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All of the above and yet at same time, none of them entirely. Perhaps the best for me would be a fiscally conservative, anti-populist New Rightist, if such is possible. I consider myself an inheritor of Burke and Hamilton, yet with the lessons of hindsight about the negative impacts of gov't going to far during various periods of the 20th century and today. But in spite of that, I do think there is a limited role for Gov't to play. At the same time, I hate the idea of the gov't actively deciding specific winners and losers in most instances so that is more Libertarian then a corporate rightist. I also think that while a strong federal gov't is necessary just like Hamilton and Burke did for the purposes of security and stability, but that it has also been taken too far in modern times and that there is a place for states rights as a means of preserving an important check on federal power.

As for the history, "The Corporate Right" would have moved towards or became the Libertarian right to an extent in the 1930's. Prior to that, they saw Gov't largely as a tool for their own benefit through stability, trade protection and currency regulation. When it was taken further than that, not for their benefit, but at their expense they began to embrace a more anti-gov't posture, one that just a few decades prior they would have scorned. Stability was a forgone conclusion with a century+ long established gov't system and laws, trade protection was starting to hurt them more then help and the Fed had been created. Their desires realized, they had no need to maintain an advocacy for stronger gov't. They would still support policies that benefit them, but would oppose anything that didn't. A nuance which continues to this day.

New Right is merely a combination of several of the others, most notably the Religious Right and the Corporate/Libertarian Right. In 2000's, the former really got the upper hand on the latter. However, the rise of the Tea Party, and the nomination of Mittens provides the possibly of restoring the blance between them atleast to the extent that such existed in the 1990's. Had the opposite occured, the risk would have been a decline of that fiscal conservative/libertarian quadrant's base or potential base to the point that reversal became impossible and Conservatism ended up being defined by Huckabee. Scary thought.

Edit: Yes, I do realize that Corporate Right, Libertarian Right and Fiscally Conservative aren't exactly the same thing. They do overlap considerably, espeically when talking about their base, which is usually middle, upper middle and upper class income levels and more highly educated people. The constant overtures to the Social Conservatism and let downs for these three groups since the 1990's, means that this demographic has been leaving for the Democrats. Without them in primaries, poorer, less educated populists will gain more influence in the primaries creating a self-fulling prophecy of socially conservative, big gov't populism.

Republicans, is this pretty objective? Are these good categorizations for Republican factions?

It's a good attempt. Some of the descriptions are not how people would describe themselves (ex. I don't think Eisenhower would choose to call himself "corporate").  I think there also needs to be a place for people who are conservative in the sense of traditionalist, but not movement conservatives, who focus on small business and localism, and social conservatism without much sectarian overtones - "Main Street Right", perhaps. There's some overlap with the Old Right, but these are people whose views are less strident than the descritpion suggests, and may be inheritors of Burke as much as Jefferson.
The thing to consider is, these are strands held in common as often as they are factions,  with the greatest number drawing on more than one and not identifying with any one exclusively.

I agree completely.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

All of the above and yet at same time, none of them entirely. Perhaps the best for me would be a fiscally conservative, anti-populist New Rightist, if such is possible. I consider myself an inheritor of Burke and Hamilton, yet with the lessons of hindsight about the negative impacts of gov't going to far during various periods of the 20th century and today. But in spite of that, I do think there is a limited role for Gov't to play. At the same time, I hate the idea of the gov't actively deciding specific winners and losers in most instances so that is more Libertarian then a corporate rightist. I also think that while a strong federal gov't is necessary just like Hamilton and Burke did for the purposes of security and stability, but that it has also been taken too far in modern times and that there is a place for states rights as a means of preserving an important check on federal power.

As for the history, "The Corporate Right" would have moved towards or became the Libertarian right to an extent in the 1930's. Prior to that, they saw Gov't largely as a tool for their own benefit through stability, trade protection and currency regulation. When it was taken further than that, not for their benefit, but at their expense they began to embrace a more anti-gov't posture, one that just a few decades prior they would have scorned. Stability was a forgone conclusion with a century+ long established gov't system and laws, trade protection was starting to hurt them more then help and the Fed had been created. Their desires realized, they had no need to maintain an advocacy for stronger gov't. They would still support policies that benefit them, but would oppose anything that didn't. A nuance which continues to this day.

New Right is merely a combination of several of the others, most notably the Religious Right and the Corporate/Libertarian Right. In 2000's, the former really got the upper hand on the latter. However, the rise of the Tea Party, and the nomination of Mittens provides the possibly of restoring the blance between them atleast to the extent that such existed in the 1990's. Had the opposite occured, the risk would have been a decline of that fiscal conservative/libertarian quadrant's base or potential base to the point that reversal became impossible and Conservatism ended up being defined by Huckabee. Scary thought.

Edit: Yes, I do realize that Corporate Right, Libertarian Right and Fiscally Conservative aren't exactly the same thing. They do overlap considerably, espeically when talking about their base, which is usually middle, upper middle and upper class income levels and more highly educated people. The constant overtures to the Social Conservatism and let downs for these three groups since the 1990's, means that this demographic has been leaving for the Democrats. Without them in primaries, poorer, less educated populists will gain more influence in the primaries creating a self-fulling prophecy of socially conservative, big gov't populism.

You're absolutely right.  I would consider myself somewhere in between New Right and Corporate Right.  I consider myself a fiscally and socially conservative, populist equivalent of Yankee Republican or Rockefeller Republican.

[muon2]

Government should be fiscally conservative, but with a recognition that government plays a role in providing basic services and maintaining a structure to defend and protect rights. The government has a duty to be accountable to the taxpayer, but not so short-sighted as to miss long-term investments that will benefit the same taxpayer.

Foreign policy should be guided by realpolitik, but with a recognition that there can be times when  higher ideals should be pursued. For example a genocide may need to be viewed beyond the bounds of realpolitik. The US is part of a global economy and foreign policy should reflect that.

Government social policy should lean to the conservative side, with a recognition that social mores are slow to change. The guiding principal is quality of life for a broad swath of the population and identifying when the state's interest requires that it should take a role. Pro-life and pro-green would be compatible in this view.

I wouldn't place the above comfortably in any of the five listed categories.

[Reagan and Thatcher's Long Lost Son]

Where the Old, Libertarian, and Religious Right meet.

That more or less sums me up as well.

[DC Al Fine]

Where the Old, Libertarian, and Religious Right meet.

^This

[Vote UKIP!]

If by "New Right" you mean Buckleyite "Fusionist," than yes, I am New Right.

[Progressive Realist]

Edit: Yes, I do realize that Corporate Right, Libertarian Right and Fiscally Conservative aren't exactly the same thing. They do overlap considerably, espeically when talking about their base, which is usually middle, upper middle and upper class income levels and more highly educated people. The constant overtures to the Social Conservatism and let downs for these three groups since the 1990's, means that this demographic has been leaving for the Democrats. Without them in primaries, poorer, less educated populists will gain more influence in the primaries creating a self-fulling prophecy of socially conservative, big gov't populism

Umm....aren't a good number of Religious Right types (especially younger ones, relatively speaking) solidly middle to upper middle class in both income and education levels?

I do agree that the poorer members of this demographic are more likely to be populist on issues like economics, trade, and the role of the federal government. But that's to be expected, no? (Think of the difference between a poor rural Southern Baptist from Texas and a wealthier counterpart from the Dallas or Houston suburbs).