RINOs In The Crosshairs? (Part 1)

I couldn’t resist the title, my liberal friends. A special shout out goes to City Councilwoman and friend Deb Pauly, who suggested that I post on RINOs. So Deb, here you go, and thank you for the inspiration. As many conservatives know, much has been made in conservative and Republican circles about the problem with RINOs (Republicans In Name Only, for the uninitiated). It is an oft-used acronym, but what does this acronym actually refer to? And what are the boundaries of conservative or Republican thought where one may either suddenly or even expectedly find themselves “out in the wilderness” during RINO season (which, by the way, is pretty much all year ’round)? In this post, I would like to bring a bit of clarity to these boundaries and examine why they exist, what they mean, and why such a distinction is important. In his profound and far-reaching classic, The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk describes six definitive “canons” of conservative thought, but I will focus on three here as I believe the others flow naturally out of these, and I will discuss each in turn. So generally, we can define conservatism as consisting of the following principles:

1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
2. A conviction that ultimate equality is in the judgment of God and before courts of law, but not equality of condition because there will be natural orders and classes in any society (i.e. equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome).
3. The belief that freedom and property are closely linked, in that when government does not respect property, then it becomes the master of all.

With respect to principle #1, the usual suspects that draw the RINO charge are related to the moral problems of abortion and gay marriage. As this is a short treatment of the subject, I will focus on just these two, as they are typically the “battleground” topics during open season. Now if one is a true conservative, as defined above, then one will implicitly value life no matter what its stage. But conservatives often find themselves in trouble when they say in a cavalier manner that abortion is a “woman’s choice,” or that Roe v. Wade is “settled law.” And they should be, because no conservative should make such statements without qualification. In the case of a woman’s choice, the problem here is that the fetus has no choice at any moment, yet the woman has a choice before getting pregnant and then after. So clearly there is a problem with this view, as it demonstrates a lack of respect for unborn life.  The Roe v. Wade as settled law attitude, unqualified, is both a moral and constitutional problem. Moral in that it doesn’t acknowledge respect for life, and constitutional in that there is no fundamental natural law “right” to abortion, since it is the taking of innocent human life. On this view, I believe there needs to be qualification in that while one may believe Roe v. Wade is settled law, one qualifies that they do not support abortion, while they still believe the law is settled. As to the constitutional question, my expectation would be that a conservative believes this should be decided at the state level, and though their vote would be against, they respect the fact that this is a matter on which the people must decide, since a conservative would not impose their will on society, but would nevertheless be an outspoken advocate for what natural law demands.

On gay marriage, we are stepping outside of the boundary of conservatism, and entering the domain of Christian theology. Let me be clear that some liberals have accused me of equating conservatism with Christianity, when I have done no such thing. They are not equivalent, as conservatism has no dependence on Christianity. Now Christian values (for those who actually believe the Bible represents truth) are largely in concert with conservative values because the Christian notion of natural revelation, as compared to special revelation (i.e., the revealed gospel), is equivalent to the natural law. Yet the natural law, according to scholar Charles Rice in his book 50 Questions on the Natural Law, has nothing specific to say with respect to homosexual persons, since as human persons they have the same rights as all persons, and reserve the right to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Now at the same time, they deserve no special privileges due to their sexual orientation. So just as heterosexual marriage is not a natural right, neither is homosexual marriage. Thus, this becomes a societal question in terms of what upholds, protects, and brings stability to society. In every case where this question has gone to the people, the people have decided that only heterosexual marriage should be recognized. Nonetheless, this is an issue where good conservatives can disagree for various reasons, and is hardly a litmus test for being a conservative. However, I don’t see how Christians can be accepting of gay marriage, as the Bible has spoken clearly in this regard, and it would be hard to interpret it as saying anything else.

So the message to RINOs on principle #1 is that being fiscally conservative is only one component of being a Republican. Even though you may not be a staunch social conservative, your stated views on social issues should be in accord with natural law and the Constitution. And you have every right to call Christians out when they go past natural law and the Constitution to promote public policy specific to the Christian position. At the same time, however, Christians have every right to be heard in the public square as individual citizens, and to vote their conscience when issues are brought to the people for popular vote.

Please stay tuned for my next post, where I will cover principles #2 and #3 in the coming days.