The most foundational – and suicidal – element of radical conservative political ideology is its absolutist approach to what it accepts as good and right and pure policies for the country's future.  Unfortunately, the inescapable truth is that this is rarely, if ever, achievable in the real world.  As applied to the presidential race of 2016, we have witnessed the accolytes of this naïve ideology spouting their vitriol while engaging in acts of political suicide to prove the sincerity and depth of their beliefs.

The unfortunate reality is that these proponents of this approach to conservatism will be calling either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton by the moniker “President” in roughly three months.  This is an inescapable truth, and their beliefs, preferences, and gut full of fire and vinegar will not change this truth, no matter how sincere they may be.

Whatever their disappointment with Trump and however they formulate their ideas into a call to action, one of these two candidates will be our next President.  And that begs a simple question:  If they love their country and their values as they say they do, then why does it seem they have given no thought to the outcome which would most contribute to the long-term preservation and furtherance of those ideals?

The single element in play that will most affect the course of our nation for decades is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is comprised of Justices with lifetime appointments.  A quick analysis of the current composition is appropriate here.

Sotomayor and Kagan are young and aren’t going anywhere.  Ditto for Roberts and Alito.  So the only potential appointment a “true conservative” President could make four years from now (presuming a one-term Clinton presidency) would be to replace Justice Thomas, who is already a staunch conservative, equaling no net change in the Court’s ideological makeup.

By contrast, Kennedy will very likely retire in the next couple of years, as will Ginsburg and Breyer, and Scalia’s seat is already empty and waiting to be filled.  What this means should be obvious:  starting in 2017 or 2018 at the latest, a President Hillary Clinton would have the opportunity to fill at least three, if not four, seats on the Court, giving it a 6-3 liberal majority that would remain intact for at least 30 years.

Even a novice student of politics and policy can remember the outcome of the Warren Court in the 1950's and 1960’s.  That particularly liberal Court lasted for only 16 years, but the amount of damage it did to the conservative, Judeo-Christian foundations and norms of American society is largely still intact today.  And that was in only 16 years.  Now please double that, and that is the likely tenure of the Court that would begin its 6-3 liberal tenure under Mrs. Clinton.

Thus, even if "true" conservatives got their wish and our nation had only four years under Mrs. Clinton, the die would have already been cast for decades.

Given these realities as to the demographics of the Justices on the Court today, the next four years in our nation is quite literally a fork in the road.  So we must ask ourselves which outcome is better for the long-term interests of conservative ideology and, by derivation, of our nation.  In Trump, we have an admittedly flawed and often very embarrassing man who nonetheless has vowed to appoint conservative Justices to the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution faithfully.  In Clinton, we have a candidate who has openly and repeatedly stated that she will appoint Justices who stand for everything conservatives are supposedly against.

At this point, many within this ideologically "purist" group might retort, “you have no idea what types of Justices Mr. Trump would appoint!  He could well be lying!”  Yes, that is true.  But knowing for a fact who Mr. Trump might appoint (or, for that matter, who Mrs. Clinton would appoint) is a luxury no one is afforded.  And that means that we must take each of them at their word and presume that, even if they only achieved a watered-down version of their preferences, the framework for what type of Justice they said they would seek would be similar to the outcome.

In terms of free speech, the only reason we can still speak with a modicum of freedom is because conservatives in general – and conservative Supreme Court Justices in particular – have managed to keep the muzzling effects of political correctness at bay.  Change the equation such that the Court has a 6-3 liberal majority, and all manner of speech that is now considered “protected by the First Amendment” will instead be labeled as “hate speech,” punishable by extended prison sentences.  Those who doubt this need look no further than Canada and many nations throughout Europe, where those who speak in a way that others label "offensive" or "hatemongering" are prosecuted, and very often imprisoned.

Though Mr. Trump's words have in fact often been offensive and very ill-considered, to put it mildly, he has apologized for those words of eleven years ago and has also directly denied the accusations of the women dredged up to accuse him at the eleventh hour of the campaign.  And, though words can indeed be harmful and painful to many who hear them, this harm and pain are nothing in comparison to the wide scale loss of what freedoms we have remaining.  People who believe that laws and Supreme Court rulings of this nature will only affect "bad people" need to spend some time researching world history.

Those who choose to take it upon themselves to use their vote to prove that Donald Trump is absolutely opposed to everything they believe do nothing to expunge the reality that either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton will be our next President, and the values of the Justices they appoint in their first term in office will be imbued across our nation for decades to come via the Supreme Court rulings that address literally every aspect of daily life.  Moreover, their assertions of their purity are not entirely accurate, either.  While calling themselves "true conservatives" because they supported a different candidate, they often say that Mr. Trump is absolutely opposed to everything they believe.

But that extremism of thought (and word) belies the emotionalism that they have allowed to take control of their rationality.  Are we to believe that Trump is opposed to literally everything conservatives believe...every last scrap?  Trump has not made one comment nor expounded one belief or principle or idea that in any way aligns with broadly-held conservative beliefs and values?  Well, ok, if they say so.  But what they cannot say is that conservative icon Ronald Reagan would be proud.  Rather, they would do well to re-read what Reagan wrote in his autobiography, “An American Life,” on the topic:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.  “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today.  They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once.  If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for.  And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933:  “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat.  What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

These conservatives may not want to align themselves with many of Donald Trump's obvious shortcomings or inconsistencies, and I believe them when they say that their beliefs and values are sincerely-held.  Unfortunately, in this election, they do not have the luxury of voting based upon an ideology of 100% purity.  As Reagan noted, they might have to live with someone who gives them 75% of what they want.  At this point, even if they got 50% of what they want, it would be worlds better than what they will be given under a Clinton presidency.

By refusing to take the best that can be achieved, and then "fight for the rest later," conservatives of this radical ideological bent are guaranteeing theat they will receive 100% of what they do not want.  The net outcome of that foolish and short-sighted choice is that they will be forced to watch their values and beliefs be sacrificed on the altar of their non-negotiable preferences and demands, and they will be powerless to do anything about it.

Perhaps that is what they feel their faith and their belief system demands that they do, but political pragmatism and realities are rarely addressed through an ideology that amounts to suicide.