RINOs and DINOs
Anyone who’s been following this blog has probably figured out my personal politics tend to fall into the somewhat right-of-center category. I tend to be fiscally conservative but socially progressive. I don’t mind if my gay friends get married, as long as they don’t ask me or my Uncle Sam to pay for it. I believe in public education, but I don’t mind if it’s delivered by private organizations. You get the picture.
This is a philosophy I’ve held on for quite sometime because as my lovely mother likes to say, no one has a monopoly on good ideas or stupidity. As I look out into the political landscape I can’t understand the need for ideological purity when it comes to politics; whether it’s conservatives who go after the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) or liberals who attack blue dog Democrats for being DINOs (Democrats in Name Only).
Why is a Republican who is pro-choice not really a Republican? Even though I would argue such issues go to the heart of individual freedom and choice. Why is a Democrat who for government reform not really a Democrat? Although I argue making sure poor people get the services they need by making sure the government is efficient is a bedrock Democratic principle.
I have never been one for dogma and purity tests. In any competitive political system each party starts with a base of about 40 percent, leaving the remaining 20 percent up for grabs. And that’s not counting open-minded Ds and Rs who are willing to split their tickets. Just ask Barack Obama and Mitch Daniels.
Anyone who’s not with you 30 percent of the time, is usually with you the other 70 percent. So isolating them with calls of ideological purity never really solves anything. And by the way, it’s never really smart to be in front of a charging RINO.
