In the mid-term elections in 2010, many of the upstart Republican candidates who had support from the Tea Party frenzy promised to shake things up in Washington. Part of the appeal was that they were not “Washington insiders” and that they were not looking to make friends on Capitol Hill, but instead wanted to “take back” the government. It shouldn’t have been a surprise then, when these rookie legislators employed a strategy that served to grind government business to a halt, because the best government is a government that does nothing.
One of the more extreme conservative GOP insurgents is Michigan Congressman Justin Amash, a key voice in both the government shutdown and that debt default would be a “good” thing. However according to a letter obtained by TheHill.com, “prominent [Republican] Michigan donors request financial backing for Amash’s primary challenger, Brian Ellis.” FreedomWorks, a Tea Party activist organization, has vowed to help support Amash, suggesting “corporate America is scared of the grassroots.”
Still many believe this is a reaction to the recklessness with which these legislators have treated their responsibilities, especially with respect to the government shutdown. In Georgia, prominent Romney donors are backing the Democratic candidate for Senate over any of the eight Republican challengers for the seat of the retiring Saxby Chambliss, according Bloomberg.
This is consistent with a general trend in fundraising since the end of the government shutdown, that sees many of the Republicans who fund the campaigns feeling buyer’s remorse. It would seem that the “status quo” Republicans who were ousted by the Tea Party candidates are preferable because at least compromise was possible with them in office. The recent federal dysfunction has proven that answer is not stark opposition, where no quarter is either asked or given, but instead pragmatic compromise that resembles something like democracy.