In the 16th century, there was an English stable master by the name of Hobson who faced a particularly vexing predicament — he found that when his patrons were allowed to freely choose their mounts, the best rides would never get a rest. So, to amend this, he instituted a strict rotation system — each time a horse returned to the stable, it was placed in the back. The choice he then presented to riders was quite simple: Take the horse nearest to the door or take “Shank’s mare” — that is, to walk.

Thus we have the term, “Hobson’s choice,” most famously expressed by Henry Ford when he rolled out the Model T design, telling customers they could have their choice of color — so long as that color was black.

Coming back to the present day, the GOP has managed to paint itself into a similar corner with President Bush. Here is a man who by no means has shown respect to virtually any of the stated principles of the Republican party — from fiscal restraint to free trade, Bush has managed to forsake nearly every one of the ideals the party faithful hold dear.

Consider for a moment Bush’s track record as a Republican — by no stretch of the imagination does Bush represent the small-government wing of his party, showing contempt for everything from fiscal restraint to federalism, leaving one to wonder if this man is truly from the same party as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, the only way to describe Bush’s massive spending binge as president would be to term it “fiscal incontinence.” While Clinton had inked his veto stamp 17 times in his first term (and Reagan 22 times), President Bush has yet to veto a single bill, instead signing spending measures as if he were on a Roman holiday. Compound that with an explosion of non-military discretionary spending increases which has now hit nearly 28 percent since his taking office (compared to a net 3.5 percent increase by this time in Clinton’s term), and one might think Bush was a European-style socialist if they didn’t know any better.

Thus Hobson’s choice comes into play in Republican thinking — either Republican voters pick someone almost completely alien to their values, or by default they are simply supporting the Democrat. Principle is not an issue in bare-knuckle partisanship. To them, the alternative of voting Libertarian is the same as voting Democrat, despite the strong-principled protest that it may represent. Never mind, of course, that by the same token, voting for Bush is effectively an endorsement of four more years of creeping socialism: Ballots do not give “qualified” endorsements.

Rather than a sharp rebuke to Mr. Bush’s leftward wandering on economic issues, each vote for President Bush will only be taken as a sign to carry on at full speed — after all, if the GOP can win elections by embracing big government, why change for the sake of those whose loyalty is complete and unwavering?

Thus lies the danger: Every vote of confidence for Bush’s GOP-brand socialism from the party faithful gains the GOP an immediate victory at the cost of undermining support for the very policies and ideals these same voters sought to protect.

Thus a victory for Bush in 2004 will ultimately spell the end of the GOP as the party of small government, with only those who put partisanship before their principles to thank. Republicans have only themselves to blame for their current predicament, however. Despite what they may otherwise say, what Bush represents to the Republicans isn’t simply a non-choice for strict partisans in the next election. Rather, Bush embodies a crisis of identity for the GOP as a whole: Do they abandon a leader totally hostile to their belief in limited government and swallow the bitter pill of four years under a Democrat or hold their noses and flush away every principle they hold dear?

One might almost feel sympathy for the plight of loyal Republicans had they not been totally responsible for its inception and complicit in its betrayal. For any limited-government conservative who wishes to respect themselves in the morning, the choice is obvious: This time around, it’s going to have to be Shank’s mare.

Abandoning the GOP may be painful to many, especially if it leads to a Democrat in the White House. But the pain of losing one’s soul is far worse.