You are describing low IQ purists.
“You are describing low IQ purists.”
I know I was describing political “purists”.
I also know I have ran into a good very many of them here on FreeRep, and it has often concerned me that because of them we have failed to get GOP majorities some times.
They think there are GOP candidates that are 100% pro-life, 100% small government, 100% low taxes, 100% social conservative, 100% many other positions, and everyone else is a RINO.
I saw “social Conservatives”, religious social Conservatives, ignore that line of thinking, ignore the inclination to form a third party, and over the past decades forge a place and forge alliances within the GOP, helping the GOP forge majorities and helping to make a strong presence of their own in the GOP. They have helped build the party instead of abandoning it because it has members who are not always in 100% agreement with them. That is what any successful American party is - a bunch of coalitions that come together and stay together because they have more in agreement with each other than they do with their political opponents. That does not keep any of them from working for what is most important to them and it gives them allies on those things more often than would be the case if they were a wholly separate party outside those allies.
The problem is difficult. There are true RINOs, that’s true. But sometimes the only difference is not basic disagreements but disagreement on what is the most important priority on a particular issue, and in practical terms that can be something that does not fit a purist view on one element of Conservatism. Our founders never had any delusions that our government could be perfect; look who is making it; we, imperfect humans.