Fine, let's try again. Read slowly this time.
Not sure why you think the "politics vs principle" aspect is more important than the OP's initial position; that the big deal to talk about is the "party before country" aspect. Suggesting that someone is intentionally trying to harm his country is FAR more serious than saying that someone's action on any given issue is inconsistent with any previously stated ideology. Motivations and intentions are not nearly as relevant and outcomes and results. In the real world, final outcomes are what affects your family, not the motives of the entity which caused that outcome.
Like I said before, long term, politics vs principle is no distinction at all. If you do something that, when taken out of context by itself, might be purely "political" (ie: refute something a textbook conservative might typically support), IF that is part of serving the bigger cause, that actually helps towards implementing your principles. I may not support each and every single step they take to get to the end goal, but I do support their attempt to reach that goal. If I thought a different party was trying to get to that same goal with a more agreeable way to get there, I'd support them, but such a party does not seem to exist.
If a vegan was unemployed for a long time, ran out of benefits, and could no longer support their family, would you counsel them to decline a job offer working at a meat processing plant, just on principle? Maybe you would. If you think that it is a good thing to have a predisposition to being blinded by a naive fixation on never compromising your principles, even at the expense of your own long term best interests, well, good luck with that.