Conservatives are at a crossroads, poised to do one of two things. We will take back our country and restore the values and policies that have made us great; or we will blow that historic obligation out of our own sense of hubris. One of the most devastating mistakes made by the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats has been to misread their electoral victory as a mandate to implement their leftwing ideological agenda. Voters might have been angry at the Bush Administration, worried about the failing economy, or personally attracted to Candidate Barack Obama; but they did not sign up to transform the United States into France. Similarly, voters today might be angry at Obama’s broken promises or ineffectiveness, far left policies and administration personnel, or worried about the failing economy; but that does not mean that they have signed up for this country to take a hard right turn. It has become a truism to say that we are a Center-Right nation; which means neither ideologically Left nor ideologically Right.

A particularly irksome manifestation of this hubris for many conservatives is the seemingly indiscriminate cat call, “RINO.” While the acronym stands for “Republican in name only,” it means for many conservatives, “Republicans who don’t agree with me.” Tea Partiers and others have done this nation a great service by fearlessly calling out those actions and individuals that are moving the United States away from its essential values; and in doing so, they also have given those values their rightful place again in public debates over our country’s direction. Yet, many of them have forgotten the words of perhaps the most revered—and most successful—conservative Republicans of our age. In 1972, then Governor Ronald Reagan famously said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” Or would those people who so glibly scream RINO today use it on Reagan himself? After all, non-military federal spending grew under Reagan; and during his presidency, the United States went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to its largest debtor nation. The conservative lion who waged war on the growth of the federal government enlarged it. What about Richard Nixon? Did he lose his cold warrior credentials when he opened relations with Communist China and cast aside the Nationalists? This same Republican president also imposed government wage and price controls, something more at home from a President Obama. Another conservative icon, Jack Kemp, actively lobbied for the 2006 attempt at “comprehensive immigration reform” that most conservatives opposed passionately.  And if what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, we might call John F. Kennedy a DINO, because he won the presidency by promising and then implementing tax cuts to stimulate the economy and increased defense spending to close the “missile gap” with the Soviets.

Even today, we can find divergent positions among our conservative heroes. Governor Sarah Palin, for instance, once vetoed a bill passed by the Alaskan legislature that would have denied benefits to gay partners of state employees. As governor, she sought a quarter billion dollars in earmarks and made sure her hometown of Wasilla (with only 6700 people) got $27 million of it.   She called global warming a “challenge,” and empanelled a Climate Change Sub-Cabinet at Alaskans’ expense. Governor Mike Huckabee pardoned ten times the number of criminals, including violent ones, than did previous Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. He favors a cap and trade bill, supported a “conservation tax,” for Arkansas, and supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, saying they give more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

The point is not to tarnish the credentials of our conservative heroes. It is clear, however, that those who use the R-word will find themselves disappointed if they are consistent in their demands for ideological purity. More to the point, however, demands for ideological purity are more at home in the old Soviet Union, Communist China, and Islamist Iran than in the United States of America. It also has brought nothing but disaster for conservatives. For instance, the last time we had a populist running for President who espoused largely conservative values, we ended up with eight years of Bill Clinton. The late Barry Goldwater is acknowledged to be a man of vision who was ahead of his time. Yet, the conservative purity that made him the 1964 Republican presidential nominee—and catcalled Nelson Rockefeller off the convention podium—rewarded us with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and its huge government programs that are still picking our pockets.

The fact is that in 2010, all Americans have clear choices. If, for instance, Charlie Christ defeats Marco Rubio for Florida’s Senate nomination, will ideological conservative support him or keep the seat in Democratic hands? Conservative Patrick Hughes challenged Mark Kirk for the US Senate nomination in Illinois. He lost. Kirk is no RINO. He repudiated his cap and trade vote, vowing to vote against the measure in the Senate, and consistently supports fiscally conservative bills. He is a foreign policy and security hawk; and is the first US Congressman since World War II to serve in forward combat areas, having just returned from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Kirk has a real chance to take the seemingly forever blue Illinois Senate seat, and conservatives can help make that happen. If they do not, the result will strengthen the Obama agenda with an Illinois senator who is an Obama protégé that will vote in favor of every Obama measure proposed. Count on it.

The events over the past year have placed the destiny of our country in our hands. Will we rise to the occasion or blow it?