RINOS, DINOS and Chameleons
Have you just about had enough of pejorative slogans and ad hominem arguments?… What?… Well maybe…but what are you talking about?
I apologize if neither of these terms rings a bell of familiarity. I chose them deliberately even though I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone throw them into everyday conversation. Yet they are good and relevant words, aptly describing what has become the everyday jargon of so many of our politicians and journalists. While few of us employ these two terms—neither fitting our five-letter Wordle lexicons—all of us know what they “feel like” when used against us. For they are grownup versions of the verbiage we heard and practiced on each other in those wonder years of adolescent trash talking.
In case you’re still a bit fuzzy as to what I’m talking about, permit me a few illustrations. Have you ever found yourself on the receiving end of a snarky comment made by someone speaking directly to you, or about you in front of others? Perhaps something like…
“I knew I could count on a man to think that way.”
“That must have been a woman behind the wheel.”
“You country folk are a lot smarter than I expected.”
“Well done. You’re such a credit to your race.”
Dismissed, belittled, hurt—this is how we usually feel when we’ve been labeled, typed, perhaps even accosted by words intended to put us in our place, or more truthfully, put us in that place our antagonist thinks we belong. Pejorative is a word that captures both the intent and the effect of such condescension. These are words that we, or others, use to describe someone else in a deliberate or veiled put-down, often clothed in humor and sarcasm. And when we’re on the receiving end of such verbal skewers, there is little we can do but shake our heads and move on, since any self-defense we might want to offer will thrust us into the arena of a negative-sum game that will prove infuriating and futile.
And have you ever been drawn into an argument in which some derogatory comment was made about you—your appearance, your associates, your religion, race or gender—that moved the spotlight away from the issue at hand and focused it directly on you. When people address us in phrases like this, or use them in trying to prove their point in a debate, they are making an ad hominem argument, literally one directed “to or against the person.”
“If you weren’t Catholic you wouldn’t be against Roe v Wade.”
“Since you’re from Texas I know you must love the NRA.”
“Seeing that you are a Democrat I am certain you are a woke socialist.”
“Since Liz Cheney opposes Mr. Trump, she’s not a real Republican.”
This last comment is spreading like wild fire, engulfing any number of Republican stalwarts who now find themselves without jobs or party credibility. But more about that in a moment.
As you can see, pejorative words fit like a glove in the crafting of an ad hominem retort, its oversimplification a dramatic touché meant to silence all contrary points of view. Whether the pejorative word gives force to the ad hominem declaration, or the latter is strengthened and legitimized by the pejorative descriptor, the effect is the same. Someone is put down, freedom of thought and speech is squelched, often to a chorus of laughter and applause, as group-think cast in 50 shades of black and white appears to triumph.
As any student of debate can attest, such reasoning ranks as one of the most common, and most erroneous, forms of argumentation. In fact, to borrow one of the most frequent pejoratives now in use, it qualifies as fake reasoning, as well it should. For it tries to sidestep, avoid, and deflect our attention from the questions and issues at hand in favor of debasing h the character and credibility of its opponent. Furthermore, the use of ad hominem arguments is a revealing “tell” – as a gambler might describe it — verbally exposing the underlying insecurity and lack of certainty that no amount of bluster and bluff can hide for long. The irony in all of this is that those who wield the biggest sticks in berating their opponents with pejorative remarks and ad hominem attacks do so hoping that the veneer of their power and popularity will overcome the weakness of their arguments.
It is against this noisy background of modern political rhetoric that I confess my amazement at how often members of one of our political parties goes after some of its own by calling them RINOS (Republicans in name only). Who would have thought that a zoological acronym would ever become a pejorative litmus test to parse out who is, and who isn’t, a legitimate member of this Grand Old Party. Now anyone with a shred of historical awareness will realize how naïve and foolish it is trying to pin down any enduring canon of principles or policies to which this, or any other party, have adhered. Would anyone associate the states-rights, small government, and pro-slavery politics of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe (who called themselves Republicans long before there was a party with that name) with those of Union-defending emancipator Lincoln, big government Teddy Roosevelt or small government Calvin Coolidge? By today’s standards wouldn’t they all be RINOS? And where would Eisenhower fit along the spectrum of Republican possibilities that also includes Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and Trump? Talk about strange, or at least, incompatible bedfellows. And who better deserves to wear the RINO label than the one who coined it and regularly bellows it from his own distinctive bully pulpit? If a former Democrat with a long and generous history endorsing and contributing to the likes of Clinton, Cuomo, Biden and Harris-—not to mention Bush, McCain and Romney—all whom he now vilifies—if he isn’t a RINO, does this epithet really mean anything at all?
Yet if there really are RINOS in our current menagerie of political species, shouldn’t we also be on the lookout for DINOS lurking in the party of Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson? Or does today’s Democratic Party possess such unity of thought, word and deed that all of them are the real deal, or should I say the old new deal, or perhaps some new green deal? But for a few heretics among them, like Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema, this party seems to be more willing to march in lock step—their left legs raised a bit higher than the right—even if in that procession they seem out of step with so many of their predecessors.
The point I’m trying to make is that no amount of pejorative labeling and name calling can change the fact that politicians tend to be weather vanes whose elective longevity depends on how well they blow with, rather than against, the prevailing currents of popular opinion. Or to stay with animal symbolism, I guess they most resemble chameleons who, in being able to change the color of their skin, are able to blend into and survive no matter what changing environment or climate they find themselves. Therefore describing any of their kind as a RINO or DINO is not only erroneous, it is dishonest. For most of them, with a few notable exceptions, demonstrate that it is more politic to do what is expedient than to joust with any windmills of truth and integrity that may stand in our way.
If history teaches us anything about the American political environment it is that we should never be surprised when our elected representatives change their tune, or move away from the promises and principles they once uttered with conviction. Such vacillations can be traced back to even our most revered and monumented presidents. Recognizing that all of our political gods have some clay in their feet, we should never allow ourselves to be fooled or taken in by their promises and platforms. It is therefore incumbent on us to be both informed and discerning voters. As such we must be willing and able to distinguish what is true from the deceits and manipulations that lay behind so many of the pejorative labels and ad hominem narratives being peddled by too many now in positions of political and media influence. And that is no easy feat today.
Where once Americans had to go looking for mean-spirited characterizations of political enemies by witnessing stump speeches, attending rallies, or reading partisan newspapers, now all we have to do is turn on any and every television station, lock in our favorite radio attack-dog, or browse our email, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter accounts. In other words, we don’t have to go looking for derogatory and accusative speech--it comes looking for us, bombarding us, 24-7, with a for-us or agin’-us evangelical fervor that is helping divide us into sheep and goats. The end result seems to be a loss of so many of the forms and forums where free and civil speech was coveted and protected, from our academies of learning to our print and broadcast media.
Perhaps we would all do well to remember this cautionary note so linked to our free market culture: “Let the buyer beware.” When it comes to judging which of our political chameleons is actually worthy of our support, our trust, and our vote, the same advice applies: “Let the voter beware.”
