Replies

They aren’t RINOs. They’re Republicans to the core.

That is a valid point from a historical perspective. Nelson Rockefeller wasn't a RINO in his time, he was a liberal Republican. So were Elliot Richardson, Lowell Weicker, John Heinz, Chuck Percy, etc.

I still like the RINO term because the laws and legal decisions have been shaped over the last 150 years to make it next to impossible to replace either major party. So, we do what has been done historically, forced party realignment. It is a glacial process, and it started with Goldwater, was catalyzed with Reagan, and ascended under Trump.

I do not know if Trump will be able to make MAGA a permanent institutionalized dominant force in the party that will outlast him, but the numerous Never-Trumpers either heading to the sidelines to throw mud (Ryan, Flake, Kinzinger), just getting beaten to do same (Cheney), or outright joining the Democrats (Jeffords, Specter, Crist) tells me he is doing something right.

While Democrats don't typically use the term DINO, they most certainly read members out of the Democrat Party, even if they embrace the values that were Democrat mainstream a generation or two ago, first, the entire Dixiecrat wing is gone (George Wallace), then the pro-US labor folks (Scoop Jackson), then the financially responsible (William Proxmire), certainly the pro-life Democrats (Bob Casey Sr., Ella Grasso).

Realignment is a thing. We get to use the term RINO, and get the Romneys and the Christies on the defensive with it because we ARE the dominant force in the Republican Party, and must now assert ourselves as same, knowing full-well that there will always be folks like Lindsay Graham who will pay lip-service but not really buy in out of political necessity. Such must be tolerated to a degree, but never trusted. To such end we must be able to define MAGA principles that should be adhered to, making the term RINO is useful and accurate.