You may not be (RINO), but the danger with Pragmatism over Principle is that it can lead to (easly lead) to RINOism becuase once you slip and say 'in this circumstance' I have to compromise my principles to get X-result, then that doesn't Really (especially for important issues (whatever that is for you) give you grounds for being Principled on other issues and other circumstances. It would have been better to stand for something on Principle and loose result X (wether power, or an election result, or a good cause done with evil means, etc...) than to gain result X, and loose your pricipled posistion, hence (some would argue your soul ;)):Be whatever you like, but heed my warning: better to loose your whatever you want, and gain your dignity, than to loose your dignity and gain something temporary (in LIFE) :)...
Do you believe that some Principle you believe in is
1. a political goal or
2. a political methodology for achieving a political goal
3. a commandment from God
Moral values and political philosophies and religious beliefs may not be the same thing and people can take different paths and end up in the same place.
Would I go from point A to point B to point C before going for the ultimate goal of point D?...depends. If I have to break one of the 10 Commandments to get to B, probably not. If I have to fool the Dem opposition to get to point B...probably yes. If I have to compromise and take half a loaf now, fully intending to go for the other half later...maybe, depends on the compromise.
I don't believe taxes are a moral issue. Whether a country relies on private incentives or socialism supported by taxes or a lottery to provide medical care is not a moral question to me. These are matters of political philosophy and wisdom.
I happen to believe that socialism is a house build on cards and will fail as a system due to inherent flaws; but if it worked, I don't think I'd be against it. I believe in tax cuts because they work. I believe in sensibly regulated capitalism because it works. I believe in defending the country's borders because I am a patriot. I believe in the second ammendment because I believe it is the only thing that protects the Constitution and the U.S. from a coup. I never get these things confused with my religion.
I am against killing the innocent, because it is a commandment from God. That isn't a political philosophy for me, it is a religious and moral judgment. I believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the poor,and visiting the sick and those in prison because that is what Christ indicated was important to Him. Those beliefs are not a political philosophy for me, they are religious and moral duties.
Should governments be established to fulfill my religious and moral duties? If government takes care of everyone, does that absolve me from fulfilling my religious and moral duties? Doubt it.
If I can't get to everyone and people's needs are not being met, should I vote to involve the government in assisting me and my co-religionists in taking care of the poor? Politically speaking, I don't think that would work very well in the long run. Although some would be helped faster, there is the concern that when the needy do not thank God for the charity of others and think they are entitled to that charity, and get angry if it isn't as good as hoped, and demand that it be delivered at their convenience without any thanks except to thank politicians at the ballot box, and but not God or the taxpayers, then they are denied real blessings that can alter and improve their lives.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."
...and the wisdom to know the difference.
Aye, there's the rub....
So, let's discuss a specific Principle of yours and then I can let you know if I am craven enough to compromise it in the pragmatic pursuit of a political goal, and you can let me know what hellfire of RINOism awaits me if I do that.