When I hear a politician or pundit refer to someone as a RINO, I can’t help but question the intellect of the person slinging the RINO label.
It’s a catch-all phrase that means you can’t seem to articulate your point of disagreement. It’s a mini tantrum, and the beginning of a childish argument.
Just like “He’s stupid,” or “She’s an idiot.” Neither of these assertions are likely true, and it reflects poorly on the accuser.
The political term RINO been around for more than a century, likely originating as a slander against Theodore Roosevelt by critics who didn’t believe he conformed to longstanding Republican ideologies and the Republican platform. History clearly shows the issues that led to those accusations were much more complex than the simple RINO label they were trying to pin on him.
This simplistic term, RINO, is, however, having an unfortunate resurgence since 1990. It’s been used excessively by the extreme right as a weapon against those who choose to get something done instead of the deadlock that results when ideologues stand on extreme policies that are far from good for most of the electorate.
Exactly what is a RINO? I’m not sure, and more often than not the people using the term are too intellectually lazy to provide a solid definition. RINO can mean almost anything, but most commonly, it’s an insult to another member of your party who has an opinion different than yours.
The person making the accusation likely holds an unpopular single-issue position, or wishes to commit fraud by calling the other person a RINO and providing little or no evidence to back up the statement.
I sincerely believe this is disingenuous at best, especially in regard to our elected officials. They make many carefully considered votes on a wide range of issues, but if one loudmouth disagrees with what’s in a tiny subpart of a bill, then our duly elected official whose been serving us faithfully for years is a “RINO” and needs to be publicly flogged and replaced by an extremist the accuser disagrees with regardless of the replacement’s capability to serve the people.
Your single issue should not be a litmus test for candidates.
I recall a time not that long ago when the Democrats controlled the U.S. House, and our congressman negotiated for us and delivered more for West Virginians. We all knew he did the right thing since we were going to get a bloated, expensive piece of legislation, and there was not a thing the Republican minority could do to stop it.
He negotiated a better deal for the average West Virginian. It also effectively ended his career because of low-information voters who are the RINO class.
I would prefer to be represented by a politician with whom I agree most of the time, as opposed to one I disagree with nearly all of the time. So, it’s time for us to go after the “RINO Hunters” for what they are and challenge them for facts and not let it affect those of us who make well-formed decisions.
There’s a corollary to RINO that I’m seeing right now where candidates are aligning themselves with up-ticket candidates. I think that’s a recipe for disaster, especially since you never know if the horse you hitched your wagon to is about to head over the cliff. If that happens, your loyalty may be a liability.
Candidates, run on your vision, not on, “I’m better because I support this national candidate.” Be your own person. Articulate your position and show your passion. If you have a clearly defined good reason to deviate from the party platform, it’s really acceptable and should be encouraged.
Discourse makes all of us better.
The upcoming primary election in West Virginia is already showing signs of being brutal. Many good men and women who have served us well will have their political aspirations crushed, and there is no guarantee the replacement will be as good, or for that matter, a Republican.
Negative campaigning is not going away. Don’t let trivial, meaningless acronyms like RINO damage your prestige.
It’s time to put a stop to the RINO hunters.
