My least favorite pejorative in the entire known universe is also the most common among conservatives – the term “RINO”.

For those of you sufficiently out of the loop enough to not know what that means, it is an acronym for “Republican In Name Only” – or a politician who claims the mantle of conservatism, but in actuality shares little in common with the people with which he or she associates.

The reason I loathe it so much (besides being called it myself hundreds of times for rather nonsensical reasons) is rather simple.

First, it is not applied universally with the same standard – Scott Brown may very well be to the left of Olympia Snowe, for example, but is now a conservative cult hero.

Second, the people who toss that term around tend to associate what is considered “conservatism” today with what conservatism has always been.  These people use icons like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as their standard when making these accusations, without understanding how radically different those men and their political outlooks were from the state of today’s conservative movement.

In other words, what a Republican is in 2010 is not the same as what a Republican was in 2000, which is not the same as what a Republican was in 1990, which is not the same as what a Republican was in 1980, and so on and so forth.  On virtually any political position – even the sacred cows of government spending and taxes – you can find a high profile hero of the conservative movement who advocated for RINO principles.

Don’t believe me?  The Republican Party was born in the 1850s not only in opposition to slavery, but held a strong belief in modernization of the country’s infrastructure by spending huge amounts of money on roads and industrial capacity.  Abraham Lincoln was the first president to institute an income tax.  Barry Goldwater was pro-choice and was in favor of gay rights.  Ronald Reagan gifted America with its first out of control deficits, and couldn’t care less about social conservatism for the most part.

The Republican Party in the last 50-60 years has radically changed from what could be considered a quasi-libertarian political grouping, to what is today a party that puts a huge emphasis on the power of the state, particularly in terms of social activism as well as anti-terrorism tactics.  The conservatives of 2010 – to me – look an awful lot like the Kennedy Johnson Democrats of the 1960s (which is not a coincidence, if you track where the “neoconservatives” actually came from).

Which is just to say that labeling somebody as “not a real Republican” by hurling the RINO tag at them, I find offensive and incredibly annoying.  I don’t believe it is possible to be a “real Republican”, because what a “real Republican” actually is changes so often that is is impossible to maintain a consistent standard.  Just look at the anti-war, anti-Iraq invasion, anti-nation building, anti-use of force anywhere in the world Republicans of the mid to late 1990s, and compare it to only a few years later after the events of 9/11.  Changes in opinion within a party have more to do with who is in power and what they do, than anything else.

And this brings me to gubernatorial candidate Steve Abbott.  In the brief time after his announcement, I have seen more RINO-bombs thrown his way than at any other candidate, including some candidates who are widely considered “moderates” or even “liberals”, such as Peter Mills and Les Otten.  The reason for this budding revolt of the right wing against a perceived pretender to the movement?  Association with Senator Susan Collins, and virtually nothing else.

I have made it clear I am not going to be endorsing any one Republican over another in this rather messy free for all primary – so the following should not be considered as such.  I simply want to turn the narrative to a productive conversation, which is not currently happening.

So what is the arch-conservative case against Steve Abbott?  It is apparently, two fold.

First, he served for roughly 1/3 of his life as the inner most confidant of Senator Collins, who is widely (and incorrectly) labeled a RINO by the  conservative base both in Maine and nationally.  This association has lead most Republicans to assume that his views on issues are identical to hers, and that were he elected, he would pursue a similar “bipartisan” “pragmatic” path.

Second, Abbott has not articulated any of his views in any real, concrete sense – and so he must be guided by nothing more than his own ambition to power, and nothing else.

I can not speak for Mr. Abbott, because to be perfectly honest, I do not know his stances on issues outside of the minor hints I have been able to gleam from the conversations I have had with him.  But I most certainly can blow a hole in the aforementioned logic, which is apparently causing several grassroots activists to discount him.

Now, the idea that working for somebody – especially for a long time – means you are in lockstep with their political views, is nonsense.  Abbott’s critics often point to the fact that Senator Collins herself has said that she rarely makes a decision without consulting Abbott as proof that he is the soul-less engineer of what they consider her betrayals to the movement (nevermind her voting for both Bush tax cuts, for authorization of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, her support for the Patriot Act, and the host of other conservative pet causes she has been a part of – but I digress).

This is, of course, far off base.  Consultation does not mean deferring to his opinion, and working for somebody does not mean agreement with their entire agenda.

I can use my own participation in politics as an example.  In the past, I have worked with a number of candidates and organizations that were not exactly a positive match for my own personal beliefs (as stated before, I am of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party) – yet my own belief in incrementalism, and the necessity of moving the needle in the direction I want has caused me to swollow many of those differences, and focus on the things that I do in fact agree with.

I have worked with extreme social conservatives, big government Republicans, and outright liberal advocacy groups – yet I can tell you for absolute certain, that were I ever to dip my toes in the electoral pool again, my own beliefs and my own political idealism would be what guided my campaign, and hopefully my time in office – not the thoughts and feelings of who I used to work for, or with.

In short, working in the system hasn’t changed my opinions (indeed, it has often hardened them), and my association with people I disagree with does not mean I would govern like they would, were I in office.  This is a common problem for people who work in politics when they decide to try out things themselves – but it is an unfair criticism.

As to the complaint that he has not articulated his positions, thus he must be hiding from issues and running on biography – to that I can only laugh.

This, my friends, is a very long campaign, and if you think by the time June roles around you will not have heard Abbott’s – and everyone else’s – positions on issues ad nauseum, you have another thing coming.  Abbott is simply taking the early stages of the campaign to introduce himself personally, and then as March-April-June roles around and debates and commercials start firing on all cylinders, trust me,  you’ll know exactly who he is, ideologically.  It is his chosen campaign strategy, and there is nothing wrong with it.  When you go into the voting booth in June, you will not be guessing where any of these candidates stand.

Steve Abbott may very will be an exact clone of Senator Collins – at this point we simply do not know.

But, give the man a chance to tell you who he is and what he believes.  You may find that he is more conservative than Paul LePage, or more “moderate” than Peter Mills.  Do not take his association with another elected official to mean anything (remember, Ronald Reagan was crazy for FDR and Truman, and worked hard for their election), other than what it is – a working relationship with somebody he obviously respects and supports, and one which has kept Democrats from an extra caucus vote in the Senate for fourteen years now.

As I said, I am not endorsing him, or even asking you to care about him as a candidate – indeed I have repeatedly been accused (again, incorrectly) of favoring other candidates.  All I am calling for here is that in this primary, you take each individual, including Abbott, for who he is and what he believes, and stop the nonsensical guilt by association nonsense which has plagued this conversation up to this point.

End of communication.

Popularity: 4% [?]