The Demise of the RINOs (Rebels in Name Only)
The Republican Party may be in the midst of a long-overdue and unexpected self-correction.
Over the past two weeks, voters and key conservatives have forcefully rebuked a new and dangerous specious of Washington RINOs — not “Republicans in Name Only” but “Rebels in Name Only,” fake reformers who are undermining the conservative movement from within.
The clearest example is the recent primary defeat of so-called Tea Party firebrand and conservative stalwart Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Last week, Huelskamp lost his primary election to obstetrician and political newcomer Roger Marshall by a margin of 56.5 to 43.5 percent, a stunning 13-point defeat for a supposedly conservative incumbent serving in a conservative district.
In his short and undistinguished time in Congress, Huelskamp cultivated an image of a principled outsider and thorn in the side of leadership, but countless — and otherwise polite Kansans (my home state) — described him as an “a — hole” and an opportunistic and ineffective politician who took jackassery to a new level.
Huelskamp’s claim to fame was getting kicked off the House Agriculture Committee, which proved to be an ineffective way of making farm policy more conservative and for constituents living in his agricultural district. After his defeat, Huelskamp said he lost because he stood up to the “Washington elites” and suggested everyone but himself was to blame for his loss. Kansans conservative voters rendered a different verdict.
Truth is, Huelskamp turned out to be another politician who was all talk and no action.
Huelskamp didn’t lose because he was too conservative; he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. He was unwilling and incapable of doing the hard work of persuasion and coalition building that’s necessary to produce results that reduce the realm of government while expanding the realm of liberty.
Rather than mourning Huelskamp’s defeat, and complaining it’s a victory for “the establishment” (which has been taken over by Donald Trump, who is no conservative and is barely a Republican), conservatives should view Huelskamp’s humiliating defeat as a cautionary tale of what happens when politicians give principled opposition and rebellion a bad name.
Conservatives would help themselves by contrasting Huelskamp’s case with the example of Tom Coburn, who served in both the House and Senate. Both men were thorns in the side of leadership and “the establishment,” but were 180 degrees different when it came to temperament, work ethic and effectiveness.
Huelskamp, like Coburn, often found fault with leadership budgets. In one episode, as reported by National Review’s Joel Gehrke: “[Paul] Ryan [then Budget Committee Chairman] went to Huelskamp and said, ‘Ok, you don’t like this budget, fine, what can I do to get you [involved in the process]?’ And Huelskamp replied, ‘That’s not my job.’”
“That’s not my job” doesn’t sell among conservatives in western Kansans.
Coburn was also taken to the leadership woodshed many times. In one meeting in 1999, then-chairman of the appropriations committee Bill Young (R-Fla.) was so exasperated with Coburn for pushing spending cuts he threw his keys on the table and said, “You run the damn committee!”
Coburn took the challenge to heart. But instead of dismissively saying, “That’s not my job,” he essentially said with defiance but humility, “That is my job, and I’m going to do it better than you.”
That’s exactly what he did. During his service in the House and Senate, Coburn made it his mission to out-work, out-think and out-maneuver leadership and the appropriators at every turn. Rather than whining about the impurity of his colleagues who were “selling out,” Coburn offered thousands of amendments, countless bills, and dozens of oversight reports to demonstrate that conservative reform was possible through creativity and hard work. He made it his mission to not open his mouth until his words were backed up by a work product that exposed the deficiencies in leadership’s approach. By the time he was done, leadership begrudgingly thanked him for it.
Huelskamp’s allies in the House now have a choice. They can wallow in conspiratorial bitterness about “outside groups” and “the donors,” or they can recommit themselves to honor our founding principles by mounting principled opposition. If they want to make a difference they should out-hustle leadership. That’s the best and only way to put a check on the eternal tendency of leadership to capitulate to the corrupting tendencies of self-protection and cronyism.
The tragedy for Huelskamp is that he leaves no legacy of a “better way.” He could have used leadership’s openness for a return to regular order and an end to the omnibus era as an opening to offer specific spending cuts. He didn’t because he didn’t see it as “his job.”
Republican leadership needs principled opposition. But that opposition has to be serious and credible.
Huelskamp lost because he failed to provide that kind of thoughtful opposition. There’s no guarantee Marshall will be an improvement, but he would be wise to follow the Coburn model rather than Huelskamp model.
Huelskamp’s loss — followed by Ted Cruz’s self-immolation at the Republican National Convention, which was both opportunistic and principled and a fitting penance for his unproductive push to defund Obamacare (where is Cruz’s alternative?) — suggests voters are tiring of the Rebels in Name Only caucus in Washington. This trend will be tested further on Tuesday when Paul Nehlen faces House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin.
I suspect voters will say they’re not looking for moderation per se or leaders who will give them “stuff” from the government. Instead, they’re looking for results-oriented conservatives — leaders who understand that creating the conditions for liberty and opportunity requires more than phony outrage. That’s the type of correction Washington and the GOP desperately needs.
Originally published at opportunitylives.com on August 8, 2016.
