A great essay by George Orwell discusses the effects that written and spoken language have on political systems. Beyond merely making one sound unintelligent, poor use of language has some deleterious effects (both intentional and unintentional) on our political system. For instance, making use of double (or more) negatives can obscure one’s meaning, as can the use of an outdated (or misused) idiom. In this spirit, I think the Republican Party needs to have a discussion of the language it uses, in particular, the words “establishment” and “RINO.” Although I have long thought that conservatives were hysterically overusing these particular terms, I think the final straw has finally arrived with Sarah Palin calling Ted Cruz “an establishment shill.” If Ted Cruz is “establishment,” then the term really is meaningless, anymore.
Once upon a time, the Republican Party was a political party with strongholds in New England and virtually no presence in the South. Figures like Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller led significant portions of the Republican Party while conservatives were largely found in the Democratic Party (some exceptions, of course, were found. Phyllis Schlafly and Robert Taft commanded a sizable following in the 1952 contest against Dwight Eisenhower). After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, however, the parties experienced a series of realignments that brought conservatives into the GOP and gradually forced liberals and some moderates out of the party. By 1980, Ronald Reagan had built a strong coalition of free market conservatives, religious conservatives, and foreign policy hawks who challenged liberal figures in the GOP like Lowell Weicker and Charles McCurdy Mathias. After the 1994 Republican Revolution, and certainly by 2004, there were hardly any of these Rockefeller Republicans left in positions of power (Lincoln Chafee and a few others remained). Now, there is just Susan Collins left.
Before the GOP became so thoroughly dominated by conservatives, it may have been appropriate to label somebody as a member of the “establishment.” The GOP was largely a party of eastern moderates and liberals who tried hard to keep conservatives out of power. The defection of many of these former Republicans is a testament to them being a “Republican In Name Only” (Weicker, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Chafee are among those who were once powerful Republicans and eventually left the party to become independents or Democrats.) Specter, in particular, proved that he deserved the “RINO” label after switching to the Democrats just because he (correctly) anticipated that he would not survive a primary battle against Pat Toomey.
Now, Phyllis Schlafly’s victory is complete. The entire Republican establishment is conservative on social, fiscal, and national security issues. As much as base conservatives may criticize Mitch McConnell for making deals with President Obama (something one has to do in politics if one wants to actually govern), it is ridiculous to assert that the man who single-handedly built the Kentucky Republican Party is as liberal as any of the aforementioned Republicans. Paul Ryan, the man whose selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate was derided for being “too conservative” is now the Speaker of the House! Moreover, John Boehner was no liberal. He may have been a weak Speaker prone to crying, but at the end of the day, he was a pragmatic conservative who defended his principles and found a way to work with others. Finally, every single Republican candidate for president (except Trump) is a fire-engine red conservative. Even if Kasich is the most “moderate” of the candidates, he still has a record as governor and in Congress that would have been derided as “more conservative than Goldwater!” fifty years ago (Goldwater was considered a “liberal Republican” by the time he retired because of his pro-choice views). In short, the conservative takeover of the Republican Party is thorough and complete. The old “establishment” does not exist, anymore.
That does not stop, however, Tea Party and other conservatives from using “establishment” and “RINO” as insults every chance they get. Nowadays, a single deviation from pure conservative ideology (even on procedural matters) opens one up to these sorts of claims by base activists and those who still listen to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media figures. For example, before Paul Ryan became Speaker, there was a not-unsubstantial effort among the most conservative of conservatives to lambaste him as a “RINO” and make sure he did not get the position he did not want. And then once Ryan grew a beard, some even asserted that he might be some kind of Radical Islamist turncoat! It has been even worse in the presidential primary cycle. Because of one legislative effort, Marco Rubio (once hailed as the “Crown Prince of the Tea Party”) has, ironically, been blasted as a “RINO” by supporters of Donald Trump (and Ted Cruz, for that matter) and has been called the “establishment choice” for the nomination (ignoring the fact that Rubio defeated one of the all-time great RINO’s in Charlie Crist a mere six years ago). But Sarah Palin deriding Ted Cruz as an “establishment shill” has to be the apex of lunacy. Again, I am no fan of Ted Cruz, but he has alienated himself from the powerful figures in the party from the first day he set foot in the US Senate. He has committed himself to destroying his party for the sake of making it even more conservative. He has gambled his entire campaign on an electorate of grassroots conservatives committed to bringing down the “Washington Cartel” that I am not sure even exist. Palin made this charge in spite of all of this, and while supporting a candidate who has openly admitted to buying politicians with his money.
If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Trey Gowdy are “establishment,” then the term is truly devoid of any meaning, anymore. Same with “RINO.” Conservatives have so fully dominated the former Republican Establishment that they seem to have no idea what to do now that they occupy the throne. Figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Palin, who spent their lives trying to purify the GOP from the Rockefeller Republicans and other less-than-conservative officials, are now waging war against the conservatives they once supported and are embracing the least-conservative Republican running for president since Arlen Specter in 1996. Even more ironically, they are endorsing the candidate most likely to leave the GOP at a moment’s notice and either return to the Democratic Party or wreck the GOP’s chances in November by launching a 3rd Party bid. To me, that makes someone more of a “Republican in Name Only” than a slightly-moderate conservative who has been a Republican his entire life. For these reasons, terms like “establishment” and “RINO” should be retired, not only for the sake of the party, but also because they are vague, undefined abstractions that only serve to dumb-down our political discourse. Conservatives have not only conquered the “establishment” of old, they have annihilated the old order and thus rendered term “establishment” obsolete. Maybe Schlafly and Palin are so used to denouncing the "establishment," they have no idea what to do when politicians they support become "the establishment." In any case, it is clear that the terms are meaningless and contribute nothing useful to our political discourse.
Once upon a time, the Republican Party was a political party with strongholds in New England and virtually no presence in the South. Figures like Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller led significant portions of the Republican Party while conservatives were largely found in the Democratic Party (some exceptions, of course, were found. Phyllis Schlafly and Robert Taft commanded a sizable following in the 1952 contest against Dwight Eisenhower). After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, however, the parties experienced a series of realignments that brought conservatives into the GOP and gradually forced liberals and some moderates out of the party. By 1980, Ronald Reagan had built a strong coalition of free market conservatives, religious conservatives, and foreign policy hawks who challenged liberal figures in the GOP like Lowell Weicker and Charles McCurdy Mathias. After the 1994 Republican Revolution, and certainly by 2004, there were hardly any of these Rockefeller Republicans left in positions of power (Lincoln Chafee and a few others remained). Now, there is just Susan Collins left.
Before the GOP became so thoroughly dominated by conservatives, it may have been appropriate to label somebody as a member of the “establishment.” The GOP was largely a party of eastern moderates and liberals who tried hard to keep conservatives out of power. The defection of many of these former Republicans is a testament to them being a “Republican In Name Only” (Weicker, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Chafee are among those who were once powerful Republicans and eventually left the party to become independents or Democrats.) Specter, in particular, proved that he deserved the “RINO” label after switching to the Democrats just because he (correctly) anticipated that he would not survive a primary battle against Pat Toomey.
Now, Phyllis Schlafly’s victory is complete. The entire Republican establishment is conservative on social, fiscal, and national security issues. As much as base conservatives may criticize Mitch McConnell for making deals with President Obama (something one has to do in politics if one wants to actually govern), it is ridiculous to assert that the man who single-handedly built the Kentucky Republican Party is as liberal as any of the aforementioned Republicans. Paul Ryan, the man whose selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate was derided for being “too conservative” is now the Speaker of the House! Moreover, John Boehner was no liberal. He may have been a weak Speaker prone to crying, but at the end of the day, he was a pragmatic conservative who defended his principles and found a way to work with others. Finally, every single Republican candidate for president (except Trump) is a fire-engine red conservative. Even if Kasich is the most “moderate” of the candidates, he still has a record as governor and in Congress that would have been derided as “more conservative than Goldwater!” fifty years ago (Goldwater was considered a “liberal Republican” by the time he retired because of his pro-choice views). In short, the conservative takeover of the Republican Party is thorough and complete. The old “establishment” does not exist, anymore.
That does not stop, however, Tea Party and other conservatives from using “establishment” and “RINO” as insults every chance they get. Nowadays, a single deviation from pure conservative ideology (even on procedural matters) opens one up to these sorts of claims by base activists and those who still listen to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media figures. For example, before Paul Ryan became Speaker, there was a not-unsubstantial effort among the most conservative of conservatives to lambaste him as a “RINO” and make sure he did not get the position he did not want. And then once Ryan grew a beard, some even asserted that he might be some kind of Radical Islamist turncoat! It has been even worse in the presidential primary cycle. Because of one legislative effort, Marco Rubio (once hailed as the “Crown Prince of the Tea Party”) has, ironically, been blasted as a “RINO” by supporters of Donald Trump (and Ted Cruz, for that matter) and has been called the “establishment choice” for the nomination (ignoring the fact that Rubio defeated one of the all-time great RINO’s in Charlie Crist a mere six years ago). But Sarah Palin deriding Ted Cruz as an “establishment shill” has to be the apex of lunacy. Again, I am no fan of Ted Cruz, but he has alienated himself from the powerful figures in the party from the first day he set foot in the US Senate. He has committed himself to destroying his party for the sake of making it even more conservative. He has gambled his entire campaign on an electorate of grassroots conservatives committed to bringing down the “Washington Cartel” that I am not sure even exist. Palin made this charge in spite of all of this, and while supporting a candidate who has openly admitted to buying politicians with his money.
If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Trey Gowdy are “establishment,” then the term is truly devoid of any meaning, anymore. Same with “RINO.” Conservatives have so fully dominated the former Republican Establishment that they seem to have no idea what to do now that they occupy the throne. Figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Palin, who spent their lives trying to purify the GOP from the Rockefeller Republicans and other less-than-conservative officials, are now waging war against the conservatives they once supported and are embracing the least-conservative Republican running for president since Arlen Specter in 1996. Even more ironically, they are endorsing the candidate most likely to leave the GOP at a moment’s notice and either return to the Democratic Party or wreck the GOP’s chances in November by launching a 3rd Party bid. To me, that makes someone more of a “Republican in Name Only” than a slightly-moderate conservative who has been a Republican his entire life. For these reasons, terms like “establishment” and “RINO” should be retired, not only for the sake of the party, but also because they are vague, undefined abstractions that only serve to dumb-down our political discourse. Conservatives have not only conquered the “establishment” of old, they have annihilated the old order and thus rendered term “establishment” obsolete. Maybe Schlafly and Palin are so used to denouncing the "establishment," they have no idea what to do when politicians they support become "the establishment." In any case, it is clear that the terms are meaningless and contribute nothing useful to our political discourse.
RSS Feed
