In a [Reddit thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nkq4z/im_robert_costa_of_national_review_and_i_know_why/) featuring a _National Review_ reporter, one user observed:
> [the shutdown and the confrontational politics that led to it] looks stupid because you are viewing the situation as a rational, objective human being.
> if you were considering it as a tea party activist in congress, what you’d see was a no lose situation. your seat is safe. your constituents voted you in on a message of destroy ACA by any means possible. government shut down equals a reduction of spending and there’s no guarantee that
> you will pay the furloughed workers anything for their trouble. you’re sitting pretty.
the moderates in your party, on the other hand, have to worry about challenges to the right. between you and your beltway boosters, you’re reminding them that a vote for a CR or debt ceiling increase makes them RINO. the Dems have been out gerrymandered almost everywhere and while they may be nationally more popular and get more votes, their caucus could very well shrink any way. they’re the ones who need to protect as much social welfare programs as they can and keeping the government open because they’re seats are also not assured.
> your party might not be in as strong a position as it was in 2011, but everyone else’s position is weaker than yours. you may not win the presidency or the majority of the house, but you’re not leaving. is this tactic reckless and reprehensibly dangerous? most definitely. is the strategy insane? probably not. tea party caucus doesn’t have to care for the welfare of the entire nation, just their electorate. if bringing the country to its knees is what it takes to gut ACA, they feel empowered to do so.
[link to quote](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nkq4z/im_robert_costa_of_national_review_and_i_know_why/ccjn4tz)