Talk:Political positions of Pete Buttigieg

NPOV Discussion

It seems this article does not have a neutral point of view. Instead, statements and promises have been taken nearly in verbatim from his campaign and not much else is given, calling for some context. It also seems like some of his lesser populist schemes have been omitted.

Some instances where these issues particularly shine are highlighted below.

In the economic policy section, there is the text

As a self-proclaimed democratic capitalist, Buttigieg rejects crony capitalism and supports a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics. He is receptive to the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies but more focused on privacy and data security concerns.

This reads rather like a campaign pamphlet instead of a reporting of his political views.

It must be changed, and it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel (this is an issue throughout the entire article). It must also be mentioned that he seeks out wealthy, corporate donors to his campaign in contrast to his claim of wanting big money out of politics (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate, https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/status/1203821639131172869?lang=en, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/#13fd8e2b33f7). Similarly, “he is receptive” is a silly thing to write considering only he truly knows whether he is or not notwithstanding what he has publicly said.

I suggest a revision along the lines of the following (with the relevant references and links):

Buttigieg claims to be a “democratic capitalist”. In that vein, he has decried crony capitalism and proclaimed support for a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from what he calls the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics, although he himself seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign and is, as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires. He has entertained the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies on the basis of privacy and data security concerns.

It is simply not mentioned in the foreign policy section that Buttigieg opposses a decrease in military spending or potentially even supports increasing it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/foreign-policy/defense-budget/, https://peteforamerica.com/videos/national-security-new-era/, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/pete-buttigieg/). This is especially important as this is a point he splits on with many of his rivals.

I suggest appending this information, for example as:

Unlike many of his Democratic rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg does not support cuts in military spending, instead calling to modify the structure of spending. At a speech in June 2019 at Indiana University, he said “...in the coming decades, we are more likely than ever to face insurgencies, asymmetric attacks, and high-tech strikes with cyber weapons or drones. Yet our latest defense budget calls for spending more on 3 Virginia-class submarines—$10.2 billion—than on cyber defenses. It proposes spending more on a single frigate than on artificial intelligence and machine learning. To adequately prepare for our evolving security challenges, we need to look not only at how much we’re spending on our military but what we’re prioritizing.”

One may also mention that he wishes to increase the budget although I am not sure he has explicitly said that.

No criticisms of his medical plan (it may be unconstitutional https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/buttigieg-health-plan-hinges-on-supercharged-version-of-unpopular-obamacare-mandate/2019/12/24/415ae876-21bb-11ea-9146-6c3a3ab1be6c_story.html) have been shown. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/483317-medicare-for-all-will-turn-into-health-care-for-none , https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-02-11/pete-buttigiegs-medicare-for-all-who-want-it-will-sabotage-healthcare

Perhaps something like the following text may be appended:

Critics have derided his plan as creating a two tier medical insurance system: one with high quality health care for high earners and the low quality public option for the rest, as well as for its retroactive enrollment policy for uninsured Americans which would land them with a large overhead fee at the year’s end (a similar provision in the Affordable Care Act was ruled unconstitutional), and high bureaucratic cost.

Criticisms of both the rollout and the Douglass plan itself (especially from Black activists) have not been mentioned. Also his widely criticized racial justice record as mayor should also be mentioned. I suggest something similar to the following appendages:

Buttigieg was widely criticized for the unveiling of his plan, wherein he claimed the support of “400 prominent black South Carolinians” for his campaign. Many of the listed were actually white, and many of those who were black had not in fact endorsed his campaign, or his plan for that matter. Around that time, the Buttigieg campaign was also criticized for leaking a focus study which accused undecided black voters of homophobia, claiming that was the reason Buttigieg was unable to gain their support.

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/pete-buttigieg-campaign-black-voters/,

Buttigieg has been also criticized for his treatment of the African American community of South Bend, IN in his capacity as mayor. He has been accused of enabling police racism and brutality by firing the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins, soon after he reported an incident, although he claims he had done so as Boykins had illegally taped said incident. He has also been charged by critics with ignoring the decay of the city’s predominantly black west side, and promoting gentrification of some black neighborhoods leading to rent increases and evictions. During the February 7, 2020 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire he was questioned on the increase in the rate of African Americans arrested on drug charges despite the overall rate going down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/indiana/south-bend/, https://www.abc57.com/news/abc57-investigates-south-bend-eviction-rate-3-times-the-national-average-, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pete-buttigieg-faces-pressure-marijuana-arrests-black-people/story?id=68842579

In order to conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, such issues must be rectified. The article in its current state violates the second and the last point. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some of this material needs to be reworded for a more dispassionate tone, and we should use secondary sources whenever available. However, your comment "it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel" is not something we do. Most of your proposed text seems very non-NPOV to me, and entirely unrelated to political positions. Opinion columns make bad sources for an article like this. - MrX 🖋 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

My text is merely a suggestion/guideline and as a matter of fact is NPOV, considering all I have done is add context and changing the personal knowledge such that it fixes the violations of WP:YESPOV. There are only two opinion pieces (which I think is useful for context) but the proposed changes still stand without those. As for your concerns about the relevance of the material, what exactly is irrelevant? His record and personal actions are important context— in fact, they are the most important pieces of information one must use when judging what someone’s true political positions and motives are. To drown out his record and criticisms of the same is nothing short of political propaganda.GGLLFFP (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree, GGLLFFP. Personal actions are irrelevant to his policy positions, and are more suited for either his biographical page or to a separate page entirely. In this case, they would form an indirectly related ad hominem evaluation of him as a candidate, rather than a direct discussion of his policies. KukaiKoboDaishi (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:KukaiKoboDaishi, you may be right on the counts regarding personal action and especially its fallout but there is some precedent in other candidates’ articles to give it a mention, perhaps if it is considered substantial. Also, I believe it to be prudent we mention his political record. Not only is that a matter of principle, it is also set in precedent for most political figures. If you would, please take a look at the improved suggestions on talk:Pete Buttigieg. GGLLFFP (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears we have reached a point where we may start taking action then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGLLFFP (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be implementing the updated changes suggested on talk:Pete Buttigieg soon.GGLLFFP (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I made relevant comments about this material on talk:Pete Buttigieg. So far I've reviewed the first three paragraphs. Also, "Self-proclaimed..." should be changed to "self-described..." per WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 12:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)