Understanding the war on "RINOs"

At the South Dakota War College, Pat Powers highlights a quote from state Rep. Steve Hickey criticizing Rep. Stace Nelson:

... I don't get how Stace and those here can work so easily with Dems but not with moderate Republicans. He's got 20% in common with them and 80% in common with us. How could it possibly be true he "represents his constituents" when the moderate ones are vilified.

Here's my unsubstantiated thoughts, from observing the battle inside the Republican Party for years:

When conservative "purists" attack center-right "pragmatists" for their alleged moderation or liberalism, what truly incenses them isn't actually the policy position that's under debate or discussion. Instead, the crux of the anger is over the perception that the moderate Republican is being dishonest. A given lawmaker is taking a liberal position on an issue, they say, but yet still claiming to be a conservative! Democrats may have the wrong positions on almost all the issues, the argument runs, but at least they're honest about it.

This is encapsulated in the epithet of choice for moderate Republicans: Republican In Name Only, or RINO. Calling someone a RINO doesn't actually say anything about whether they're liberal, conservative or moderate. What it says is that they are claiming a title that they don't deserve.

Earlier I referred in passing to the conservative faction inside the Republican Party being the "purists," an incisive summary of the movement's priorities. Conservative purists often believe that a silent majority of voters agree with their hard-right positions, and that the only thing preventing them from carrying the day is that voters are being hoodwinked by dishonest Republicans who win their votes and then betray those conservative principles once in office. No wonder they can seem unconcerned with Democrats — the first and most important step for conservatism to triumph, in this reasoning, is for the Republican Party to be purified of traitors so the silent majority can be heard. Once this silent majority is being heard, their numbers and the rightness of their cause will carry the day against the Democrats — or, in a less dramatic assertion, the battle against the open opposition isn't the priority until the battle against the hidden opposition is won.

Now, according to political science research, this "silent majority" theory appears to not be true. In February, conservative researcher Henry Olsen wrote:

REPUBLICAN VOTERS fall into four rough camps. They are: moderate or liberal voters; somewhat conservative voters; very conservative, evangelical voters; and very conservative, secular voters. Each of these groups supports extremely different types of candidates. Each of these groups has also demonstrated stable preferences over the past twenty years.

Based on polling data, Olsen said moderate or liberal Republicans comprise around 25 to 30 percent of the electorate. "Somewhat conservative" Republicans are 35 to 40 percent of the electorate. Evangelicals are around 20 percent, while the very conservative secular votes are 5 to 10 percent.

Read his full and fascinating article here.