And I might as well square this away right now: I support the Tea Party movement. In fact, I’ve been an avid supporter of the entire concept since its earliest days, when it was known by the Twitter hashtag used by the group of online activists who spawned it: #dontgo.

At one point, I even drafted a basic statement of principles to be used in promoting the movement to the media and (as I understood it at the time) staffers on the Hill. How much use it ever got, I have no way of knowing. Just as I was getting deeply involved, I found a job that limited the amount of time I was able to dedicate to activism. But, I still have a copy of the original document dated November 11, 2008. So, anyone who labels me a Johnny Come Lately to the cause is mistaken.

Now, let’s get to the nub, where I get around to saying a few things that some may not like, and I suspect the majority of those who read this won’t. Go ahead with the histrionics and name calling. At least I will have had my say.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve repeatedly been called upon to defend my conservative credentials. It isn’t the first time I’ve found myself out of step with fellow conservatives. And that’s fine. It’s part of the price of doing your own thinking.

But, this most recent tussle with my ideological kin is different. Where normally I relish intellectual parry and thrust, this time I find myself repulsed at the thought of trying to engage in reasoned debate with some of them. Frankly, the experience of merely reading, let alone responding to, some of the bilge being pumped out by people I once admired and respected has been bowel-roiling.

About a week prior to the Delaware primary, the race between Rep. Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell suddenly started gaining more attention from bloggers and pundits on the Right. What had been taken for granted as a shoo-in for Castle had become a much closer contest than expected. Consequently, discussion between partisans for either side grew more contentious, and people who had up until then been only vaguely aware of the race began choosing sides. I chose Castle’s.

Admittedly, I didn’t know as much about his opponent at the time as I do now. And, so far I haven’t heard anything to about Christine O’Donnell that would persuade me otherwise. In fact, nearly everything I’ve heard since the election has only solidified my opinion. Still, I understand the viewpoint of those who feel otherwise, and understand that while their conclusion differs from mine, it’s a respectable one, and doesn’t necessarily reflect negatively on them

Unfortunately, not everyone who came to that conclusion did so admirably. To the contrary, some have behaved in ways worthy of rebuke from any conservative who believes it best to assume good faith from fellow right wingers, even when they profoundly disagree with them.

Regrettably, some prominent conservatives have seen fit to appoint themselves enforcers of political rectitude. Not content to present facts in support of their position and forcefully advocate for it, these ostensible leading lights apparently feel it necessary to bully and slander those who see things differently and intimidate them into silence.

Unfortunately, it’s not enough to demonstrate where your counterpart is wrong, or even to embarrass him with a well executed skewering of his position. These folks have decided their counterparts are outright traitors to the conservative movement. In their eyes, to disagree is to be not merely a misguided proponent of wrongheaded ideas, but an agent provocateur intent on subverting the cause.

And where accusations of ideological subterfuge are too ridiculous to pass off to even the most easily gulled, some other form of perfidy takes its place – usually craven self-preservation, or simpering ingratiation to the hoity-toity social set. In any event, heterodoxy is invariably attributed to recreant motives.

Whatever the outcome in November, this campaign will reverberate for some time to come. As of now, the matter of who was right and who was wrong in their predictions is purely academic. It will be the conduct of those who, in the throes of catharsis, saw fit to defenestrate longtime allies in the fight against the Left that will be the greatest obstacle to unity.

Of course, O’Donnell’s supporters will seek retribution if she loses. Talk show hosts will resort to all manner of quarrelsome sermonizing, lambasting RINOs and moderates from pillar to post. And, predictably, Castle’s supporters will reciprocate. All the while, there’ll be pleas from the sidelines to put it all aside and work together to advance the conservative cause.

But, before signing any peace accords, Castle’s supporters might ask themselves whether or not the outcome of the election would have made any difference. Does anyone believe the O’Donnell camp would exhibit any sort of magnanimity toward those who opposed her nomination if she were to somehow win come November? I, for one, am skeptical.

So, why should Castle’s supporters come-a-runnin’ when the call for unity is sounded? Some say it’s for the good of the movement. I say quite the contrary. If there was ever a time when unity was a secondary concern, it is now. Important as this election is, the one in 2012 dwarfs it. And the outcome of that election hinges on how conservatives react to this one.

There’s an old saying many O’Donnell supporters are no doubt familiar with: If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got. There’s a wisdom in those words that applies just as well to the situation many Castle supporters find themselves in. For, if they cave to demands for unity from those who’ve spent the past weeks calling into question their loyalty and basic human decency, guess what those people will do the next time there’s a competitive race between a less-than-ideal incumbent and a deeply flawed challenger?

None of this is to say that those who supported Castle should actively discourage others from voting for O’Donnell in November. And, it most certainly isn’t to suggest that a write-in candidacy is a good idea. Still, anyone who feels they’ve been insulted to the point where they can’t bring themselves to submit to the entreaties of those who hurled epithets and scorn their way shouldn’t feel the slightest compunction at withholding support. After all, if there’s a significant number of holdouts, those dyspeptic voices from on high might be a little reluctant to engage in such intellectual thuggery next time around.

Some say now isn’t the time for sending messages or teaching lessons. That’s a perfectly respectable and understandable point of view. It is, after all, an important election. But, I would submit that this is precisely the time for lessons and messages, because a failure to deliver them now invites more bullying and browbeating later on – which, in turn, increases the chances of an irreparable schism in an election with far graver consequences.

As I stated at the beginning of this piece, I am a conservative. As such, I do feel some sympathy toward those who chose to support Christine O’Donnell in her election bid. At the same, the conservatism that provides me that sympathy also dictates that I make clear to those who would question my loyalty and integrity that I’m no man’s chump.

Conservatives don’t answer to a chorus of imperious radio showmen or their phalanx of backscratchers, nor do we need their stamp of approval to validate our beliefs. And, until the high-handed code enforcers accept that, they can peddle their unity elsewhere. I ain’t buying. And, I suspect I’m not alone.