EDITORIAL - Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia recently bid final adieu to the GOP, and joined the Libertarian Party. His reason? "In terms of where the country needs to be going to get back to our constitutional roots," said Barr, "I've come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is to work with a party that practices what it preaches, and that is the Libertarian Party." Fallout was sure to ensue.

Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett, in a column published on December 19, excoriated Barr for his party-switching antics. Generally speaking, Bartlett presented the idea that third parties actually hamper, rather than strengthen, the spread of their respective ideologies in the mainstream political arena. As he states,

The result has been that libertarian-leaning activists have been drawn away from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party by the Libertarian Party, leaving the major parties with fewer libertarians. In other words, both major parties have fewer libertarians than they would without the Libertarian Party, meaning that the net result of the party has been to make our government less libertarian than it would otherwise be.

Bartlett goes on to explain that if these disgruntled libertarians would just get over themselves and work with the major parties, then real and viable change would be possible.

The logic is tempting, but it does not hold. Case in point: me.

I am a registered member of the Republican Party, in whose primaries I regularly vote for the more conservative candidates. By writing op-eds, talking to friends and family, making calls, canvassing door-to-door, writing my public officials, and partnering with conservative GOP-related organizations, I do everything I personally can to further conservatism within the GOP.

But despite my valiant efforts, the Republican Party tiptoes away from me each day. The GOP endorses the Arlen Specters over the Pat Toomeys. Likewise, it opts for the Lincoln Chafees over the Stephen Laffeys. The GOP seems to have forsaken its founding principles in the name of monumental deficits, a bellicose foreign policy, and an emasculated immigration plan.

And now, my party touts invertebrates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain as presidential contenders.

What am I to assume? My efforts are for naught. The party doesn't want me. As a result, I am transformed into one of two things — a political invalid, choosing not to partake in the process, or a political vagabond, ever-searching for a political home where my presence is appreciated and my efforts worthwhile.

The story is not limited to myself; I know of countless folks who wallow in the same dark pit. Shall we settle for the lesser of two evils? Or shall we go out on a limb, do the unpopular thing, and vote third party?

Shall we put principle ahead of pragmatism? I believe so. Some of America's brightest — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and King among them — did. And look what they wrought. Is third party involvement and voting a waste, as Bartlett implies? I think not. For a citizen in the world's freest, most advanced, most prosperous country to have to choose between the lesser of two evils — that, dear reader, is a waste.

With that said, I'm not necessarily advocating a third party vote on every occasion, but only when both Democrats and Republicans fail to deliver on the important issues. It's simple logic — reward the Republicans when they run a conservative, and punish them when they don't.

When listing his reasons not to vote third party, Bartlett comments that "to the extent that third parties exist, they invariably hurt the party closest to them ideologically." But lo, is this not the perfect reason to vote third party? For only when we show the major parties that our support must be earned — not idly expected — will they do their utmost to reconnect with their base.

But until that fateful day, let us give our support to the earners — not the expecters — courageously, confidently, and wholeheartedly.