About 4 years ago, I mused in print about the term “moderate Republican” and what it might mean. And those musings were recently brought to mind again by an email from someone in my district who seemed to claim to be a “moderate Republican” and seemed to criticize me for calling out some as Republicans In Name Only (RINOs).
My initial thought was that a “moderate Republican” might be a Republican who was temperamentally willing to reach across the aisle, as they say, to others with diametrically opposed political beliefs to reach a compromise on important issues to get some legislation passed. Anything, as long as it passed with some bipartisan support.
Then, I thought of the term that a legislator must “go along to get along.” I have always heard that is one of the first things new legislators must learn.
So, I took a deep breath and with the renewed oxygen in my brain I started really thinking about this issue. What does it really mean? I thought back to the “moderate Republicans” our party nominated for President in the more recent past and wondered how well their “moderation” served them in their race for the Presidency.
Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney came to mind. Some others also crossed my synapses irrespective of the offices for which they ran: Scott Brown, Bill Weld. All of them fine, decent men who only seemed to want the best for our country, but why did they not succeed with the electorate?
In my analysis, I concluded that they did not attain higher office because they were willing to compromise their principles in order to get legislation passed or to obtain nomination for higher office. In other words, they were willing to “go along to get along.”
It seems to me that a large portion of the American People is sick and tired of voting for what they believe to be a principled politician with whose political philosophy they mostly, but may not entirely agree, but end up getting someone whose willingness to compromise on issues, big and small, makes their so-called principles worthless.
We have seen the result of the rebellious nature of our people when they have simply had enough- they rose up and elected people like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.
And then I thought about the term “big government Conservative,” as exemplified by George W. Bush. Some would equate a big government Conservative with a compassionate Conservative, but I do not believe they are the same animal.
It seems to me that one can be a true Conservative, yet be compassionate about his or her fellowman, without betraying one’s conservative limited government principles. But a “big government Conservative” is, in my view, sort of like a “moderate Republican.” An oxymoron in its own terms.
With abject apologies to our military who served our country in the Intelligence Community, the “moderate Republicans” and “big government Conservatives” are like the old joke about ”military intelligence.” So, if you hear someone described as, or who describes themselves as, a “moderate Republican” or a “big government Conservative,” run and hide your wallet and your principles.
And finally, what is a RINO and why should they be called out? It would be very unusual to find a politician with whom anyone finds agreement on 100% of the issues. But the personal view of this writer is that if you do not support at least 80% of the NHGOP platform principles, you are in the wrong party and should change your registration.
There is neither a loyalty oath nor a blood test for anyone to register for any political party. It would be nice to have either or both, but we just don’t. But registering as a member of a particular party should mean that the person registering is supportive of the platform of that party- in the opinion of this writer, at least to the extent of 80% or more.
And, even more importantly, if you are in a position to hold office in the party in which you are registered, you should be an articulate spokesman for the party’s platform principles- among the more important of which in the Republican Party are a strong push for smaller government and lower taxes.
If you hold an office in the party in which you are registered and you remain silent and fail to defend and support, against scurrilous attacks orchestrated by the opposition party and their fellow travelers, a fellow member of your own party who might have made a mistake that they first acknowledged and then issued an apology, and you are registered as a Republican, you are a Republican In Name Only.
You should not throw someone in your own party “under the bus” just for making a mistake.
If you either remain silent in discussions of the issues arising from platform principles or articulate positions in opposition to the platform principles, and you are registered as a Republican, you are a Republican In Name Only.
It is probably unreasonable to seek or expect 100% ideological purity, but if you cannot support at least to the extent of 80% of the platform principles, you belong in a different party. Obviously, some in the Republican Party feel more strongly about some issues and less strongly about others, and there is certainly room in the party for what some might call “moderate” Republicans. But utilization of the label of being a “moderate Republican” should not be nothing more than a disguise of a person who is, at the end of the day, not a real Republican.
