The term "RINO," a brilliant acronym used for a "Republican in name only" who consorts with the much-maligned Democrat Party, has achieved meteoric heights of popularity as of late within the GOP as the party continues to tear itself limb-from-limb and endanger those upon whom the title falls. The irony of this seemingly reflexive slur is that its meaning is lost in its ubiquity. The reasons to write any of these Republicans off as a disingenuous representation of the party ranges from the "eh, maybe" to as downright ludicrous as any accusation made in this tumultuous primary.

This term is not new, however. In fact, The Washington Post has astutely pointed out that this has been extant since 1881.

Exactly what kind of contribution has this kind of rhetoric provided to the decline of the Republican party? Well, that is fairly simple. Conservative Review would classify by anyone who satisfies any of their eight criteria, including anyone who forewarns Americans of failed liberal policies, "meet too" Republicans that adopt liberal policies with a conservative twist, and "politics over principle" governance. As of late, however, the popular use could not reflect this concept any better than a Rachel Ray cookbook could. Any Republican leader that is willing to work with the Democrats in Congress or the Executive Office in order to alleviate legislative stagnation (ie. John Boehner & Paul Ryan) immediately falls into that category. Any executive (prospective or incumbent) that understands that there is an overwhelming wealth of intellectual diversity that permeates through the political sphere and deserves respect, regardless of ideological standpoint, is immediately labeled as such (ie. John Kasich & Mitt Romney). Or, quite simply, a Republican that doesn't like your, self-perscribed Republican (ie. this entire friggin' election). As one brilliant scholar wrote of Kasich's maintained presence in the race:

Ah, yes, he managed to incorporate another one of those delicious, perfidious slanders that has garnered equivalent status. The "establishment" vs. "outsiders." Washington vs. The People. Son of Krypton vs. Bat of Gotham. Indeed, darn that pesky establishment. Who do they think they are with their resumés, degrees, accolades, and elected positions? They would never be able to adequately and informedly vet a more qualified candidate within their power than mob rule could. Surely they've spent so much time doing the thing they spent their entire education building up to with little avail that it all must be exclusively their fault! Well, not exactly so. Though it is unquestionable that our Congress and President have failed us in numerous areas of import, it is, in many ways, the fault of the electorate at all levels as well. The incapacity to value politics and discussion over principle is actually more conducive to the same failed politics that have caused political stagnation. This is why we see things like this:

The solution is not to bring in some political "outsider" who has unachievable, fiscally detrimental policies, does not get along with contemporaries, or just has no policies or background or intellect at all, but instead to elect someone who can unify this vast wealth of intellectual diversity under the Banner of Freedom. It is objectively accurate to state that during the Obama presidency, Congress and the Nation have become more politically divided. During this period, it is furthermore objectively accurate to state that in contemporary, egocentric times there is an incapacity for the lay people and the exalted ones to admit that policy is completely predicated on subjective viewpoints. Even the most seemingly empirical of policies, economic policy, is subject to the ignorance of some data and studies and the adoption of others. This has resulted in a deep-seeded pride that prohibits the acknowledgement of any fallibility in one's credences. To the atheist, the faithful is myopic. To the liberal, the conservative lacks empathy. To me, you're all prideful and unrelenting in your capacity for close-minded ignorance, but I could and hope to be wrong.

That final thought is the one that counts the most.

I conclude this diatribe with a final sentiment: Republicans, you have lost your way. As one of you for many years, I have witnessed you stray from the invaluable principles of limited government, expansive economic and individual freedom, and fiscal responsibility. Eliminating tax codes and certain government programs is not a sufficient compromise for the innumerable expansions you seem to propose. It begs the question of who the real RINOs are and who the endangered species really is.