The results of last Tuesday’s Republican primary in Kansas’ 1st congressional district rocked the political world. Incumbent congressman Tim Huelskamp, a career politician first elected to public office two decades ago, was rejected by the GOP voters in his district and replaced on the ticket by political novice Roger Marshall. Marshall, an obstetrician and first-time candidate, soundly defeated the sitting congressman by a 13-point margin.

This in itself would not have been overly remarkable. It wasn’t even the first time this year that a Republican member of Congress lost their seat in a primary. What made Huelskamp’s loss so significant, however, was his membership in the House Freedom Caucus- a hardline group of Tea Party conservatives- and his well-earned reputation of being a thorn in the side of Republican leadership. Marshall’s campaign charged that Huelskamp had alienated himself in Washington, rendering him incapable of delivering for his district. In particular, the challenger focused on Huelskamp’s 2012 expulsion from the House Committee on Agriculture, a consequence of his refusal to vote with the rest of the party on key issues. Marshall also skewered Huelskamp over his vote against the bipartisan farm bill. In Kansas’ “Big First” district, which has more farmers than any other congressional district in the country, the farm bill and representation on the Ag Committee are both crucial.

In the aftermath of Huelskamp’s primary loss, House Freedom Caucus members were quick to point fingers. But instead of pointing fingers at the voters in Huelskamp’s district who had chosen to fire their congressman, they instead tried to lay the blame at the feet of Republican leaders, particularly House Speaker Paul Ryan. Of course, the accusation that Ryan is somehow responsible for Huelskamp’s loss is nothing short of ludicrous. While it might make sense to blame former House Speaker John Boehner for stripping Huelskamp of his spot on the Ag Committee (which is a weak argument since committee memberships are privileges, not rights), Paul Ryan had nothing to do with that decision. Ryan did not endorse, support, campaign for, or in any way assist Huelskamp’s opponent. There is zero evidence that the speaker was “cheering for Tim’s defeat,” as a Freedom Caucus member told Politico after Tuesday’s primary. Furthermore, Ryan told a local Kansas newspaper before the election that “Tim Huelskamp has the kind of background that could serve the state well” on the Ag Committee, indicating that he might support the Kansan for reinstatement on the committee. In a statement the day after the congressman’s defeat, Ryan said that he was “proud to serve with” Huelskamp. There is no factual basis for Huelskamp’s claim that Republican leaders “came after me to get a scalp.” Nobody came after Huelskamp except for the voters in his district, who were tired of watching him put his own self-promotion and selfish interests ahead of the interests and needs of his constituents. Was Paul Ryan rooting for a Huelskamp loss? Only the speaker knows the answer to that question. But he certainly did nothing to sway the outcome.

To a large extent, the fact that Ryan did nothing is precisely the source of contention. Freedom Caucus members are mad at Ryan for not injecting himself into the primary in support of Huelskamp. “[Ryan] gave me no help pretty clearly,” Huelskamp said, blaming the speaker for his loss. Rep. Jim Jordan, a cofounder of the House Freedom Caucus and a vocal Huelskamp ally, said, “Everybody knows if the speaker of the House says, ‘Tim Huelskamp is back on the Agriculture Committee,’ it makes a difference.” Jordan was one of several Freedom Caucus members who asked Ryan to publicly commit to putting the Kansas congressman back on the committee in order to help boost his reelection prospects. While Ryan responded that he personally believed Huelskamp “could serve the state well” on the Ag Committee, he accurately pointed out that the speaker alone does not have the power to appoint committee members. In fact, when John Boehner was speaker he tried to patch things up with Huelskamp and reinstate his committee membership, only to watch the steering committee, which is tasked with making such appointments, veto the effort. Ryan simply didn’t have the power to make such a guarantee.

House Freedom Caucus members are also furious at Ryan for not actively dissuading big-money groups like the Chamber of Commerce from spending against Huelskamp in the primary. This argument assumes that Ryan, who is not affiliated with the Chamber, has influence over its political spending decisions. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a hardcore Freedom Caucus member who set in motion the coup the ultimately led to John Boehner’s resignation as speaker last year, made this extremely unlikely assertion. He posited that since “the Chamber consistently gives [money] to the speaker and members the speaker supports, to imply that [Ryan and his allies] have no ability to push back on anything and no influence in how the Chamber spends its money defies logic and would be politically naïve.” Meadows is utterly wrong about this claim. The fact that the Chamber of Commerce supports Ryan does not mean that he can tell them how to allocate their funds. And is it any surprise that Chamber officials would choose to spend heavily against a candidate who has mocked and criticized them in the past and consistently votes against legislation that’s important to them? In what way is their spending against Huelskamp the fault of Paul Ryan?

Regardless of whether Paul Ryan could have intervened in the primary on Huelskamp’s behalf, though, the Freedom Caucus’ request that he do so lays bare the hypocrisy of its members. For years, Tea Party conservatives- including members of the Freedom Caucus- have angrily protested the ‘establishment’ getting involved in primaries. Most recently, allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spent heavily in favor of Rep. Todd Young in Indiana’s GOP Senate primary this past May. Young’s opponent was Rep. Marlin Stutzman, a member of the House Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus was up in arms, demanding that Republican leaders stay out of party primaries. Stutzman said at the time that McConnell was “making a mistake by… trying to pick the nominee in Indiana, because we just don’t like that.” But apparently the Freedom Caucus only doesn’t like Republican leadership’s intervention when it’s against them. But when it comes to the other side, they will demand that the speaker of the House weigh in on their favored candidate’s behalf. If that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. It’s reminiscent of what Jim Newell wrote in Slate last year about the Freedom Caucus’ demand that the new speaker not support primary challenges against them: “It takes some chutzpah for Tea Partiers- who live to bring down ‘establishment’ candidates in primaries- to demand that they be shielded from counter-challenges themselves.” It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Freedom Caucus is once again displaying similar chutzpah.

Huelskamp allies can continue to blame Speaker Ryan and House Republicans for the results of Tuesday’s primary. However, directing the blame at all the wrong places will not fix the problem. It won’t prevent the same thing from happening to other caucus members. Ultimately, the Freedom Caucus will have to reckon with the main reason Huelskamp fell out of favor with his constituents- because more than voters want conservative representatives or liberal representatives, they want a government that functions. While most politicians in Washington work to get to yes, many Freedom Caucus members do their best to find reasons not to support legislation. That is the attitude which needs to change. In the words of the late great Rep. Steve LaTourette, who passed away last week, “If they’re just here to vote no, we can train a monkey to vote no.”