Values or victory? That is the question. Do we want politicians who will surely win, or do we want to elect the candidate most solidly representing constitutional principles and guaranteeing greater liberty to the American people? The past few election cycles have shown that the two seldom truly coincide, and so we are left with a choice between picking a winner and picking the person least likely to betray solid principles.

As Rob Long of Ricochet.com and National Review wrote earlier today, the problem with the past few decades is that voters “keep nominating and electing squishy non-conservative go-alongers, who wind up in the House or Senate and compromise away the core ideas of their supporters: smaller government, lower taxes, leaner regulatory structures, and common-sense values.” I think we can all agree with that statement.

However, the growing controversy lies in the solution to the problem of “non-conservative go-alongers.” The two sides to this argument go basically as follows: either we vote uncompromisingly for the person who has the best values but maybe not the best experience or record, or we vote for the person most likely to win, while potentially compromising some assurance of stalwart conservatism.

Following yesterday’s victory by Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, the battle lines are quickly and starkly being drawn. The most vocal opponent of O’Donnell’s candidacy by far has been long-time Republican strategist and accomplished political architect Karl Rove. He has been widely criticized by the Tea Party for his comments asserting that O’Donnell’s “bizarre statements” and “checkered background” make her race unwinnable. Similarly, Rob Long opined today that “If Republicans are ever going to take back the Senate, they’re going to have to do it with some squishy RINOs on the team…It’s as simple as that.” The Republican establishment seems to agree. The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s salutation of O’Donnell’s victory lasted all of one sentence. On the other hand, endorsements by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, and others show that O’Donnell has plenty of supporters in the Tea Party as well.

Now, with the nominations of Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and now Christine O’Donnell, the murmur has been growing louder. Is this what incumbents want? Does Harry Reid want to run against Angle? Many have said yes. One commentator called O’Donnell’s victory a scene from “Harry Reid’s dream journal.” Why?

It’s because truly conservative candidates from the grassroots tend to be less electable by traditional standards. Many voters are intimidated by candidates who do not compromise on principle, for better or worse. This brings us back to the question at the top of this post. In cases where the two do not coincide, do we vote for winners, or do we vote purely based on values? This question is largely moot at this point in the election season, but it can also be an important gut-check for our voting consciences.

Policy is made by the politician who wins the race, and there is no denying that. So the question becomes, is an election purely a matter of conscience, or is it a choice between the lesser of two evils? The Tea Party would answer the former, and the strategic among you would answer the latter. Your answer could very well determine the outcome of the referendum in November and in years to come.