One wing of the Republican Party cares nothing about re-election while another cares only about re-election
Compare and contrast:
1. We don't care about re-election ... re-election is the farthest thing from my mind," freshman Republican Tom Reed tells the New York Times, explaining right wing intransigence on the debt ceiling.
2. "I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declares, opposing a Republican engineered default on the debt because, "it destroys your brand ... that is very bad positioning going into an election."
One wing of the Republican Party cares nothing about re-election while another cares only about re-election. It's the latter wing, the McConnell wing, that out of shortsighted electoral self-interest gave a minority of tea partiers their leverage. As Barney Frank has said, (and I paraphrase) policy is being made by people afraid of losing a primary to a nut job.
The nut jobs are not guilty by reason of insanity; at least they have the courage of their crazed convictions. It's the politicians who lack courage or conviction, members of the McConnell wing, who bear moral responsibility for the gratuitous debt crisis.
I'm not defending ideological purists who reject any compromise regardless of cost; personally I prefer ideologically driven pragmatism in a politician. But I don't share the utter disdain I've heard from some Democrats for tea partiers who do not care or claim not to care about their re-elections. I don't agree with tea party critics who assert that not caring about your re-election is the equivalent of not caring about your constituents. Maybe absolute electoral indifference reflects ideological arrogance, but some measure of indifference to elections is essential to principled leadership.
It's counter-productive as well as naïve to demand that legislators consider every vote worthy of electoral sacrifice, but it's cynicism to consider no vote so worthy. Years ago, I tried to persuade a Senate Democrat to vote against a popular constitutional amendment. "I know have to be willing to lose my seat over some votes," he said. "I just have to decide if this is one of them." It's a decision, I suspect, that the McConnell wing will never entertain, but a politician who can't contemplate losing his seat doesn't deserve to keep it.