An acronym often used by self-described conservatives discussing politics is RINO, meaning “Republican In Name Only.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t really communicate beyond that circle (“those who understand, will understand”). Those of RINO tendencies themselves may not even know that they are described by the term, and simply view it as a pejorative.

In fact, it is the most truthful and pithy four letters in politics. Although pejorative, of course, it assumes the correct point of view from which to view America: we are a bourgeois nation, and the political expression of the bourgeois is the Republican Party.

Republicans themselves do not view the world in terms of class conflict, making this simple observation difficult to articulate. The “bourgeoisie” as a “class” of society is a term and concept taught by Marxists and not Republicans, but can be used here because years of the Cold War have brought Marxism’s terms and concepts into popular culture. In classical communist theory, all that is important is the production and consumption of resources, and groups called classes engage in conflict over control of such. In Marx’s time and today, the bourgeois class, or shopkeepers, oppresses the proletariat class, or workers. The bourgeois took their upper place from the aristocracy; where the aristocrats survive, the bourgeois are instead the “middle class.” The advent of Communism is said to destroy the cycle of class conflict in the birth of the “New Communist Man” who will work without coercion or oppression. This is of course a religious cult (the reader may here insert appropriate observations on the advent of Obama the Blessed in connection with this cult). What is most useful for our purposes is the observation of the unifying nature of “bourgeois values” or Weber’s “protestant work ethic.”

Another way of discussing the “middle class” is to ignore Marxism altogether and instead use the techniques of modern sociology and statistics. The most important tool is the population distribution chart, which usually produces a “bell curve.” The dome of the bell is created by the bulk of society, those who are near the average in whatever metric is being measured. The flares on each side of the main bell are the outliers, those who are very far from average. Statisticians measure the distance between the outlier and the average in what are called “standard deviations” (the reader may here insert appropriate observations on deviancy). One chart might be of annual income; another might be of adherence to traditional values or “protestant work ethic.” The overlap of these two charts effectively identifies the American middle class.

The outliers of these charts are both the poor and the rich who do not value the wealth-creating virtues of diligent work, self-restraint, and marital fidelity. (That these virtues are in fact highly correlative of upward financial mobility has been proven by other statistical analyses.) These deviants either have nothing to lose, or too much money to ever end up on the street; they might be called the “undeserving poor” and the “undeserving rich,” respectively. The average American does try to adhere to these wealth-creating virtues, and does well enough by them.

Within one standard deviation, then, average Americans share values and economic expectations. The outliers are, to use pejorative language, welfare cases and limousine liberals, who share values with each other, but not the middle.  The rich never need to worry about money, but the nanny state means that the poor can also share these economic expectations. Obviously, the Democratic Party serves the outliers, while the Republican Party voices the view of the average American. The RINO, then, is a Republican voter who has, usually as a result of financial success, little or no attachment to those virtues which brought that success.

Sarah Palin has been a kind of Rorschach test, a political inkblot by whom commentators reveal themselves by what they read into her. Her broad acceptance by rank-and-file Republicans accords with the averages, and should not be at all surprising. Those appalled by the “caribou Barbie” reveal that they identify with the limousine crowd rather than ordinary Americans. To be sure, high aspirations and devotion to personal improvement are prized by the middle class; however, falling over the edge into elitism is proof of the Democrat, or the RINO.

It hurts both to read and to write political blogs after such a blow. However, last night was an anniversary, of sorts; my wife and I had our first date on Election Night, 1992. That was a politically painful night, too, but America survived. By the time we’d gotten to the party, there was little party spirit left. 1996 was Doleful, too.

Looking back, we’re also old enough to remember the Carter administration. The 2008 election has been an eerie replay of the 1976 election, hasn’t it? Palm Springs was once a small town, so my wife and I went to the same church and preschool, and were even delivered by the same substitute doctor. My wife’s birthday is on Inauguration Day, and we watched Carter’s inauguration on television in preschool.  This gave me my first impression of bias in the news. Really! I thought that it was unfair that everyone was happy for Mr. Carter but not sad for Mr. Ford.

Carter’s claim to fame was as a peanut farmer and a speechmaker. Later on in the Carter years, my mother tried to explain stagflation (the inflationary recession) with the oil shortage and the wage-price spiral; I didn’t buy it then, either. Bad monetary, tax, trade, and energy policies had a little more to do with it. I don’t remember thinking in 1980 that it might be unfair for people to be happy for Mr. Reagan but not sad for Mr. Carter; the Iranian hostage crisis probably colored my view.

So now Ahmenijad, hostage taker, is president of Iran while Obama, speechmaker, has been elected president of the United States. While this seems like a bad Hollywood sequel, we have reason for hope, because we know how the movie ends: America did survive Carter. We survived Clinton, too, though his policies led to the attacks of November 11, 2001. It will hurt, but America will survive this Democratic president, with people still falling in love, and getting married, and having anniversaries.

Saturday night I got the world’s most effective political call from former Palm Springs police chief Gary Jeandron, running for California State Assembly District 80. I almost hesitate to reveal such a simple and effective secret, because it could easily become overdone and irritating. It doesn’t matter that I was already planning to hold my nose and vote for him, only to vote against party hack Manuel Perez. I now absolutely have to vote for Jeandron!

What happened? The telephone rang: “This is Gary Jeandron, with an important message.” Vote for Gary? Learn how horrible Perez is? Help save California from a 2/3 lock on the state assembly? (This is in fact a danger if Jeandron loses, threatening the whole state.) ACORN has been spotted handing out ballots to the illegal immigrants in the fields? No.

“Please remember to set your clocks back one hour for Daylight Savings Time tonight.”