i) I'd like to begin by noting how some people use the epithet "RINO".
On the one hand, people who employ this epithet use it to indicate that if a candidate is a RINO, then that automatically disqualifies him from further consideration. To be a RINO is disreputable.
On the other hand, many people who use this epithet are the same people who think the GOP is irredeemably corrupt.
But if that's the case, then why isn't RINO a badge of honor? If you think the GOP is that bad, then it's bad to be a loyal Republican and good to be maverick.
Suppose you said Klaus is a Nazi in name only. Well, is it not better to be a nominal Nazi than a zealous Nazi?
It's illogical for people to simultaneously say the GOP is hopelessly decadent and use RINO as a term of abuse.
ii) I'd add that in principle, I don't care if a candidate is Republican in name only; rather, I care if a candidate is conservative in name only. My problem isn't with RINOs but CINOs (rhymes with Encino).
I think it's an issue with the changing reference. RINO worked when the GOP was primarily conservative to indicate Republicans who weren't conservative, or positively, were liberal. What has happened to the Republican party is that it is has been overtaken with liberals like what happened to the Democrats. The GOP is subverted precisely because it is full of what has been known as RINOs. So now I agree that RINO isn't an accurate term, but at least everyone knows what is refers to. Perhaps it would help in the popular milieu if CINO sounded like the name of an animal.
ReplyDelete