Maybe I'm too simplistic of a thinker but here's how I see it. Certain areas, whether it's because of gerrymandering or not, are going to elect more conservative or liberal people to the House. Many other areas may lean one way or the other, or even be tossups, and can still get conservatives or liberals elected - but they still have to cater at least a bit more to the center. When one party has a large majority those on the right or left in safe districts can be ideologues and complain all they want but they don't really have much power. That's not the case when, like today, Republicans have only a few person advantage.
In our current scenario (especially considering Democrats control the Senate and Presidency) members from the most conservative districts cannot realistically believe or require they get what they want with such a slim majority. That's not the real world. Yet that's what MTG is demanding. (I repeat, she's not a serious person. To her "credit" she's an incredible attention whore and has made herself very well know and gained power she shouldn't have.)
I'll offer another example. Being from where I am, I'm surrounded by many Bernie types. These are the folks who think Nancy Pelosi is a corporate Dem sellout who only cares about money. They wanted to replace her (and other Dems) with real progressives who would get money out of politics, pass Medicare For All etc. You can find certain districts where someone like that can get elected but you're not going to get enough to where you can get what you want passed.
It's the same for MTG.
