Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mathematics

2009-06-30T19:32:32Z

ChuckK: /* Let's do this. */ labelling my fields' intended audience

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Mathematics

2009-06-30T19:29:59Z

ChuckK: /* Let's do this. */

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations, Linear algebra, z-transforms, and linear regressions, if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Differential equation

2009-06-30T19:23:09Z

ChuckK: /* References */ see also the techniques of solving differential equations

In [[mathematics]], a '''differential equation''' is an [[equation]] that relates a [[function]] to one or more of its [[derivative]]s. Differential equations are especially applicable when the tools of algebra, which are ideally suited for static systems, are not enough. Many physical systems are modeled by solving differential equations, although their usefulness extends well into other fields of science such as chemistry and economics.

==Types of Differential Equations==
There are two main types of differential equations: Ordinary Differential Equations and Partial Differential Equations.<ref>Edwards, Henry C. and Penney, David E.. ''Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems'' 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008</ref>

The former is simpler of the two, as it can be written in the normal form

<math>\frac{d^{(n)}y}{dx^{(n)}} = F(x, y, \frac{dy}{dx}, \frac{d^2y}{dx^2}, \frac{d^3y}{dx^3}, ... , \frac{d^{(n-1)}y}{dx^{(n-1)}})</math>

for a simple function <math>y = g(x)</math>

The function F consists of the function y and its derivatives up to the ''nth'' order. Notice that y is comprised of only one independent variable x. A differential equation is considered ''ordinary'' if the function y in F is dependent on only one variable. It is important to note that, while most ordinary differential equations can be written in the normal form (isolating the highest derivative on one side of the equation and moving all other variables to the other), there are equations in which this cannot be done.

If y were a function of multiple variables, for example

<math>y = F(u,v)</math>

then the derivatives of y in the ordinary equation may be [[partial derivative|partial derivatives]] with respect to either u or v. In that case, any differential equation that has partial derivatives is called a partial differential equation. For example, the 1-dimensional [[wave equation]]<ref>Pain, H.J. ''The Physics of Vibrations and Waves'' 6th edition. Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2005</ref> :

<math>\frac{\partial^2 y}{\partial x^2} = \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 y}{\partial t^2}</math>

Obviously, partial differential equations are much more complicated to solve.

==Methods==
There are many ways to find solutions to differential equations.

===Ordinary Differential Equations===
The simplest differential equations to solve are ''separable'' differential equations. A differential equation is separable if it can be written in the form

<math> \frac{d^{(n)}y}{dx^{(n)}} = F(x)G(y) </math>

Then we can separate the two variables, collect the x's on one side and the y's on the other side, then integrate to get the (n-1) derivative, and integrating again to get the (n-2) derivative, until we have found the function y. For example, for the derivative n = 1:

<math> \frac{dy}{dx} = F(x)G(y)</math>

<math>\frac{dy}{G(y)} = F(x)dx </math>

<math>\int\frac{dy}{G(y)} = \int F(x)dx </math>

The solution is then given implicitly by the expression:

<math>\int\frac{dy}{G(y)} - \int F(x)dx = C </math>

where C is an arbitrary constant.

====Linear Differential Equation Solutions====

If a differential equation can be written in the form

<math>F_n(x)\frac{d^{(n)}y}{dx^{(n)}} + F_{n-1}(x)\frac{d^{(n-1)}y}{dx^{(n-1)}} + F_{n-2}(x)\frac{d^{(n-2)}y}{dx^{(n-2)}} + ... + F_1(x)\frac{dy}{dx} + F_0(x)y = G(x)</math>

it is considered a ''linear'' differential equation.

=====First Order Linear Equations=====
The ''order'' of a differential equation is equal to the degree of the highest derivative in the equation. For example, the above equations are order n equations. A first order linear equation appears in the form:

<math> \frac{dy}{dx} + F(x)y = G(x) </math>

To solve this type of differential equation, an ''integrating factor''<ref>Edwards, Henry C. and Penney, David E.. ''Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems'' 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008</ref> is needed. For the first order equation, the integrating factor is defined as

<math> p = e^{\int F(x)} </math>

Multiplying both sides of the first order equation yields

<math> \frac{dy}{dx}e^{\int F(x)} + F(x)e^{\int F(x)}y = e^{\int F(x)}G(x) </math>

Note the derivative of

<math> e^{\int F(x)} </math>

is

<math> F(x)e^{\int F(x)} </math>

Hence the left hand side of the first order equation now looks like the [[product rule]] expansion for

<math> y </math> and <math> e^{\int F(x)} </math>

The equation can be rewritten

<math> \frac{d(e^{\int F(x)}y)}{dx} = e^{\int F(x)}G(x) </math>

Now we can integrate both sides, yielding the solution y:

<math> \int\frac{d(e^{\int F(x)}y)}{dx} = \int e^{\int F(x)}G(x) </math>

<math> e^{\int F(x)}y = \int e^{\int F(x)}G(x) + C </math>

<math> y = e^{-\int F(x)} \int e^{\int F(x)}G(x) + Ce^{-\int F(x)} </math>

where C is an arbitrary constant.

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
*[[Laplace transform]]
*[[Separation of variables]]

[[category:calculus]]

Separation of variables

2009-06-30T19:18:34Z

ChuckK: added example

'''Separation of variables''' is a technique of solving a specific type of [[differential equation]]s.
==Definition==
An ordainary differential equation is called '''separable''' if the following criteria can be satisfied through rearranging the equation:
:<math>f\left(y\right)\,dy=g\left(x\right)\,dx</math>

==Example==
To solve
:<math>x\frac{dy}{dx}y=1</math>
We can rearrange the equation into
:<math>y\,dy=\frac{1}{x}\,dx</math>
Integrating:
:<math>\int y\,dy=\int \frac{1}{x}\,dx</math>
Which gives
:<math>\frac{1}{2}y^2+C_1=\ln\left(x\right)+C_2</math>
Since <math>C_1</math> and <math>C_2</math> are arbitaray constants, we can group them together and give
:<math>\frac{1}{2}y^2=\ln\left(x\right)+C</math>
The answer is usually leave at the form described above instead of isolating <math>y</math>.

==Reference==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SeparationofVariables.html Separation of variables] on Wolfram Mathworld

Separation of variables

2009-06-30T19:11:10Z

ChuckK: added definition

'''Separation of variables''' is a technique of solving [[differential equation]]s.
==Definition==
A differential equation is called '''separable''' if the following criteria can be satisfied through rearranging the equation:
:<math>f\left(y\right)\,dy=g\left(x\right)\,dx</math>


==Reference==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SeparationofVariables.html Separation of variables] on Wolfram Mathworld

Separation of variables

2009-06-30T19:01:14Z

ChuckK: Working on examples

'''Separation of variables''' is a technique of solving [[differential equation]]s.

==Reference==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SeparationofVariables.html Separation of variables] on Wolfram Mathworld

Laplace transform

2009-06-30T18:52:37Z

ChuckK: /* Examples */ may add more examples; comment out the example 1 subsection for now

Laplace transforms are one of the ways of solving linear ordinary [[differential equation]]s (Linear ODEs) with [[constant]] coefficients. This technique allows us to transform a Linear ODE into a linear algebraic equation.

==Definition==
The unilateral Laplace transform is defined by
:<math>\mathcal{L} \left\{f(t)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st} f(t) \,dt </math>
Given the integral converges. A necessary condition for this integral to converge is
:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty} e^{-sb}f(b)=0</math>

==Examples==

Consider the following initial value problem
:<math>y'+y=e^{at}</math>
where <math>a</math> is constant, subject to
:<math>y(0)=0</math>

To solve this problem using laplace transform, first apply laplace transform to both sides of the equation, obtaining:

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st} (y'+y) \,dt= \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st} e^{at} \,dt</math>

Or

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt = \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>

The integral on the right hand side is

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty} \int_0^b e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty}\left[\frac{1}{a-s} e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}e^{(a-s)(0)}\right]</math>
:<math>= \lim_{b\to\infty}\left[\frac{1}{a-s} e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}\right]</math>

If <math>s>a</math>,

:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty} \left[\frac{1}{a-s}e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}\right]= \frac{1}{a-s}</math>

For the left side, if we apply integration by parts,

:<math>\int uv'\,dt=uv-\int u'v\,dt</math>

Substitution into the left side will get

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt </math>
:<math>=e^{-st}y + s\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty}e^{-sb}y(b)-e^{-st}y(0) + (s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
For the transformation to converge,
:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty}e^{-sb}y(b)=0</math>
Therefore, substituting the initial condition y(0)=0 the left side becomes
:<math>(s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
Equating the two sides of the equation:
:<math>(s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{a-s}</math>
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{(s+1)(a-s)}</math>
If <math>a \ne 1</math>, we can use partial fractions to changet the right side into
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{a+1}\left(\frac{1}{a-s}-\frac{1}{s+1}\right)</math>
and the solution is obtained by noticing:

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt=\frac{1}{a-s}</math>

Substituting the inverse transform we have
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt=\frac{1}{a+1}\left(\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}e^{at}\,dt-\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}e^{-t}\,dt \right) </math>

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}\left[\frac{1}{a+1}\left(e^{at}-e^{-t} \right)\right]\,dt </math>

Which leads to the answer

:<math>y=\frac{1}{a+1}\left(e^{at}-e^{-t} \right)</math>

==References==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html Laplace transform] on Wolfram Mathworld

Laplace transform

2009-06-30T18:50:53Z

ChuckK:

Laplace transforms are one of the ways of solving linear ordinary [[differential equation]]s (Linear ODEs) with [[constant]] coefficients. This technique allows us to transform a Linear ODE into a linear algebraic equation.

==Definition==
The unilateral Laplace transform is defined by
:<math>\mathcal{L} \left\{f(t)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st} f(t) \,dt </math>
Given the integral converges. A necessary condition for this integral to converge is
:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty} e^{-sb}f(b)=0</math>

==Examples==
===Example 1===
Consider the following initial value problem
:<math>y'+y=e^{at}</math>
where <math>a</math> is constant, subject to
:<math>y(0)=0</math>

To solve this problem using laplace transform, first apply laplace transform to both sides of the equation, obtaining:

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st} (y'+y) \,dt= \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st} e^{at} \,dt</math>

Or

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt = \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>

The integral on the right hand side is

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty} \int_0^b e^{-st+at} \,dt</math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty}\left[\frac{1}{a-s} e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}e^{(a-s)(0)}\right]</math>
:<math>= \lim_{b\to\infty}\left[\frac{1}{a-s} e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}\right]</math>

If <math>s>a</math>,

:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty} \left[\frac{1}{a-s}e^{(a-s)t} - \frac{1}{a-s}\right]= \frac{1}{a-s}</math>

For the left side, if we apply integration by parts,

:<math>\int uv'\,dt=uv-\int u'v\,dt</math>

Substitution into the left side will get

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y'\,dt </math>
:<math>=e^{-st}y + s\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt + \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
:<math>=\lim_{b\to\infty}e^{-sb}y(b)-e^{-st}y(0) + (s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
For the transformation to converge,
:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty}e^{-sb}y(b)=0</math>
Therefore, substituting the initial condition y(0)=0 the left side becomes
:<math>(s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt </math>
Equating the two sides of the equation:
:<math>(s+1) \int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{a-s}</math>
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{(s+1)(a-s)}</math>
If <math>a \ne 1</math>, we can use partial fractions to changet the right side into
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt =\frac{1}{a+1}\left(\frac{1}{a-s}-\frac{1}{s+1}\right)</math>
and the solution is obtained by noticing:

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st+at} \,dt=\frac{1}{a-s}</math>

Substituting the inverse transform we have
:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt=\frac{1}{a+1}\left(\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}e^{at}\,dt-\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}e^{-t}\,dt \right) </math>

:<math>\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}y\,dt=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-st}\left[\frac{1}{a+1}\left(e^{at}-e^{-t} \right)\right]\,dt </math>

Which leads to the answer

:<math>y=\frac{1}{a+1}\left(e^{at}-e^{-t} \right)</math>

==References==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html Laplace transform] on Wolfram Mathworld

Laplace transform

2009-06-30T18:31:24Z

ChuckK: /* Definition */

Laplace transforms are one of the ways of solving linear ordinary [[differential equation]]s (Linear ODEs) with [[constant]] coefficients. This technique allows us to transform a Linear ODE into a linear algebraic equation.

==Definition==
The unilateral Laplace transform is defined by
:<math>\mathcal{L} \left\{f(t)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st} f(t) \,dt </math>
Given the integral converges. A necessary condition for this integral to converge is
:<math>\lim_{b\to\infty} e^{-sb}f(b)=0</math>



==References==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html Laplace transform] on Wolfram Mathworld
{{stub}}

Laplace transform

2009-06-30T18:31:00Z

ChuckK: expanding example

Laplace transforms are one of the ways of solving linear ordinary [[differential equation]]s (Linear ODEs) with [[constant]] coefficients. This technique allows us to transform a Linear ODE into a linear algebraic equation.

==Definition==
The unilateral Laplace transform is defined by
:<math>\mathcal{L} \left\{f(t)\right\}=\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st} f(t) \,dt </math>
Given the integral converges. A necessary condition for this integral to converge is
\lim_{b\to\infty} e^{-sb}f(b)=0



==References==
*D. Lomen and D. Lovelock, ''Differential Equations Graphics. Model. Data.'', John Wiley and Sons, Toronto, 1999.
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplaceTransform.html Laplace transform] on Wolfram Mathworld
{{stub}}

Laplace transform

2009-06-27T15:10:57Z

ChuckK: expanding example; will be completed later

Laplace transform

2009-06-27T14:47:08Z

ChuckK: It's a start. Example(s) will be completed later.

Differential equation

2009-06-27T14:27:58Z

ChuckK: /* Linear Differential Equation Solutions */ line span not needed?

Talk:Republican in name only

2009-06-25T02:27:12Z

ChuckK: /* Mark Sanford */

== The "Accused" RINOs section in the article ==
I think the section entitled "accused RINOs" should have references and/or should be eliminated lest it become a platform for internet users to vent. [[User:PheasantHunter|PheasantHunter]] 00:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Lincoln Chafee ==

His article actually lists him as a liberal, so would we consider him a centrist here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:20, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, based upon party affiliation. A centrist is by definition someone can can work with either liberals or conservatives, and he does exactly that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

I added Ron Paul because he seems like more of a Libertarian than a Republican. His ideas are far too 'out there' versus a traditional Republican.{{unsigned|LibertyorDeath}}
:I reverted you simply because I can see a lot of people disagreeing with you - so try waiting for a reaction before you post again--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:33, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I agree that Ron Paul sould be up there as one of the "RINO's." Ron Paul is not a real Republican. His views are much more libertarian then conservative. He votes Liberatiarn in Presidential Elections, and say's he won't support any of the GOP 2008 candidates. Paul distances himself with Republicans on Homeland Security, Iraq, the death penalty and the War on Terror. So I guess that would make him a "Republican in Name Only." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:Paul himself says that he is more Republican than the rest of the Republican party. He eschews the lable of libertarian as well, calling himself a "true" conservative. Does that make him a RINO or every other Republican a RINO? I don't know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:36, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Cafeteria conservatives ==

If a person holds a conservative position on some issues and a liberal position on others, would that make him a cafeteria conservative? Wouldn't that make him a cafeteria liberal as well? [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 18:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Mitt Romney ==

Isn't Mitt Romney running as a conservative? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:42, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Hyperbole ==

The statement "RINOs and Reform Democrats typically come from New England states where corrupt Democrat political machines do not allow dissent and opposition so reformers have difficulty gaining ballot access..." seems like unsourced hyperbole to me. I didn't add a fact tag, because I've been reverted a lot lately.. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Related to that part of the article, maybe I'm missing something, but how much influence could a Democratic party machine have over who the Republican nominee is? And wouldn't they use any influence to have the '''least''' centrist candidates nominated, to reduce the Republican chances of winning in a majority Democratic state?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:00, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== John McCain ==

Considering his views on Global Warming and his eagerness to reach across the aisle to his Democrat buddies, shouldn't John McCain be considered a RINO? [[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]]

== Mark Sanford ==

Would the recent behaviours of Mark Sanford qualify him as a RINO? If so please add it for me on the list. Thank you for your time. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 22:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

*No, it wouldn't qualify him as a RINO. The reason being, one the vast majority of issues, in spite of his moral lapses, he supports/agrees with the RNC. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:06, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
**Thank you for the update. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 22:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Republican in name only

2009-06-25T02:03:10Z

ChuckK: /* Mark Sanford */ new section

Republican Party

2009-06-25T02:01:02Z

ChuckK: Added Schwarzenegger and Eisenhower

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Michael Steele]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' or informally the '''GOP''', is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The party is the U.S.'s major center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants, while the [[Democratic Party]] appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups. Some groups have realigned: blacks went from the GOP to the Democrats in the 1930s, while white Southerners became Republicans in the 1980s. Catholics switched from 80% Democratic in 1960 to 50-50 in recent years. In recent years youth and better educated professionals have moved to the Democrats, while blue collar workers have become more Republican. The GOP had a lock on the South since 1980, but that weakened in 2008 as the GOP lost presidential votes in every region. The elections of 2006 and 2008 marked back-to-back major gains by the Democrats in Congress, gibing them large majorities in both houses.

The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth Party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], together with his running mate Alaska Governor [[Sarah Palin]] lost the 2008 presidential election to Democrat [[Barack Obama]] and his running mate [[Joe Biden]].

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]

The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
[[File:GOP-presidents.jpg|thumb|300px|GOP Presidents by Andy Thomas; clockwise from far right: Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, GHW Bush, Reagan, GW Bush, Eisenhower, Roosevelt]]
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 11 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

[[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref> See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], won 251 Electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%. It was time anyone won a popular majority since 1988. 2004 marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.
==2009==
After smashing defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP lost control of Congress, the White House, and many states. They confront a popular president, but have been able to chip away at support for his domestic policies, as the [[recession of 2008]] continues to drag on. In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. But with a positive job approval rating of 63% , Obama has the backing of Democrats and independents alike, even as Republicans turn negative, with only 23% supporting him. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies remains high at 57-59%. Meanwhile the GOP weaknesses were glaring: the June poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28% of Americans, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57% said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.<ref> [Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman, "Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' June 17, 2009]</ref>

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Famous Republicans==
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974), Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924), Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]
*[[Richard Nixon]] (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals
*[[Theodore Roosevelt]], President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]] (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful; leader of conservatives
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1890-1969), President of United States, (1953-1961)
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]], President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)
*[[George H.W. Bush]], President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)
*[[George W. Bush]], President of the United States, (2001 - 2009)
*[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]], Vice-presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], Governor of California

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Modernization]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2009-06-24T23:03:25Z

ChuckK:

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a [[False religions|false religion]]? Is it a threat to Christianity?

== Oh yes! ==

Scientology is some science fiction writer wanting to be remembered. It is all made up.

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20

:"Not false as it's own religion?" What does that mean. Scientology conflicts with Christianity. They cannot both be true. So, if Christianity is true, this means Scientology must be false. It is a false religion - and beyond false, it is also dangerous as it distracts people from the truth and lures them from God. It is the duty of Christians to fight false religions. Just because they are small does not mean they can be tolerated. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

Scientology is no more of a threat to Christianity than Christianity is to Scientology. I'm sure the Scientologists view Christians as blasphemous and ridiculously ignorant, just as you do them. You can't just assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong. [User:Tegan]

No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power, nor is it possible to disprove. Just because a religion is not of Christian beliefs doesn't mean its false. If this were the case, that would make Judaism a false religion, because it doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe in God, and am a Christian. I say that to avoid being called an aethist, which I am not. Anyway, people are aloud to believe what they want (if it is within the legal boundaries of the nations law, i.e. human sacrifice religions are illegal) even if it is really crazy in others opinions. And how are they a threat to Christianity? Could someone explain that? --[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 19:58, 17 February 2008 (EST)

:"No religion is false. It is not possible to prove the existance of a higher power." -- But Scientologists don't belive in any higher power. There is no god or supernatural entity in the mythology; there is no figure of moral authority or any entity responsible for creation. Xenu, the most prominent figure of evil, is a physically-existing non-supernatural being, an alien emperor. Thetans are not supernatural either, as Scientologists themselves claim their e-meters physically detect them. So "it can't be proven" doesn't apply here. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 15:12, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Scientology doesn't have a God. Nor something to worship (Except maybe Hubbard). So it can't be a false religion. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:32, 14 March 2009

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wind cannot be seen but it can be felt. All Scientologists left their religion to join. It is only harmful for those who are uneducated. Scientology is not just some little thing made up to help people. They are a terribly corrupt organization that charges you money to learn their doctrines and history. Everybody needs to learn the dark truth of Scientology. The only time a religion becomes harmful is when it teaches to hate. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 23:40, 14 March 2009
How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

Yes, clearly scientology is a false religion. #1 it is not a religion, it is more of a cult. What god do scientologists believe in? To my knowledge they do not believe in a god but more in a supernatural power, but not specifically a "god". Without a god it cannot be a religon.

Isn't god nothing more than a supernatural power beyond our full understanding? You don't need the traditional view of God for it to be a religion, just a shared set of spiritual and moral values. Anything negative that can be said about the basic belief structure of Scientology can really be applied to almost any religion today.

Ok, so Scientologies a cult based on these things apparently: They demand money from followers, they viciously attack people who speak negagtivley about their religion, are not allowed to take conventional meds, and are accused of illegal activties with accasionall convictions. How many evangelical pastors ''Italic text''don't demand money from people, and just from looking at this website its obvious that Christians attack anyone who is critical of theyre religion. And how many times have I heard about "the healing power of faith" on tv. And lets not forget the boy touching priests. Here's the definition of a cult: A minority group of people who share a set of beliefs.--[[User:Unforgiven|Unforgiven]] 20:14, 17 February 2008 (EST)

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, man we could use some more bigotry to get the point across. [[The Bible]] could never be wrong, especially with all of our non-malevolent, non-manipulative human translators and monarchs who have had the good book warped into an evil artifact from a corrupt regime. I dare say Bush might be releasing a similar copy under the title, "'''Bush Universal Translation: '''With new words 'n evrytheeng!'''".[[User:Walkebb|Walkebb]]

It is all summed up in this one quote. "The best way to make money is to create your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Look, there is a difference between a religion ([[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Buddhism]], [[Unitarian Universalism]], etc.), and a MONEYMAKING SCAM. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally with the above. It is a cult and not a true religion. They are basically taking people away from the Gospel.

(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) LOL, how is it not a true religion? and i think that its worse that they are scamming people then that they are taking them away from your religion.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

:(PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS) and although christianity is free, you are highly pressured to donate money.
:Can any religion or cult really be debunked?
:To the believer no. To a Christan it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.
:and although virtue is "its own reward" there are alot of people who are religious who are extremely rich (from religion)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== But Xenu is comming to Kill Us All!! ==



Beware All! Xenu, in his DC-10 spaceships shall come to end all Human Life, by taking us up in his spaceship, and dumping us in volcanoes. BEWARE!! --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

It is only as false as Christianity. --[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:01, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Hubbard himself admit he started it over a bar bet? [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 14:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==Scientology is a False Religion==
Scientology is based on false ideas and was created by Science Fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. His work is nonsense, and the money donated to the so-called "church" by its members is wasteful.[[User:Davison|Davison]] 23:34, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

It is a false religion simply for the fact of claiming copyright on the scriptures and filing lawsuits about it. If they would just stop the practice they probably would be able to be considered to be the same level of religion as Hinduism, Islam and the like. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 19:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Scarcity

2009-06-24T22:57:35Z

ChuckK: Lifeboat ethics would serve as a prime example as well

'''Scarcity''' is a concept basic to all of [[economics]]: [[Goods]] having alternative uses can be increased only by [[sacrifice|sacrificing]] other [[resource]]s or goods. Put another way, scarcity arises when wants are greater than means. Here is a third way to describe the same concept: everything in limited supply that is useful has a [[price]].

Scarcity occurs when there is not enough of an item or service for everyone to have as much as they want at no cost. Anything that costs money is a scarce good. Anything that is always [[free]], such as [[air]] is not scarce.

The economic definition of scarcity differs from our everyday definition of the word because anything that costs money is scarce. Although we do not typically think of commons objects, such as [[pencil]]s, as being scarce, economics does include them within the concept of scarcity.

'''Scarcity''' may be defined as a lack of [[faith]]. In [[Christianity]] there is no true scarcity in the [[Kingdom of Heaven]], and numerous accounts and parables in the [[Gospels]] emphasize the lack of true scarcity:

*the multiplication of the loaves<ref>Matt 14:13-21.</ref>
*the master's estate in the [[Prodigal Son]]<ref>Luke 15:11-32.</ref>
*an excess of fish found by casting the net on the other side of the boat<ref>John 21:6.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Lifeboat ethics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Lifeboat ethics

2009-06-24T22:56:09Z

ChuckK: Adding this as an example of scarcity

'''Lifeboat ethics''', or the lifeboat problem, is the moral dilemma created by imagining the following situation:

:You are the captain of a lifeboat that can only hold 15 people, but there are currently 20 in it. The boat will sink unless several people leave. How do you decide whom to throw off?

This lifeboat problem is often taught in [[public school]] in order to persuade students to accept [[utilitarianism]], or [[situational ethics]]. Increasingly the hypothetical scenario includes specific traits of lifeboat passengers, such as a physical handicap, and old age, or other perceived "defect" to be considered in your decision. Often the student is simply told that he must expel a certain number of passengers and he is to pick which passengers, with which characteristics, to throw off.

== Fallacies of the Lifeboat Problem ==

There are several fallacies to lifeboat ethics, or the lifeboat problem. These include the following hidden flaws:

* the future is never known with the degree of certainty required by the problem. There is, for example, a real chance that the lifeboat will hold more, or that help will arrive, or that people will volunteer to leave the boat, or that other solutions will be found by ingenuity or prayer.

* no one is likely to be in the situation described, any more than it is likely that a [[UFO]] will land in 5 minutes and demand a parent to choose which child will be taken away by it.<ref>In the movie [[Sophie's Choice]], a [[Nazi]] officer makes precisely this demand.</ref> It's silly to speculate on a scenario that will never happen.

* a shortage of lifeboat space is due to the negligence of someone: the captain, the shipowner, or someone else. There is no shortage of lifeboat materials and supplies in the world that require this scenario to occur.

* it is unlikely that too few people would volunteer to leave the boat. When the [[Titanic]] sunk, men volunteered to give lifeboat space to women and children, for example, and there was no ethical dilemma.

== Biblical Solution ==

There is a passage in the [[Gospels]] that suggests that a lack of [[faith]] is the cause of the dilemma, and greater [[faith]] is the solution:<ref>Matthew 8:23-27 (NIV).</ref>

:Then [[Jesus]] got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!" He replied, "You of little [[faith]], why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Scarcity]]
[[category:education]]
[[category:philosophy]]

L'Hopital's rule

2009-06-24T00:06:57Z

ChuckK: fixed relation as per talk page

'''L'Hôpital's Rule''' is a method in differential [[calculus]] for calculating the [[limit_(mathematics)|limit]] of a [[quotient]] of two [[function]]s wherein the entire expression approaches an [[indeterminate form]] (e.g. 0/0, [[infinity]]/infinity). In the event that this is the case, the limit is equal to the limit of the quotient of the first [[derivative]]s of the two functions (provided that limit exists). Should this also yield an indeterminate form, the process is repeated until a meaningful result is obtained.<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LHospitalsRule.html</ref>
{| style="border:1px solid #ccc;margin:auto" align="center"
|+ '''Math form'''
|
:<math>g'(x)\not\equiv 0</math>
:C is some number such that
::<math>f(c)=0</math>
::<math>g(c)=0</math>
:<math>\lim_{x\rightarrow c} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}</math>
|}

L'Hopital's Rule is not to be confused with the [[quotient rule]], which allows for the calculation of the derivative of a single function that contains a quotient.

== Examples ==
A standard application of L'Hopital's rule is in evaluating the limit

::<math>\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{\sin x}{x}.</math>

In the preceding notation, this is the situation with <math>f(x) = \sin x</math> and <math>g(x) = x</math>. Both the numerator and the denominator tend to 0 as <math>x</math> tends to 0, i.e., <math>\lim_{x \to 0} \sin x = \lim_{x \to 0} x = 0</math>, and so L'Hôpital's rule implies that

::<math>
\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{\sin x}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{\frac{d}{dx} \sin x}{\frac{d}{dx} x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{\cos x}{1} = \lim_{x \to 0} \cos x = \cos 0 = 1.
</math>

L'Hopital's rule may also be used in the evaluation of the indeterminate form infinity/infinity. This version of the rule is useful in computing the horizontal [[asymptote|asymptotes]] of rational functions. For example, suppose we seek to compute

::<math>\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2x^2+3x+2}{x^2-5x+7}.</math>

This is an indeterminate form <math>\infty/\infty</math>. Applying L'Hopital's rule once yields

::<math>\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2x^2+3x+2}{x^2-5x+7} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{\frac{d}{dx}(2x^2+3x+2)}{\frac{d}{dx}(x^2-5x+7)} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{4x+3}{2x-5}.</math>

This is still an indeterminate form. To evaluate the limit, it is necessary to invoke L'Hopital's rule a second time:
::<math>\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{4x+3}{2x-5} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{\frac{d}{dx}(4x+3)}{\frac{d}{dx}(2x-5)} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{4}{2} = 2.</math>

We conclude that

::<math>\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2x^2+3x+2}{x^2-5x+7} = 2.</math>

An easy extension of this argument is useful for finding horizontal asymptotes of more general rational functions. Suppose that <math>f</math> and <math>g</math> are two polynomials of equal degree <math>n</math>. Applying L'Hopital's rule <math>n</math> times we may discover that

::<math>\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = \frac{f_n}{g_n},</math>

where <math>f_n</math> and <math>g_n</math> are the leading coefficients of <math>f</math> and <math>g</math> (i.e., the coefficients on the term <math>x^n</math> in these two polynomials). The example given is a case of this fact with <math>n=2</math> (since both <math>f</math> and <math>g</math> are quadratic), and with <math>f_n = 2</math> and <math>g_n = 1</math>.

== Outside Links ==
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=H-0L9Dxor6sC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s+rule&source=bll&ots=3HfHZW3-DZ&sig=Ripjx5A7yw-OcrHN91sxEN8Gr5U&hl=en&ei=kg2WSePdKYKUsQOT_JiuBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result The Complete Idiot's Guide to Calculus]
== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:L'Hopital's rule

2009-06-23T12:53:14Z

ChuckK: /* In case you haven't noticed */ new section

== Math Symbols ==

If someone could show me how to use mathematical symbols on Conservapedia, I would be glad to correct this article. L'Hopital's Rule is in fact a rule for calculating the limit of the quotient of two functions when such a limit appears to approach an indeterminate form (such as 0/0, infinity/infinity, etc.). This problem is addressed by taking the limit of the quotient of the derivatives of the two functions. If this also yields an indeterminate form, the process can be iterated as many times as is necessary to obtain a meaningful result. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)

:'''Try this:'''

* Write mathematical formulas indented with a ":" in the following way:
<pre>
<nowiki>
:<math>LaTeX formula goes here</math>
</nowiki>
</pre>

* Try to avoid numbering your equations and instead reference them in the text by their names or describe them in words. Numbered equations creates problem when someone later adds an equation in the middle of a page. However, if you find it absolutely necessary to number your formulas please use a HTML table like this:
<pre>
<nowiki>
<table width="70%">
<tr><td>
:<math>
LaTeX for formula one goes here
</math>
</td><td width="5%">(1)</td></tr>
</nowiki>
</pre>

* For definitions and equivalences use "<math>\equiv</math>" (<nowiki><math>\equiv</math></nowiki>) and use "<math>=</math>" (<nowiki><math>=</math></nowiki>) for equations.

* If you want to put some text within an equation, use the \mbox{} environment. For example

<pre>
<nowiki>
:<math>
\epsilon_{ijk} = 1, \mbox{ if all i, j, k are different and in cyclic order}
</math>
</nowiki>
</pre>

will produce

:<math>
\epsilon_{ijk} = 1, \mbox{ if all i, j, k are different and in cyclic order}
</math>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:36, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, this seems helpful. What exactly are LaTex formulae though? It seems to me that a simpler solution would be to upload images of the equations. Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary editing rights to do so. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:39, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::All Greek to me, Economist. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_math_markup Here] is another link, that perhaps you will understand, as I certainly do not! As for the images, I responded to your earlier question about how to get the images uploaded..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:41, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, this seems pretty useful. P.S. What a witty Greek joke! --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:43, 13 February 2009 (EST)

== Math Form ==

Looks good, though the example should be amended to point out that f(c) and g(c) can also be equal to +/- infinity, as this also yields an indeterminate form. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:49, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:And nice catch on the "said to be equal" thing. Your wording is probably more accurate. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:57, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::Who are you talking to, Economist? I take it our friends noticed that the math symbols I posted in answer to your question, months ago, came from Media Wiki, right? That the link I gave you here, which is attributed by the link, is exactly what I used? Oh, wait, they didn't....just another example of how wrong liberals typically are! :p --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== In case you haven't noticed ==

The first line should be <math>g'(x) \not\equiv 0</math> not <math>g'(x) \ne 0</math>, since it can still be 0 at some places. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 08:53, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Sidney Hillman

2009-06-16T23:56:44Z

ChuckK: /* Amalgamated */ I suppose it refers to the labor union, right?

'''Sidney Hillman''' (1887-1946), was a major labor union leader of the New Deal era, and a leading liberal. He began his career as one of the organizers of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and at 27 became its first president. He held that post to the day of his death and during that time was the unquestioned czar of this union. He was one of the founders of the [[CIO]] in the late 1930s, launching a major rival to the more conservative [[AFL]]. He directed CIO political operations on behalf of liberal Democrats and the [[New Deal Coalition]], making a special effort to reelect his close ally, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1940 and 1944.[[File:Hillman44.jpg|thumb|275px|right|Hillman as head of CIO Political Action Committee July 1944]]

==Career==
Hillman was born to a family of rabbis and small business owners in [[Lithuania]] in 1887. He arrived in the [[United States]] in 1907. By the age of sixteen he was organizing the typesetters of Kovno for the Bund, the outlawed Jewish trade union movement. The Czarist police imprisoned him in 1904 for organizing in a labor parade, and again during the revolution of 1905 while working for the Social Democratic party. When the revolution was defeated he fled to the United States. In Chicago he worked for $8 a week as a cutter at the giant the men's clothing factory of Hart, Shaffner and Marx. In 1910 the workers there went on strike, sparking a a strike in the entire Chicago men's clothing industry. Hillman became a strike leader and negotiated a compromise settlement calling for arbitration. He was elected business agent of the newly formed Local 39, United Garment Workers of America. His moderation and realism now made the arbitration plan work, as Hillman gained the trust of workers and management. Meanwhile a new national union formed of needle workers, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. It named Hillman president and became his base of power until his death.
==Amalgamated==
The Amalgamated could not join the [[American Federation of Labor|AFL]], which recognized its rival the more established United Garment Workers.

The breakthrough came with World War I: the military needed uniforms fast, and the Amalgamated, after winning several bloody strikes in Chicago and Baltimore, was an all-out supporter of the war effort. Hillman shrewdly mixed militancy and reasonable negotiation, and added a new dimension with his cooperation with the new federal Board of Control and Labor Standards for Army Clothing. By 1920 the Amalgamated enrolled 177,000 dues paying members, with contracts covering 85% of the men's clothing industry. The Amalgamated forced companies to stop using sweatshops (that is, families working in their own apartments for much lower pay), and achieved the forty-four-hour week by 1920.

==Industrial unionism==
Hillman disagreed with the strategy of the AFL to concentrate on skilled workers. He believed in "industrial unionism", which involved unionizing all he workers in an industry of all skill levels. He was quite successful with this approach to clothing workers; John L. Lewis was developing a similar approach at the same time regarding coal miners. Hillman and Lewis, however, had a deeper strategy. They saw that industries like sewing and coal mining were dominated by hundreds of small firms, that engaged in ruinous competition. Wage comprised most of the cost of doing business in the needle trades and coal mining, so brutal competition meant lower wages. The way to improve conditions, raise wages and raise profits was to have the union control the industry by setting high wages. In a competitive marketplace, other firms were helpless when a competitor cut prices--they had to follow. But if the union policed the industry and prevented wage cuts and thus price cuts, then cutthroat competition with low wages and low wages would be impossible. The solution only worked in a few industries (especially clothing and coal) where conditions were exactly right (many small companies, wages the biggest expense.) These conditions did not apply in most industries. The problem in the 1920s was that unions were too weak to police their industries, so when the New Deal arrived in 1933, Hillman jumped at the chance to have the [[NRA]] police the industries and keep wages high. When NRA ended in 1935, Hillman helped Congress pass the [[Wagner Act]] which greatly facilitated union membership drives.

The AFL finally admitted Amalgamated in 1933, but by 1933 Hillman and Lewis threw their unions behind a new venture, the [[CIO]] (at first named the "Committee for Industrial Organization") with the dream of industrial unionization for all of America. Both the CIO and AFL unions strongly supported Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936, with Hillman heading the CIO campaign committee. The AFL in 1937 expelled the CIO (now renamed the "Congress of Industrial Organizations") , and the two federations spent much of 1937-40 fighting each other for membership in industries such as meatpacking and electrical equipment. Both grew rapidly.

In 1940 Lewis broke with Roosevelt over foreign policy<ref>Communists in the miners union supported Russia and its ally Germany in 1940, and strenuously opposed FDR's efforts to help Britain fight Germany. Lewis went along with the Communists and attacked FDR.</ref> and Hillman became FDR's chief labor spokesman, and CIO members, listening to Hillman not Lewis, voted 85% for FDR in 1940. In 1940-42 as the nation rearmed rapidly, Hillman handled labor affairs for the government, which involved rapid expansion of munitions industries and unionization of the new workers.

==Communism==
Hillman was never a [[Communist Party]] member. He understood the Communist Party and its methods and would not permit his union to be controlled by the Party. The membership of his union was overwhelmingly [[Socialist]] who lived within the capitalist system.

When the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations]] (CIO) was formed in the mid-1930s all the leaders were aware that certain Communist activists were moving in, especially at the invitation of CIO leader [[John L. Lewis]]. Hillman knew Michael Quill, Joseph Curran, [[Harry Bridges]], Ben Gold, Abram Flasner and numerous others who had moved into the CIO were Communists. And Hillman understood Communists in labor unions are not interested in the welfare of the members but in the use of the union apparatus for pro-Soviet activities.

Hillman was one of many labor leaders to use the goon as part of his enforcement machinery.

=="Clear Everything with Sidney"==

Hillman organized in 1943 the CIO Political Action Committee to mobilize voters in upcoming elections.

At the 1944 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, DNC Chairman Bob Hannegan went for instructions to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]]'s private railway car just before the July convention officially began. Roosevelt had decided to dump incumbent Vice-President [[Henry Wallace]]. Worried over dissension on the choice of a successor, the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported Roosevelt told Hannegan: "Go on down there and nominate [[Truman]] before there's any more trouble. And clear everything with Sidney." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,791619,00.html "Clear everything with Sidney"], ''Time magazine''], Sep. 25, 1944.</ref> That is, the President could not make the selection of Truman until Hillman. approved it.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,791539-1,00.html The New Force], [[Time magazine]], Jul. 24, 1944.</ref>

The Democratic party could win the [[Presidential election of 1944]] if it could carry the Southern states and in addition New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey. These states were carried with the support of the CIO.

Hillman died suddenly of a heart attack in 1946 at age 57.

==Further reading==
*Bernstein, Irving. ''Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933-1941'' (1970), the best overview of the era
* Fraser, Steve. ''Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Labor-Will-Rule-Hillman-American/dp/0801481260/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194865661&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], the standard scholarly biography
* Fraser, Steve. "From The 'New Unionism' To The New Deal." ''Labor History'' 1984 25(3): 405-430. 0023-656x [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface?content=a794723465&rt=0&format=pdf online]
*Galenson, Walter. ''The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement, 1935-1941'' (1960) [http://www.questia.com/read/57135935 online edition][http://www.questia.com/read/57135935 online edition]
* Josephson, Matthew. ''Sidney Hillman'' (1952), good older biography
[[Image:Hillman.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Sidney Hillman]]

*Lichtenstein, Nelson. ''Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II'' (2003)
* Zieger, Robert H. ''The CIO, 1935-1955'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=30498029 online edition], the standard scholarly history
==See also==
* [[CIO]]
* [[New Deal]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/13sh.htm Vladimir I. Lenin to Sidney Hillman], Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1976, Moscow, Volume 35, pages 526-527.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hillman, Sidney}}
[[category:Labor Union Leaders]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Labor Unions]]

User:ChuckK

2009-05-25T15:27:36Z

ChuckK:

{{userboxtop}}
{{user research}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{user handy}}
{{User Bad-4-U}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{Userbox|green|white|中文|info-fc=#000| This user can type in Chinese, both traditional and simplified}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:ChuckK

2009-05-25T15:26:48Z

ChuckK:

{{userboxtop}}
{{user research}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{user handy}}
{{User Bad-4-U}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{Userbox|blue|white|中文|info-fc=#000| This user can type in Chinese, both traditional and simplified}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Conservative Party (UK)

2009-05-25T15:22:42Z

ChuckK: Commenting out the picture. Please include it if the description of the lady/her work can be included in the article

[[Image:Conservatives.png|right|thumb|300px|The Conservative Party logo]]
The '''Conservative Party''' is the largest right-wing party in the [[United Kingdom]], and is one of that country's three major political parties. Its full official name is the ''Conservative and Unionist Party'', and it is commonly referred to as the ''Tory Party'' after its historical predecessor. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. Its current policies are much nearer the centre than those of the [[America|American]] [[Republican]] Party, or even the [[Democratic]] Party.

==British conservatism==

British conservatism has its own distinctive tradition, separate both from that of continental European conservatism and from that of American conservatism. Traditional British conservatism is rooted in pragmatism, practicality and concrete experience: this reflects a broader historical preference in British culture for the practical over the theoretical and for the concrete over the abstract. In continental Europe, many conservatives in past times, such as the Frenchman [[Joseph de Maistre]], were strongly ideological and defended causes such as absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism. By contrast, the heroes of British conservatism (such as Sir [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century, Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth, and Sir [[Winston Churchill]] in the twentieth) were moderate, pragmatic and non-ideological. While a more ideological strand of conservatism was in the ascendant during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher|Lady Thatcher]] (1975-1990), the older, pragmatic trend has reasserted itself in more recent years.

==The Conservative Party in recent years==

The modern British Conservative Party ran the United Kingdom for nearly 20 years, beginning with Margaret Thatcher's victory for the Party in 1979. She came into office facing a British economy that had been crippled by industrial disputes, strikes, high unemployment, and collapsing public services, especially during the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1978-9. Mrs. Thatcher turned that around, broke the iron grip of the trade unions, and restored the British economy to a free enterprise system that has continued to this day. She was succeeded by John Major in 1990, and, to the surprise of the media, Major won the general election in 1992 and extended the Conservative Party's power until 1997.

By 1997 the Labour Party had finally embraced the more conservative direction for the country and abandoned many of its socialist economic policies of the past. Economic difficulties, including a dispute over whether the UK should join the currency of the European Union, hurt the Conservative Party further. This was coupled with a perception that the party had become corrupt, with a number of high-profile members of the party being involved in financial and sexual scandals. The Labour Party won in a landslide in 1997 and has held power ever since.

Major was soon after replaced by [[William Hague]], whose election as party leader was seen as an affirmation that the party wanted to continue with its Thatcherite policies. Hague was the victim of smears and attacks by a media which became Labour-biased to an extent never before seen in British history, and any attempt he made to state his policies or attack the government was routinely ignored (the UK has media regulations similar to the [[Fairness Doctrine]], but does not regulate what the media are supposed to report, only how much time they allocate to each party). The 2001 election went little better than the previous for the Conservatives, for which Hague accepted responsibility and stepped down as leader. [[Iain Duncan Smith]] replaced Hague, seemingly getting elected for no reason other than the fact that he was endorsed by Thatcher, and made no real impact as party leader. After passing up chances to attack the government for their role in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] (which had far less support in the UK than it did in the US), the party decided that enough was enough and Duncan Smith was removed as leader in late 2003. [[Michael Howard]] was seen by many as the only possible man to take the Conservatives forward, and was elected as the new party leader without opposition. A far more adept period of leadership saw a recovery at the 2005 election, halving Labour's majority in the House of Commons. A few weeks later, Howard announced that while the recovery of the Conservative Party had begun, he had done all he could as party leader, and so would step down once a successor had been elected.

==The modern Party==

Since the early 2000s, the Conservative Party leaders have softened its conservative stance on social and fiscal issues, and this has increased its popularity with the voters. Particularly since David Cameron - a self-declared "liberal conservative" (which in British English means "moderate conservative") - became leader of the Conservative Party, their support in the country has risen dramatically, however this is also due to the media-perpetuated anti-war feeling within the United Kingdom following [[Tony Blair]]'s era, coupled with the unpopularity of [[Gordon Brown]]'s government<ref>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,,1869970,00.html</ref> and recent polls. <ref>http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2007/Guardian%20-%20Jan/guardian-jan-2007.asp</ref> <ref> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2016791,00.html </ref>

Cameron can be seen as a more moderate conservative than many previous leaders. His party policies have gravitated towards a more "green" outlook as the concern about [[global warming]] has grown within the UK. He has also praised Britain's socialized healthcare system, the [[National Health Service|NHS]]; but has also considered privatisation of sections of the service in an attempt to decrease the deficit at which it currently operates. The party has also continued to support some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as support for the family.

David Cameron has established his own website. [http://www.webcameron.org.uk/]

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[David Cameron]]
* [[Margaret Thatcher]]

==References==

<references/>

[[category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:British History]]

User:ChuckK

2009-05-13T14:10:58Z

ChuckK:

User:ChuckK

2009-05-13T14:09:48Z

ChuckK: Created page with '{{userboxtop}} {{user research}} {{User comp-4}} {{user handy}} {{User Bad-4-U}} {{userboxbottom}}'