Understanding Mike Johnson’s Social Conservatism

What we can learn from his work for the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom.

By
96
Newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson takes his oath of office after the House of Representatives held an election in the U.S. Capitol on October 25, 2023. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

When Republicans rallied behind Rep. Mike Johnson and unanimously elected him the 56th speaker of the House of Representatives Wednesday, the Louisiana lawmaker moved from a position of relative obscurity to the highest-ranking Republican in government.

Others will no doubt speculate on what Johnson’s leadership will mean for the prospect of a government shutdown, fights over the debt ceiling, continued funding to Ukraine, and the state of (dis)unity in the Republican Party. But what shouldn’t be overlooked is Johnson’s previous work with the Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and what this can tell us about the man now second in line for the presidency.

ADF was founded in 1993 with support and coordination from several important figures in the evangelical Christian world, including Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and Campus Crusade for Christ’s Bill Bright. It was initially designed to be a funding source for attorneys waging legal battles against abortion and LGBT rights and in favor of strengthening religious freedom protections. In the early 2000s, though, ADF transitioned to direct litigation, hiring attorneys and starting to defend clients of its own.

Two decades later, ADF is the cream of the crop of the Christian legal movement, a network of legal interest groups and law schools focused on promoting goals aligned with the conservative Christian community. This movement includes groups like First Liberty Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice—each of which has argued and won cases before the U.S. Supreme Court—and law schools at universities founded by Christian right stalwarts Pat Robertson (Regent University) and Jerry Falwell (Liberty University).

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
96
By
Comments (96)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Laurie

    Jesus said you can't serve two masters; you will love one and hate the other. Christianity is incompatible with the masters of power, wealth and celebrity, and yet the evangelical movement is nothing without those 3 things propping it up. (Exhibit A: Jesus literally tells his followers to pray in private, thus depending on God, but a football coach who sues to pray at the 50 yard line is elevated to hero status in the evangelical world). Jesus also said that everyone on the side of truth listens to him. When a pathological liar deceives so many in a cohort, and so easily, something is systemically wrong in that movement. I don't see anything in Johnson's life that indicates he will veer from this path he has chosen, it has given him everything a good evangelical could ever dream of.

    Collapse
  2. Bigdonmck

    It's tough being a Christian these days.
    Let's see...ADF or BLM? Maybe ADF ain't so bad.

    Collapse
  3. Tom S

    From my college political science classes many years ago, they taught that the traditional conservative political philosophy was one of more limited government. The government provided basic, essential services - roads, national defense, police/fire, etc. and then stayed out of the lives of the people. The conservative Republicans who desire to impose their values and religious beliefs on others are not acting consistent with traditional conservative values.

    I'd encourage everyone to listen to David Latt's Original Jurisdiction podcast interview with Kristen Waggoner of the ADF. Smart, articulate, intellectually dishonest culture warriors scare the heck out of me.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pbanuski

    I consider myself a left of center voter and the January 6th crap bothers me so much more than the social conservatism. Social conservatives have always been a factor in American politics and provided they work within the constraints of our constitutional system I say have at it. I think many of the ideas that form the foundation of social conservatism are flawed, but they’re within the normal parameters of American political discourse.

    The ugly steps people like Johnson took to change the outcome of a national election and disenfranchise millions of their fellow citizens is unacceptable. Damn all traitors.

    Collapse
    1. Pbeaupre3141

      Well said. That's the difference between good-faith yet wrongheaded policy, and anti-Americanism. This distinction matters. Johnson may be a proponent of the former. He is corruptly and dangerously guilty of the latter.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    LBernard

    Whenever I see people or organizations claiming to advocate for religious freedom, I have a litmus test. It is admittedly an extreme test, but in my opinion the whole point of having principles is to have an ethical foundation that can be relied on in extreme situations. The test is this:

    Would they advocate for people's right to practice Paganism just as much as they advocate for Christians?

    In other words, would they accept putting up symbols of the Triple Goddess next to the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn?

    If not, I conclude they are not actually interested in religious freedom. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions (FIRE) seems to pass this test. The ADF and Mike Johnson seem like they do not.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Would they support a Satanic Temple teacher leading prayers in school? A Muslim prayer at the 50 yard line after a football game? A member of a religion refusing to bake a wedding cake for couples who have been divorced or a Catholic and a Hindu getting married when the Bible says that you should’ve be “yoked” with unbelievers, etc.
      Basically put in any other religion besides Christianity and see?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Dexember

        This is the one slice of the religious freedom argument I agree with: the refusal to bake a wedding cake is the only action you listed that is the freedom to NOT take an action. A right of exit.

        I do support this right of exit in most cases. If someone says they don't want to cater a bar mitzvah because they're neo-Nazi scum then so be it. And vice versa: I wouldn't force a Jewish caterer to serve a Nazi rally. People should have the right of exit with SOME exceptions related to limited goods/public utilities, etc. It's not absolute, but in most things, there should be a right to refuse to participate in a religious ceremony, even for profit.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          I fully realize that the cake cases are more complicated than they appear..I was using it as an example, however , because they’re an example of what I think is some form of seeking religious preference and hypocrisy (you never see, for example, a Christian refusing to bake a cake for mixed-religious marriages or those between individuals who were married and then divorced and are seeking a re-marriage….

          Collapse
          1. Pbeaupre3141

            I think the overarching point is correct: much of "religious Liberty" is actually "religious preference" in disguise. And I find that to be antithetical to the American experiment. But in the case of the baked goods: I believe the argument is that the baker should have the power to choose to whom he/she denies service. If the baker does not want to be compelled to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but chooses to bake one for a re-marriage, that still fits under the banner of "it's their bakery, and they get to choose." The baker, as an individual, has the right to religious preference. The law does not. (I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not; just offering the distinction as I see it)

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Dexember

            But if I remember correctly, the issue was a local governmental board that had asserted legal fines for not baking the cake (or am I confusing this with another gay wedding case?).

            I understand your point that we don't hear of things going the other way, but there is political pressure in some states to be anti-Christian. It is limited geographically but real from what I've seen. The doxxing and threats against people in California that supported one of their referendum on gay marriage or something religious.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    Any one else notice the apparent contradictions in this sentence: "It was initially designed to be a funding source for attorneys waging legal battles against abortion and LGBT rights and in favor of strengthening religious freedom protections." Or in this one: “religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and God’s design for marriage and family.”

    Religious freedom for me, not thee.

    Collapse
    1. Pbeaupre3141

      It underscores the difference between, say. David French and Mike Johnson. French deeply believes in his religion, but sees American government as an inherently pluralistic project. To make it work, you must -- in public life -- see other religions (and non-religion) as equally legitimate

      If you can't believe that, you can't really say you're for the American project

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dexember

      Exactly. I'm for freedom of religion. But that means freedom FROM religion as well.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Dexember

    Why I'm dismayed at the election of Mike Johnson:

    The most obvious problem is his support for Donald Trump and his actions in leading up to and after Jan. 6th. The fact that he described as a true believer only makes me trust his judgement less. A snake like McCarthy may give obeisance to Trump out of a lack of conviction, but a zealot who bows before Trump for their convictions is a more dangerous person.

    On to the social conservativism: It is definitely ascendant in Republican politics. And it is backlash to the liberalizing of the culture towards homosexuality at its core. There is a strong tendency in this new wave of social conservativism towards authoritarian thinking and social engineering. A desire to control non-believers through law, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or religious schooling (like they tried in Texas).

    This tendency is NOT in align with the conservativism of "Classical Liberalism" or "conservativism of the American Founding". They may point to that era's dominate WASP culture but what they wish to conserve is not at all what I mean when I describe myself as conservative.

    And the authoritarian and illiberal nature of Donald Trump is not shocking to social conservatives (in general) the same way it is more classically liberal types. It is the rise of Christian Nation flags and Integralists. There is a real reason that social conservativism has historically been at home in Progressivism. You can see this tension on the left as Libertarian and old-school Liberals are repulsed by the neo-puritanism and illiberalism of today's Progressives.

    I strongly believe that the alliance of social conservatives with foreign policy hawks and fiscal conservatives is slowly dying as social conservatives become more and more obsessed with fighting an ever growing culture war.

    I'd like to see a third party grow out of the disaffected parts of right and left that support Ukraine, gay marriage, fiscal conservative, etc. It won't happen, and with the capitulation by the moderate Republicans to elect an election denying, anti-gay marriage, social conservative to the Speakership means it won't ever happen.

    I'm effectively voting Democrat locally, state wide, and nationally despite agreeing with very little of the Progressive agenda. I simply want my daughters to marry who they wish, get an abortion if they need one, our government to support Ukraine and Israel, and not have the Ten Commandants put up in their classroom (Actual bill recently voted down in Texas.). Not to mention that I'll never support anyone that supports Donald Trump's coup attempt. I'll vote for Nicki Halley or Doug Burgum and that's about it. I curse John McCain and Feingold for their Campaign Finance Law that did so much damage to put us in this place.

    Collapse
  8. Sampsoncrisp

    What makes this back and forth discussion confusing is that a very large chunk of those claiming to be evangelical Christians supporting social conservative values are anything but. They claim alliance with Jesus while ignoring his teachings. They claim alliance with conservative values but support a morally corrupt candidate to achieve a non democratic end. If we exclude this cohort (a very large portion of the Republicans) of the party it is much easier to understand and even justify conservative Christian political positions. It brings to mind the witticism that evangelicals complain that Jesus is just not Christian enough.

    Collapse
  9. Tghaberkorn

    Sheesh... lots of animus in the community.

    I can't quite tell if it is mainly towards Social Conservatism beliefs ... or if it is towards the actions some have taken in service to those beliefs...or both (?)



    I guess my cohort in the Dispatch community is a little smaller (or more silent?) than I had thought. :-)

    No worries. It's always thoughtful discussion here...no matter whether I can agree 100% with certain lines of thought or not.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Speaking for myself, it is the latter (actions taken in service to those beliefs.)

      I have no problem with members of a particular religious sect teaching the gay marriage is wrong and refusing to perform weddings of gay people. I do have a problem when they say that no one else, regardless of their religious beliefs, can get married if they are gay or can perform a gay marriage.

      I have no problem with some one personally refusing to use birth control. I do have a problem with that same person who happens to work at a pharmacy refusing to serve a customer who is buying birth control.

      I have no problem with churches teaching creationism in Sunday school. I do have a problem if they insist it is taught alongside evolution in public schools as if it were on the same scientific footing.

      Collapse
      1. Tghaberkorn

        I can appreciate that.
        And, living in a pluralistic society, there are certainly better and worse ways to go about sharing and practicing one’s own beliefs.

        The only thing I can do is plead for a touch of grace to be granted to those of the social conservative stripe who get a little too zealous in promoting their beliefs.

        Most (though certainly not all) are sincere in those beliefs and what starts with a heart motive to help others gets twisted through human nature to become…quite often unfortunately… the opposite of help and compassion.

        It’s a human falling. One that - for the Christian social conservative - requires some deep reflection and contemplation (and ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit) to come to terms with an correct.

        I’m the mean time, I would urge to just offer them the grace they (none of us, really!) deserve.

        That’s certainly not a demand. Just an earnest request.

        Collapse
    2. BenP

      I'm a non-socially conservative atheist, and I'm happy to give Mike Johnson a chance. A lot of the issues I don't agree with him on are issues that are simply beyond the scope of his job duties. If he can get the bomb-throwing wing of the Republican party to accept some ordinary political compromises without throwing their bombs I'll be happy, regardless of how wrong I think he is on LGBTQ+ rights and school prayer.

      Collapse
    3. Cdd8657

      It's probably just more silent. There's not much use arguing with folks who've already made up their minds (and yes, I know this goes both ways). It's actually why I usually stay as far away from comments sections as I can.

      Collapse
    4. Dignitarian

      You are not alone. I came to Dispatch for David French. I agreed with him on the Jack Phillips case when he was at National Review, and most recently on this past term's 303 Creative. It's too bad that secular people in the center--presumably where much of this alarm is coming from--view Christians, ADF, and social conservatism as intellectually bankrupt. It is one thing to criticize the unwavering cult behind Trump. But there's much more substance for those of us social conservatives who have had to tread our own path since 2016.

      Ie., Obergefell was wrongly decided, but it doesn't mean I want to "break up" already recognized same sex marriages. And I go to church with young earthers--brilliant STEM professors--although that is not my own position. That's an in-house debate in American Christianity that most secular people aren't even going to begin to understand.

      Collapse
      1. Tghaberkorn

        When social issues are discussed in the comments, I kind of feel like I’m in the minority here.

        And that’s definitely OK.

        It just kind of surprised me a little bit…or…I suppose it was the tenor of some comments about social conservatism that caught me off guard.

        In any case, this community is still where I feel the most at home out of most of the places I’ve read/commented over the years. (Breitbart, post-Andrew, quickly dissolved into an alt-right fever dream which was not a welcome spot for traditional conservatives… and Nick Catoggio can certainly attest and agree to the downward spiral HotAir took over the years).

        This place is definitely Big Tent, and I don’t see that changing. Only thing I can hope for is a little more nuance in people’s regard for social conservatism writ large.

        Collapse
        1. BrianM

          Very glad for social conservatives to feel comfortable with the Dispatch community. And continue to speak up! Evangelicals and social conservatives are often taken for granted as Trump-sympathetic. My own positions have moved towards being more socially liberal, but I know the good faith of many on all sides. The challenge is to not let one's contempt for a politician's cynical election-denialism color one's view as to all the other positions the politician holds. It's hard. It sometimes seems like those in public circles who most loudly claim the mantle of "Christian" are the ones who so obviously lack honesty, charity, empathy, etc. I fear it taints us all. And so the need for constant reminding that we aren't monolithic.

          It's a fact that Johnson's association with election denialism damages his credibility. And I fear his many public references to prayer, which I would have welcomed years ago, will make me cringe if he can't disassociate himself with the more dishonest elements of the stolen election caucus. It's a shame, because his tone over the last few days shows he could have made an even more effective champion for socially conservative causes. I may not agree with all those causes, but we would all benefit from less bombastic argument.

          PS, this is a welcome debut for this author to the Dispatch. I look forward to more.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        There's a lot of lumping going on. We cluster together people when we shouldn't.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Juan J

    To my fellow The Dispatch commenters: I see a lot of comments making emotion based appeals as to why the new Speaker of the House is horrible and beyond the pale. Just be aware that it’s done to emotionally prime us to feel repulsed. Our politics is about creating enemies and undermining our enemies. Judge this Republican congress under its new speaker by what they do.

    Collapse
    1. Hikingguy

      I have already judged those hapless GQP sacks in the House and found them wanting. What else should I expect from the new boss-same as the old boss? He's a MAGAt. I know what to expect from MAGAts already. I don't want his religion running my life. That's really all I need to know.

      Collapse
Load More