by Dr. Ed Berry
Hey, all pioneers take arrows, so I am not going to fault Roger for making a good first try.
Here, I will show you exactly why TAB scores fail to define a true Republican. Then I will show you the real definition of a true Republican and who discovered it.
TAB scores have caused problems.
TAB score’s inaccurate definition of a true Republican has led some self-proclaimed, rightwing “freedom heroes” to call “RINOs” any Republicans they disagree with on any issue. This is, of course, irrational.
Self-appointed RINO hunters associate “RINO” or “Republican-In-Name-Only” with Republicans whose TAB score is less than 33 percent.
The truth is these self-proclaimed “freedom heroes” are further left than the Republicans they call RINOs … because they do not understand the proper definition of a true Republican.
Just what are TAB scores? Koopman explains:
In developing our TAB reports, we ask one fundamental question in all cases: Does this bill increase or decrease the presence of government in our lives? The resulting analysis of legislator voting habits is the most thorough and objective conservative “scorecard” available to Montana citizens.
A comment on PolyMontana claims a TAB score of 100 means voting 100 percent for our Constitution and zero means voting totally against our Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
TAB scores do a good job of defining a good Democrat but that does not mean they do a good job of defining a good Republican. Surely there are bills that both Democrats and Republicans should rightfully support or reject. Yet TAB scores require a Republican to always vote against the Democrats in order for the Republican to get a good score. TAB scores allow no overlap. TAB scores are therefore unrealistic.
Koopman’s TAB scores define true Republicans as those who always vote to “decrease the presence of government in our lives.” While Koopman’s definition may be a good start, it is not the correct definition of a true Republican.
The correct definition of a true Republican
A Republican works to build up America. A Democrat works to tear down America.
“Build up” and “tear down” have very clear definitions not only in our everyday language but also in physics and engineering:
The “build up” versus “tear down” definition relates to the concept of entropy in physics and its inverse, information theory, in engineering. Read the 1948 classic book “Cybernetics” by MIT mathematics professor Norbert Wiener that formulated the basis for information transfer on our Internet.
Inadvertently perhaps, unless D’Souza studied physics, D’Souza discovered the “entropy” definition of a true Republican. The goal is to reduce entropy.
Here’s a simple view of “build up” and “tear down”.
When you organize stuff or information, build a house, create useful software or products, grow a garden, build a sand castle, or clean your house, you “build up” something (decrease entropy).
When you burn down a house, destroy useful software or a product, pour poison on a garden, smash a sand castle, or mess up your house, you “tear down” something (increase entropy).
Koopman’s definition misses the mark because the simple act to “decrease the presence of government in our lives” may work to either “build up” or “tear down” America, Montana, and your life.
There are worthwhile government expenses and power over our lives. This, after all, is why we created government.
For example, do we want to dismiss our military, our border patrol, our fire fighters, our sheriff and police so we can “decrease the presence of government in our lives”? Do we want to let anyone walk across our borders?
But TAB scores require we shut down most of government so we can get a good score.
Was our space program a good expenditure of money? Obviously, yes.
Was Johnson’s War on Poverty a good expenditure of money? Obviously, no.
Koopman’s definition fails and it causes a distortion of Republican politics.
We can create wealth out of nothing but our hard work.
D’Souza shows Obama’s Democrats incorrectly believe we cannot create wealth except by “stealing” it from others. They believe planet Earth was endowed with a fixed supply of wealth. Therefore, they conclude America stole all its wealth from others. As a consequence, Obama’s Democrats believe it is their duty to “tear down” America because America deserves to be torn down.
Isn’t it strange that Obama’s Democrats think they are so ethical when they are so wrong and do so much damage?
Isn’t it equally strange that rightwing radicals also think they are so ethical when they are so wrong and do so much damage?
By contrast, Republicans correctly believe we can create wealth without stealing anything from others. We do it with our ingenuity and hard work. Not only common sense but also physics and engineering prove Republicans are correct and Democrats are wrong. This also proves Republicans are good and Democrats are bad.
Yet rightwing radicals claim there is no fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. These radicals are absolute morons because they do not understand or care that their works “tear down” America.
Who’s a RINO and who’s worse than a RINO?
TAB scores don’t answer this question. The definition of a true Republican does.
Republicans work to build up America and support our ability to create wealth from nothing. In this proper context, who’s a RINO and who’s worse than a RINO?
Republicans whom RINO hunters call “RINOs”, vote Republican. By contrast RINO hunters who do not support Republican candidates duly nominated in our primary elections help elect Democrats. Therefore, these RINO hunters are worse than those they call RINOs. Shall I name names?
The ultimate in rightwing radical stupidity was their recent action of the Flathead County Republican Central Committee (FCRCC), which they now control, wherein they voted to “censure” Senator Bruce Tutvedt by (a) claiming he illegally accepted campaign money, which he did not, and (b) holding a kangaroo court trial without even notifying Tutvedt so he could attend and defend himself against his accusers. And these people believe they speak for truth and freedom?
Sandy Welch wrote two excellent articles that explain to any common sense person how the FCRCC action was wrong and irrational. Sandy’s second article is a thorough rebuttal of Jim White’s article. Yet the self-proclaimed “freedom fighters” rally in support of the FCRCC’s action.
Use the proper definition of a true Republican.
True Republicans build up America, and their states and counties. Sometimes this requires spending your tax dollars and sometimes it does not. Sometimes the issues are complex and cannot be summarized in a sound bite.
A good example is the northwest Montana water compact. It is complex. Tutvedt supports the compact. Rightwing radicals do not. That does not make Tutvedt a RINO. Maybe Tutvedt is right.
I have no position on the water compact because, frankly, at this time I do not understand it well enough. But I must say those who oppose the compact have not made their case.
The alarmist case against the water compact is as irrational as the alarmist case against carbon dioxide. Yet, the rightwing radicals rally in opposition to the water compact as if they were experts on the subject, which they clearly are not.
Calling water compact supporters “RINOs” does not make their case. Claiming the water compact is a plan by the feds to move people out of Flathead County does not make their case. Speeches by people who believe the feds are poisoning us with “chem-trails” are not convincing. Alarmism makes no case for anything.
So while I wait for those who oppose the water compact to produce a valid explanation of why we should reject it, let’s all start using the true and proper definition of a Republican and stop using attack words like “RINO” when we disagree with a Republican.