Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) will resign from both his Speakership and the U.S. House effective at the end of October. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced the resignation at the Values Voter Summit in D.C. and was greeted with a standing ovation as he did so. Expect similar reactions along the right side of the Republican spectrum. Such celebrations expect too much change to flow from a political system that will remain in place until 2017.

Boehner, who has represented Ohio’s Eighth district for a quarter of a century, has joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as the favored targets of frustrated, small-government conservatives for several years. What has pushed him toward resignation, it seems, is his slow alienation of other facets of the GOP caucus. The social conservatives are seething at Congress’s slow reaction on abortion (especially as it relates to Planned Parenthood funding) and seeming amnesia over same-sex marriage (and possible religious accommodations that could be written into federal law). Republican hawks are furious about Iran’s impending entry into the nuclear family of nations. No speaker could stand against such dissent, at least not without significant bloodshed behind what are increasingly cracked doors. Rather than put his party through a public spectacle, Boehner chose to resign and allow the factions to solve their own problems through new leadership.

What has doomed Boehner, beyond the particular policies just mentioned, is a tactical calculation he could not maintain. After the mid-terms of 2012 and 2014 swelled Republican ranks, particularly by adding new members who were sensitive to their perceived calling to check President Obama’s power, Boehner and McConnell, it appears from here, chose party branding over confrontation. They were convinced that pointless skirmishes with the President, who would merely veto whatever bill they could manage to get to his desk, would damage the GOP and label the party as obstructionist and divisive.

Other Republicans, like Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) or U.S. Representatives Mark Meadows (R-NC) or Justin Amash (R-MI), disagree. They believe the Republican Party is best defined by taking clear positions that draw hard distinctions with Democrats. For them, the “loyal opposition” should clearly, definitively oppose the President and Democrats in Congress at every turn. Such opposition should include threats of government shutdowns.

The simple narrative will be that Representatives and Senators who are ideologically driven, and have high principles, wished to travel the path of purity, while the “establishment” Republicans chose instead to feather their beds, enhance their power, and ignore rank-and-file Republican voters. This dichotomy assumes too much and turns favored politicians into heroes or villains, depending on perspective.

This disagreement very well could stem from common goals, but differing tactics for how best to achieve them. Remember, parties exist, ultimately, not to satisfy policy demands, or to feed the emotional desires of their adherents. Instead, they exist to win elections and maximize power. Those who attribute other motives to them misunderstand their function.

Boehner, McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio are all conservative to one degree or another. Tossing the accusatory “RINO” epithet obviates the complexities that now confront Republican leadership. Both Boehner and McConnell have diverse caucuses to satisfy. It is impossible for them to manhandle recalcitrant colleagues all the time, so they are forced to seek avenues that can accommodate enough traffic to give a reasonable hope of victory. That constraint cannot be wished away.

Whether you agree with Boehner and McConnell’s tactics, to avoid confrontations and nurture the party’s numbers in the interim, they are serving the G.O.P. outside the White House. President Obama will not acquiesce to Republican demands. Congress, on its best day, cannot “fill the public’s eyes and ears” (to paraphrase Justice Jackson in Youngstown) like the President. Should congressional Republican leaders quench their partisans’ longing for a fight, or avoid battles that are unwinnable? Granted, loyal Republicans might argue that confronting the President now, and losing early battles, will actually strengthen the G.O.P. later by clearly defining its convictions.

No matter what you think, this desire for confrontation operates on a faulty assumption. Most voters do not routinely plug into the political battles in Washington, D.C. Government, for them, is not a “top-of-mind” affair, so they learn through dribs and drabs and don’t focus until elections roll around. The fear is that what those voters might learn–especially if they are independents who swing close elections–will damage the Republicans once elections actually begin. Within D.C., the resistance at all costs plan has its merits. It is rational, sustained, and principled. How that plays outside the beltway is unknown.

New leadership, whether it is Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) or Paul Ryan (R-WI) will confront the same problems in the House. President Obama will still reside on Pennsylvania Avenue, at least for the next year-and-a-half, and Republicans in Congress will disagree about how to proceed. At a fundamental level, nothing dramatic will change between now and January, 2017. Republicans who think otherwise are, perhaps, engaged in their own brand of hope and change.