Better in their words…

Interesting, indeed.
=============
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
March 12, 2015 8:14 p.m. ET

‘Our goal is to get to a ‘yes’ vote, not to divide the party. It’s to fight for all those voters who are getting left out of Washington. And to do it in as smart and as aggressive a way as we can that brings our team together.”

That’s Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan talking, though Speaker John Boehner might wonder. Ten weeks into their huge new majority, Republicans are struggling to cobble together 218 votes for anything that matters. The Boehner leadership team puts the blame squarely on some 30 to 50 conservative members, who are variously described as crazy, or divorced from political reality, or unwilling to compromise. Or all of the above.

In the wake of last week’s immigration spectacle—in which Mr. Boehner was forced to fund Homeland Security with largely Democratic votes—I thought I’d ask Mr. Jordan to explain the thinking from the backbench. A favorite of conservative groups for his limited-government stands, he also has some credibility among the wider conference for his willingness at key times to be a team player. His position as chairman of the newly founded Freedom Caucus—what he calls an “agile, active group” of about 40 members devoted to conservative principles—has made him the de facto leader of the dissenters.

Mr. Jordan does seem to want to get to yes, though the defining feature of his group is frustration with a lack of Republican strategy and message. That comes out in Mr. Jordan’s view of the recent immigration debacle, a mess he traces to December. That was when Republicans chose to fund all of government except Homeland Security—in protest of President Obama’s lawless immigration order. “We told the voters this was going to be the defining moment, we said we were going to stop money for the president’s action,” says Mr. Jordan. “And you just can’t build up that moment, and then on February 27 say we aren’t going to do it.”

Having set the strategy, Republicans owed it “to run a two, two-and-half-month campaign to make the case.” That didn’t happen, I note, so why fight on? Mr. Jordan believes the party had a “chance,” even at the end, to get to House-Senate conference, fall back to a more narrow funding restriction, and earn Democratic votes.

And if not, would he have gone to DHS shutdown? “I didn’t want it, nobody wanted it,” is all he will say. Though he suggests that the damage from a shutdown had to be weighed against the damage the GOP does to itself by picking fights it won’t see through. “If we can’t win these arguments, then we are taking away the strongest power this Congress has—the power of the purse.”

Mr. Jordan doesn’t fool himself that Congress can force much from Mr. Obama, but rather sees this year as a way to “frame up 2016.” In that context, one wonders if this episode was as much a pointed rebuke to Mr. Boehner over his leadership as anything else. Well beyond the Freedom Caucus, there is Republican vexation with the lack of a broad or bold message and strategy from House GOP headquarters, as well as radio silence about goals.

Some, like Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, have stepped into the void to work on trade and tax reform. Mr. Jordan is largely complimentary, although he also thinks—given the unlikelihood Mr. Obama will play ball—that Republicans shouldn’t cater to politics and “tinker.” The party should, Jack Kemp-style, debut “something so bold and controversial” that it captures public imagination. “Throw out the code, start over. Two-rate hybrid flat tax. On corporate, why go to the middle? Drop us to 10%, lowest in the world.”

Big tax reform, based on a “fairness” argument, is central to an agenda the Freedom Caucus is itself crafting, one aimed at broadly countering the Democratic argument on middle-class “inequality.” Another plank is welfare reform, both corporate and social. “Too many people feel Washington isn’t working for them—that it’s working for corporations. Or giving public assistance to those who could be working,” he says. “We need to show we are ending favoritism.”

How will his group respond to other upcoming GOP debates? He is coy. The caucus is still meditating on everything from a Republican response to the Supreme Court case on ObamaCare subsidies to budget caps to the debt ceiling. Mr. Jordan is, however, exceptionally clear on some other legislative ideas. “Let’s stop corporate welfare,” he says. “End it. Let the Export-Import Bank expire. Then, say, kill off some subsidies, some green energy programs. Maybe President Obama would veto it, but he’d have to stand up for it.”

That enthusiasm (and coyness) raises the question of whether Mr. Boehner has a way of “managing” this wing, and outside conservative groups. The faction is increasingly organized, has a wish list, and has a leader in Mr. Jordan. Maybe if leadership were to provide the backbenchers some substantive policy wins, they’d have Mr. Boehner’s back on more divisive issues.

Maybe.

Write to kim@wsj.com

Kim Strassel: Behind the GOP’s Backbench Revolt – WSJ.