Criticism: Insufficient Qualities of Bob Good for Donald Trump
As the head of the Freedom Caucus, Rep. Bob Good discovered, Trump rewards only taking, not giving.
Fervently backing Trump, Good faces possible removal from his Virginia congressional seat following the primary on Tuesday. His Republican competitor, John McGuire, held an apparent edge — a Trump endorsement.
Good chose to endorse Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump during the initial presidential campaign. This single error, potentially fatal for his career, didn’t matter as he was as loyal a soldier to DeSantis as anyone could ask for, save for a brief period of allegiance. Given the primary's closeness, Good's predicament highlights the misguided values of the Caucus since its founding over a decade ago.
Who desires to be a part of a team?
Good's primary exposes the essence of being a conservative in the era of Trump. The seeds of the issue were there from the start of the Freedom Caucus. His situation mirrors, in many ways, the recent history of House Republicans.
In 2011, then-newly sworn-in Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho declared, “I didn’t come to Washington to be part of a team,” a statement documented by journalist Robert Draper in his book, “Don't Ask What Good We Do.” These words offer valuable insight into the tumultuous recent history of House Republicans.
While not yet officially named, those were the embryonic days of the House Freedom Caucus. Labrador's words demonstrated that for some, being a part of the House Republican Conference and developing policies and bills was not nearly enough. Being in power meant having the power to exert leverage and influence. Actual legislative accomplishments were secondary.
One example emerged in December 2012, 11 months into the "Tea Party Congress," when the imminent expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts was approaching. By law, taxes would rise if Congress did not act, and the only place Republicans had control was the House. The Senate and White House were controlled by Democrats.
At the time, I was the deputy chief of staff for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. It was the first of many instances where I heard Speaker John Boehner remind his colleagues that they were "one-half of one-third of the government." Achieving even partial success required compromise and reasonable expectations.
The Republican leadership introduced what they called "The Plan B." Marginal tax rates would remain the same for those making less than $1 million a year — representing the vast majority of Americans — with some increases on those earning above that amount. By acting first, prior to the law changing, we believed we could push Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama's White House into a corner, achieving victory both politically and legislatively.
Most conservatives, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, supported the initiative. However, there were fissures. During what they called the "Daily Management Meeting" of top leadership members and limited staff, House Republican Conference chair Jeb Hensarling, cognizant of the calendar but failing to consider political reality, stated, “I can’t vote ‘yes’ now. That would be raising taxes. But in early January, I’d be voting to cut taxes!”
“Oh no,” I thought. “We're in trouble.”
Torpedoed by their own ideological purity
In the end, we didn’t have enough votes to do the politically savvy thing that coincided with our principles. "The Plan B" collapsed on us. Taxes increased. We shot ourselves in the foot, not for the last time, as an ideological purity took precedence over practicality.
This scenario unfolded repeatedly. The year 2013 became what Republicans promoted as the "Defund Obamacare" year — a legislative impossibility given that Obama would never agree to defunding his signature legislation, and we had no leverage to force its repeal. (Once again, Boehner's "one-half of one-third" maxim was in effect.)
In this polarized world, accomplishments are secondary to showmanship — and demonstrating eagerness to fight. The minority within the majority had the ability to grind things to a halt.
Thus, we had what became widely known as "the Meadows Letter," sent to Republican leadership by a new member of Congress, Rep. Mark Meadows (who would later become Trump's loyal chief of staff in the White House), urging them to defund Obamacare via any appropriations bill, including what's known as a continuing resolution — a temporary measure to keep the government operating.
It didn't matter that Meadows was asking for something legislatively impossible. He and others in the House who supported him were encouraged by a few senators who had joined the fray, led by Sen. Ted Cruz.
Cruz began meeting with this small group of GOP rebels, soon to be the Freedom Caucus. Eventually, Republican House leadership relented. We decided to let our members "touch the stove," and learn the hard way that they could get burned.
A press release from Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida praised the House for putting up a fierce fight and not giving in, but their statement essentially told lawmakers in the lower chamber, "Way to go House, but, gosh, there's nothing WE can do in the Senate."
That's what triggered an uproar among House Republicans. Democratic squabbles among Republicans arose, with usually composed Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state brandishing the Meadows letter in front of hardline conservative lawmaker Louie Gohmert of Texas, shouting, "They told you to jump off a cliff and ditched you!" referring to their Senate Republican allies. Similar disputes occurred throughout the back area of the House chamber.
This was unproductive bickering within the Republican party, with the primary goal being to demonstrate the greatest ideological purity as a conservative. The deterioration of the party led to a 16-day government shutdown. The escalating chaos included Rep. Cantor’s primary loss, followed by Boehner’s removal, then Paul Ryan’s. This all happened without a clear reason.
The lessons I’ve taken from these experiences are that the reward system had transformed. To become a conservative celebrated figure — to appear on TV, be invited to CPAC, to raise money and ultimately be invited to Mar-a-Lago — means your goals are always to strive for more, regardless of how radical or unattainable. For many Freedom Caucus members, it’s not that nothing is ever good enough. It’s that nothing can ever be good enough. And everyone else is a sell-out.
There’s always a reason to delay. Even — or especially — if it means causing repeated speaker votes and eventually voting to oust him. The meaning of conservatism has become less clear since Donald Trump's rise. However, loyalty to all things Trump is a key aspect of what caused the party to fracture.
Subscribe to our Free Weekly Newsletter
- Subscribe to CNN Opinion’s newsletter
- Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Trump is fully behind Good's challenger, as anyone can see from McGuire’s “Trump endorsed” yard signs (having been in the district recently, I can confirm that they are ubiquitous). Freedom Caucus member Rep. Warren Davidson has endorsed McGuire over his own caucus chairman. Such an act is unusual. But it occurs in Trump’s Republican party.
In a CNN appearance on Tuesday, McGuire countered Good's (and much of the Freedom Caucus') tactic-first, accomplishment-maybe approach. It felt like Labrador's rebellion of 13 years ago had returned in full force. "He's never passed a bill, never passed an amendment," McGuire said in his first sentence. Significantly, McGuire then used the word "team" seven times in the first two and a half minutes of the interview.
This primary season is dubbed a "MAGA internal conflict," one that could significantly affect both the Freedom Caucus and the House GOP. It remains uncertain if a divided House Freedom Caucus can maintain its stability. However, it’s clear that there are deep fault lines within its foundation.
Read also:
In this critical primary, Good's predicament highlights the importance of aligning with Trump's opinions, as evident in McGuire's Trump endorsement.
The orientation towards ideological purity, as demonstrated by Labrador's statement, has often led to situations where achieving practical success is sacrificed for adherence to principles, such as the collapse of "The Plan B" in 2012.
