Good question. First off, I'm far from an academic expert (not that you should necessarily trust those without reservation) so I encourage to take everything I say critically. That said, it's important to note a few things in no particular order:

I. Becoming a congressional politician often requires a variety of maladaptive personality traits and oddities. Experiencing war and sometimes injury or torture firsthand does not stop many military veteran politicians from being fervent warhawks, like John McCain nor did the personal tragedy of losing a son to illness sway Joe Biden to support universal healthcare, former Black Panthers defending an status quo that saw their brethren murdered, etc. Some bask in the contempt they receive; according to Politico Mitch McConnell 'reveled in criticism, even decorating an entire wall of his office with negative newspaper cartoons about himself.'

A common characteristic seems to be the tolerance of cognitive dissonance and not allowing personal discomfort or dispositions to get away with long-term political expediency. The very day of the attack on the capitol? 121 out of 209 Republicans in the House of Representatives would immediately walk in and vote to arbitrarily toss out the Arizona, in a entirely performative effort to adhere to Trump's 'stolen election' narrative

II. People are people, with their own idiosyncrasies, habits and beliefs. There were perhaps a few members who were genuinely shaken and outraged to their core about what occurred, but they are statistically meagre and we speak in general, broad terms that reflect the general zeitgeists, trends and dynamics of the bourgeoisie and electoral machinations.

III. All of their actions have the effect of increasing poverty, terrorism, crime and etc, it's part and parcel of the continual siphoning of wealth to the bourgeoisie. It's why they comfortably seclude themselves with the ivory tower phenomenon, there's little danger in running into ruffians or miscreants in gentrified gated communities.

So, overall I'd sum it up as politicians are already accustomed to the reality that their actions directly contribute to deteriorating material conditions and thus theoretical danger to their person. By very virtue of their positions, they're also usually more than willing to dismiss events that affect them personally for careerism.

It's very likely that they, holistically, don't view these reactionaries as active perils that require introspection and change, but rather just another mild ambient hazard that's a component of fulfilling their role, no different to the rise of left-wing radical 'terrorism' in the 70-80s or Islamic extremism: they'll make sure they're, in the vast majority of instances, well insinuated from any meaningful consequence and shrug off the occasional brush with danger while continuing to cynically exploit these groups for maximum benefit.