Today, the House elected Mike Johnson of Louisiana to be its Speaker. This puts an end to the drama (some would say s*** show) we have witnessed since a handful of Republican members toppled Kevin McCarthy. Thus, we won’t have to witness any more fake hand-wringing by the Democrat caucus and the media, both of which loved every minute of the chaos.
Elected to the House in 2016, Johnson served as Chair of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus, and then as Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference. He’s an ardent social conservative, which will suit most Republicans. It will suit all Democrats, as they plan to make abortion their signature issue in 2024.
Does Johnson have what it takes to be an effective Speaker of the House. I don’t know. However, I’m pretty sure he won’t be an effective Speaker of this House. But who could be, given the razor-thin GOP majority and the nature of the caucus’ chaos - loving outlier members?
Now that the House has a true Speaker, it can proceed to deal with the possibility of a government shutdown and with the question[s] of aid to Israel and Ukraine. It can also pass legislation on other significant matters, virtually all of which will be dead on arrival in the Senate.
The first two matters will be quite difficult to work through, and would be regardless of who is Speaker. I suspect America will muddle through, however. It usually does, albeit while declining as a nation.
Johnson has come under fire from Democrats and the media because he signed an amicus brief (along with 126 other House Republicans) in a lawsuit that contested the 2020 presidential election. The suit was futile. It failed because the plaintiff — Texas — lacked standing to challenge the results of elections in other states. Had it gotten far enough, the suit probably would have failed on the merits.
Would it be better to have a Speaker who didn’t participate in a futile lawsuit to contest a presidential election? I think so. If Johnson believed the suit was a good idea, that’s unfortunate. If he signed on to curry favor with Donald Trump, that’s unfortunate, as well.
But I don’t view either Johnson’s participation in the suit or his vote (along with 147 members) not to certify the election results as disqualifying. Barring all such members — more than half the caucus — from the Speakership doesn’t make sense, especially given Donald Trump’s ability and willingness to block anyone who didn’t fully back him in these matters.
And let’s not forget about the Democratic House members who tried to prevent the certification of Trump’s 2016 victory? Should they all be barred for that reason from leadership? I’ve never seen Democrats or their media allies advocate this.
As with Johnson’s strong social conservatism, the Democrats and their media allies must be delighted to have an “election denier” (actually, an election contester) as Speaker. As evidence, I’ll note that the Dems probably could have prevented the election of Johnson or any other member who contested the 2020 results.
The Democrats likely could have accomplished this if a number of them had agreed to vote “present” when Tom Emmer, or some other election non-contester, was voted on. Even the Washington Post advocated this, though only after it was too late to help Emmers. But as far as I can tell, there was no appetite for this move among Democrats.
Why not? Because they wanted to prolong the chaos, which they like as much as Matt Gaetz does.
Even more importantly, Democrats want an “election denier” to be the face of the House GOP. They believe that having one will brighten their 2024 election prospects.
And the prospect of winning elections as a party and exercising the power that comes with it is always enough to unite Democrat “moderates,” left-liberal Democrat mainstreamers, and hard-left identity politics mongers.
If only winning elections as a party meant nearly as much to Republicans.