Rather than derail that thread, I’ll ask here: What is a RINO? It’s my impression that most–if not all–Republican icons (Reagan in particular) throughout the modern era would utterly fail many of the various litmus tests out there for a “real conservative” or a Real Republican. There have always been wings and fringes in both parties, but the term (and Clothahump’s answer) implies that the **bulk **of the Republican party was/is more conservative than “many” House Republicans. (I’m also sure there are political opportunists who jump party lines when expedient, but that’s an easy/uninteresting case.)
I’m very interested in our conservative posters’ opinions on this. My current perception is that it’s a pejorative (in a no-true-Scotsman kind of way) used in intra-party infighting or in rhetorical attempts to move the party to the right. But that’s admittedly quite shallow and dismissive.
First off, with the understanding that my above impression is a gross oversimplification, how accurate is it to say that most Republican members under the leadership of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush would be pilloried as RINOs during a modern primary battle? Note that, some members voting against the creation of the EPA does not define the Republican party sufficiently to support the RINO epithet.
Historically, at what point *was *the Republican party truly conservative, such that there were few or no RINOs in it?
At what point does someone’s existence on the spectrum to the left of your views make them a RINO? Can it be a single-issue they differ on or does there need to be a pattern? What is it that makes them a RINO–voting, speeches, compromising, etc.?
Lastly, if you’re a conservative and you don’t use the term RINO, why not? If accused of RINO-hood (-dom? -osity? -liciousness?), what is your answer?
Also see: violation of Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment. “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
Each time a Republican brings up the very concept of RINO, it’s just another indicator that members of the Republican party are busy winning votes for the Democratic party. It tends to be spoken by those who wish to be ‘pure’ or ‘right’ more than they want to win elections.
Having just lived through 7 years of the most atrocious bullshit engendered by a party that was evidently only interested in winning elections with no reference to what they believed was right, I’m struggling to see the alternative is a bad thing.
It’s ‘bad’ in the sense that it undercuts the definition of RINO.[sup]*[/sup] That is, the ‘in name only’ aspect suggests that that the target of it is not conforming (for lack of a better word) to existing standards and norms of the Republican party. But rhetorical attempts to *move *the party to the right claim the target (or the party) is not conservative enough, something different.
That’s kind of the crux of the initial question. When *was *the majority of the Republican party largely immune to charges of in-name-onlyness? What decade(s) so defined the Republican/conservative party such that it can be held as the standard of what being a ‘real’ Republican is?
[sup]*ETA: this is an apolitical aspect–it’s one of those few semantics things that’s not trying to play gotcha-ya. [/sup]
When your driving anyone who drives slower is an idiot and anyone who drives faster is a maniac. In politics anyone who is more moderate than you is a sellout with no principles and anyone more extreme is a nutcase.
In all elected politics there is a principle agent problem. The ideologues who nominate candidates want the politician to cater to them and the candidate wants to cater to independent voters who actually decide close elections. The current solution is to gerrymander districts so that there are not enough independents to make a difference and the politician just needs to worry about keeping the base happy. However, not all districts can be this way and so there are some politicians who have to keep the independents happy and this upsets the ideologues who rightly feel betrayed.
This is a bit of a double edged sword for the Republicans. It is what helps them unify and vote as a block. On the other side, there is more diversity in the passionate causes.
Based on the current debate, a handy chart for elected officials:
Are You A Republican? – No – [You are not a RINO, also why don’t you believe America is exceptional?]
|
Yes
| Are you Ted Cruz? – No – [You are a RINO]
|
Yes
|
[You are a True Conservative!]
The definition or RINO clearly changes from person to person. In general a Republican calling another Republican a RINO just means that that person is more moderate than they are.
It is indeed a bad thing. I don’t know where you live or under what government, Blake, but not realizing that the end result is to win elections (provided one lives in a place with free elections) is to court marginalization.
Politics is about the winning of policy issues at the margins. Give a little, give a little so everyone’s a little happy and a little angry. Breaking those precepts may make one feel ‘pure’ or whatever, but it also leads to the other side hardening its positions and fewer things for everyone. Alternately, as seems to be happening in the United States now, it can lead to a schism inside the party that insists on ‘purity of thought’ and empowering their opponents.
Again, I’m not going to cry as the Republican Party tears itself to pieces. The democrats went through a version of this around 1990 following the Dukakis loss, and what we got out of it was Bill Clinton. Where the Republicans are in the cycle is up in the air as I don’t think we’ve seen this level of extremism in a major party since perhaps the 1850s.
Any Republican who does not believe that each and every Democratic policy proposal will lead to immediate fiscal disaster, economic ruin, moral decay, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Any Republican who does not hate Obama with all of his heart and soul.
I agree with the idea that RINO (and DINO too, though I’ve heard it less often, but I’m in a pretty conservative area) is just a true scotsman pejorative for someone who is less conservative than they want them to be. I think it pretty much arises because they, to some extent, recenter the left/right divide based on their own perspective rather than on an absolute scale for all Americans. Thus, someone who is very or extremely conservative may only see themselves as a run of the mill conservative or even moderate and see less conservative people as something farther to the left than they are. It’s also conflated with the idea that conservative=Republican and liberal=Democrat, thus, if someone appears to be liberal relative to oneself, and liberals are Democrats, it makes the less conservative or moderate Republicans traitors to their party, and thus RINOs.
From my own experience, I know a few people who use the term RINO, and they’re all very conservative but most only see themselves and a little conservative, one even claims to be a moderate and not conservative at all. When they use the term RINO, they’re talking about politicians that most people would see as conservative; hell, I’m sure some people on this board would even see those RINOs as ultra-conservative.
The ex-Dixiecrats who hand in hand with few remaining pre-WWII era laissez-faire Republicans have steadily taken over the Republican Party and who’ve pushed out all of the postwar Republicans who recognized the New Deal was here to stay like Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Nixon.
