Why did tea partyers surrender? Because January will be different, they say.

The government shutdown ended and the debt limit was raised without Republicans getting anything in return. But two things will have changed when the fight resumes next year, tea party lawmakers say.

Susan Walsh/AP/File
Rep. Raul Labrador (R) of Idaho (l.), seen here on Capitol Hill in February, is one of the tea party House members who sees better days ahead in the fight against Obamacare.

Tea party Republicans emerged from the budget battle whose terms they had defined weary, battered, and with nothing to show for the fight beyond having fought it – and for some, that’s a victory.

After 16 days of a partial government shutdown, Republicans failed to force the Democrat-controlled Senate and the White House to defund, delay, or even discuss the president’s signature health reform, known as Obamacare. 

But the takeaway for a core group of conservative lawmakers is that the next spending fight, on track for mid-January, will play out on more favorable terms for hardline conservatives.

Be sure, for them, this isn't over. Not by a long shot.

Their argument, which was taking shape even as their failure to extract concessions from President Obama this week was becoming plain, turns on two points. They believe the more time Americans have living with the consequences of health-care reform, the more sympathetic they will be to efforts to defund it. And they argue that by early next year, many of the Republicans who criticized their hardline approach may be facing well-funded 2014 primary opponents from the right, and may feel compelled to switch their allegiances.  

“The debt will be bigger and Obamacare will be more unpopular,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R) of Ohio, at a luncheon for conservatives hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Day 16 of the shutdown.

By Jan. 15, when a new stopgap government funding measure runs out, Americans will have had another two months to see how the Affordable Care Act plays out. If glitches in the rollout aren’t resolved, and if people lose their employer coverage, face higher insurance costs, or come to believe that the new law is costing good, full-time jobs, they will see this week’s lost battle in a new light, tea party lawmakers say.

If the Affordable Care Act doesn’t live up to expectations, then it will be Democrats, especially in red states, who will be on the defensive, along with moderate Republicans seen as missing in action in recent weeks. Looking back, the tea party’s loss over the debt limit could look heroic, such conservatives say.

“People will see that every promise President Obama made about Obamacare was false,” said Rep. Raul Labrador (R) of Idaho, also at the luncheon. “In the last election, we didn’t fight, and now we’ve showed the American people that we’re willing to fight, even if it doesn’t look good today.”

It’s a view that many senior Republicans, openly engaged in a widening civil war within the GOP, describe as wrongheaded and dangerous to what’s left of the Republican brand.

“In democracies, the majority sets the agenda, and the majority said through the ballot box [in 2012] they don’t want Obamacare defunded, and I respect their opinion,” says Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, who, as the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, campaigned against health-care reform and lost.

“If [tea party Republicans] try to shut down the government again, it won’t be greeted with great approval,” he adds.

In a floor speech before the Senate vote, tea party Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas, who worked with House hardliners on this strategy, blasted Senate Republicans for “directing their cannon fire at House Republicans” on defunding Obamacare.

House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio and other GOP leaders had tried to convince the hardliners in the GOP caucus that their party would be damaged by a government shutdown, and that lawmakers should settle for funding government and raising the debt limit without conditions, then fight to take back the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. He offered Republicans a 41st vote to defund Obamacare, not linked to funding the government.

But the hardliners held out for a high-stakes fight that Mr. Boehner, reluctantly, adopted as his own. Outside groups such as Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks peppered Republicans with notice that key votes on the issue would be “scored,” a thinly veiled threat that members not deemed conservative enough could expect a well-funded primary challenge next year.

In the runup to the fight, Heritage Action funded $500,000 in online ads calling on 100 House Republicans to “stop funding Obamacare,” that is, to back the tea party’s defund campaign.

After two years of essentially show votes, we “finally had a chance to take on Obamacare,” says tea party Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R) of Kansas. 

The move put Republicans on record in the fight and also forced red-state Democrats to take a vote that could haunt them in 2014 election. But in the end, it stood zero chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate or a White House veto threat.

GOP hardliners and the outside conservative groups supporting them had predicted that, if House Republicans took a stand to defund Obamacare, they would be backed by a surge in public opinion. Such a “popular uprising” would force Senate Democrats to take up the House plan and Mr. Obama to sign it, they said.

Instead, disapproval for how Republicans handled the crisis soared to 74 percent, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

On Wednesday, 87 Republicans in the House and 27 in the Senate joined Democrats to fund the government and ease the debt limit. Nine of the 80 House Republicans who had signed a letter in August calling on Boehner to adopt the hardline strategy voted with Democrats to end the shutdown with health-care funding intact. [Editor's note: The original version gave wrong numbers for the vote count.]

As the hardliners see it, their side lost a skirmish in this week’s vote, but they’re fighting a long-range, two-front war: one against health-care reform (a “train wreck”), the other against the Republican Party establishment, especially in the Senate (the "surrender caucus”).

By the next skirmish, many of the 20 House moderates who led the campaign against them, as well as the Senate Republicans who refused to join their fight, could be facing primary challenges from the right, they say.

“We have a lot of primary challenges already filed, and a lot of folks might change their minds if they have primary challenges,” says Representative Huelskamp.

Political handicappers say it’s too early to tell how much of a threat these primary challengers will be.

“I don’t know that opinions will change as much as some of these conservative House members believe they will,” says Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report in Washington. “It’s enormously expensive to get into a Senate race. Ted Cruz ran for two full years.”

But activists on the right do not concede that their moment has passed.

“This battle is still going on,” says Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, which supports tea party candidates. “It will take years to figure out who won and who lost. As long as you have a $17 trillion deficit and Obamacare is falling apart, there’s going to be a political debate.”

“People refer to it as the Republican civil war,” he adds. “But if the Republican Party purges libertarians and tea partyers, all that you hear about this regional party of old white men is going to become true. This is merely a pause as the battle lines continue to roll up.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why did tea partyers surrender? Because January will be different, they say.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today