When the founders of these great United States set out to establish the country as a democratic republic, one particular issue was forecasted as a major obstacle to the success of the country: faction, or in modern terms, interest groups. Faction, hypothesized James Madison in Federalist Paper 10, could tear at the very fabric of our republic, causing immense “unsteadiness and injustice,” and even resulting in the tyranny of one faction over the general public. 

The difficulty that factions present to our republic is discussed and developed by many modern day commentators, such as Tufts University political scientist Jeffrey Berry. In his essay “Madison’s Dilemma,” Berry quantifies the issue of faction in terms of personal interest: “People will pursue their self-interest even though the policies they advocate may hurt others and may not be in the best interest of the nation.” 

Today, the pitfalls of faction appear to manifest themselves in one particular interest group, or as a self-proclaimed party, namely—the Tea Party. Tea Party nominated candidates were victorious 32 percent of the time in 2010—the first year they appeared on the ballot—with 61.4 percent losing, according to an NBCnews study; a remarkably high win percentage considering the infancy of the movement. Yet Tea Party success in Congress was reduced in 2012 and even more so in 2014. Although hard numbers are yet to be quantified, according to CNN, “the GOP establishment candidates won most of the contested Republican primaries this year.” Yet what is so interesting about the 2014 decline of Tea Party success was the driving force behind the failure: the Republican establishment fighting back. 

Soon-to-be majority leader Mitch McConnell has openly stated his goal—to “crush” the tea party. McConnell himself contributed to his self-stated cause, defeating Tea Party challenger Matt Bevin by almost a 20 point margin in the Kentucky Senate primary. According to a Politico interview with GOP political advisor Scott Reed, the Republican party decided from the onset of this election season that “they had to take on tea party challengers in primaries and create a more business-friendly slate of general election candidates who could compete with Democrats.” 

But why the sudden turn on the Tea Party when Republicans rode the Tea Party to a House majority in 2010? And if the mainstream GOP is turning on the Tea Party, where do they find popular support?

The second question—discovering the derivation of Tea Party support—appears to be easier to answer. At first glance, the Tea Party appears to favor Libertarian political views, so perhaps support resonates from Libertarians. Yet, libertarians do not share a sense of mutual association with the Tea Party. In fact, according to a 2013 Reuters article, over 61 percent of Libertarians actively choose to not associate with the Tea Party. Further, a 2013 Public Religion Research Institute survey found that only “about one-quarter (26 percent) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are Libertarians.” It would then appear then that the Tea Party is neither embraced by mainstream Republicans, nor Libertarians. The question then remains: from where does the Tea Party derive its support? 

The answer, ironically, is in direct contrast to the the Bill of Rights—specifically the first amendment—that the Tea Party holds so dear: conservative religious Christians. According to the same PRRI survey mentioned above, “Twice as many Americans who identify with the Tea Party (52 percent) say they are a part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement (as opposed to libertarians). In contrast, only 22 percent of Libertarians identify as part of the Christian right movement.” 

A look into the agendas of Tea Party candidates from this recent election bolsters this analysis. According to ontheissues.org—a website that literally lists via hyperlink every stance a politician and his/her associated party makes on any given issue—the Tea Party agenda, on average of all candidates, is pro-life, opposes gay marriage or civil unions and has an expressed desire to spread Judeo-Christian values across the globe. How ironic—the party that claims to uphold a strict reading of the constitution appears to be inflicting its own religious beliefs on the rest of the country and even the world. 

It is precisely this religious support base of the Tea Party that Republicans are fleeing from. Over the past few years, the Republican party has been labeled as the religious party, mainly because of the headline grabbing positions of the Tea Party religious right. 

Yet this label is nothing short of erroneous. According to Pew Research Center data regarding the 2012 congress, “69% of congressional Republicans are Protestant, while fewer than half of Democrats (42%) belong to Protestant denominational families. On the other hand, Catholics make up a greater share of Democratic members (37%) than they do of GOP members (25%). And while Jews make up 13% of all congressional Democrats (including one Independent who generally caucuses with the Democrats, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont), they account for less than 1% of congressional Republicans.” 

In short, religious politicians are scattered amongst both parties fairly evenly; the religious play for both political teams. The Tea Party was simply inducing a label of religious idealism upon the GOP with their politically extreme and heavily publicized views. It is only natural for the Republican Party to return to the values that it is supposed to promote: a fiscally efficient and limited government that commands a strong global presence. 

Moreover, the Tea Party leadership also appears to be straying from one of its original agenda points, fiscal responsibility—an issue the Republican Party still strives to achieve. In this most recent election cycle, the six major Tea Party PACs spent approximately $37.5 million on midterm elections, yet less than $7 million was devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the Washington Post. Rather, according to the article, “roughly half of the money — nearly $18 million — has gone to pay for fundraising and direct mail, largely provided by Washington-area firms. Meanwhile, Tea Party leaders and their family members have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, while their groups have doled out large sums for airfare, a retirement plan and even interior decorating.” Rather concerning for a movement predicated on transparency in Washington and efficiency in government to be spending so much on further self-motivated fundraising—and an interior decorator. 

The Tea Party is nothing short of a modern day manifestation of exactly what Madison and Berry were fearful of—a tyrannical faction dominating the political sphere. They are an interest group that claims to uphold Libertarian and politically conservative values yet empirically is a potentially corrupt, fiscally inefficient organization, motivated by the proliferation and imposition of a religious Christian agenda on the country. Madison, though, can rest in his grave easily; it appears the Republicans have finally realized that it just isn’t time for Tea anymore.