Three Ways of Looking at Mike Johnson

Are Republicans trying to force normal conservatives away from the party?

By
369
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson addresses the House chamber after winning the speakership on Wednesday, October 25, 2023. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)

The Republicans fired Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House; McCarthy was a guilty apologist for Donald Trump’s attempted coup d’état following his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The Republicans tried to replace McCarthy with Jim Jordan, who was an enthusiast for Donald Trump’s attempted coup d’état following his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The Republicans have now elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who was a key legal strategist for Donald Trump’s attempted coup d’état following his loss in the 2020 presidential election. 

That trendline is moving in the wrong direction. 

Jonah Goldberg has spelled out a useful heuristic for getting one’s head around the antics of the contemporary GOP. To understand modern Republicans, he says, ask yourself: What would they do if they were trying to be a minority party? Nine times out of 10, that’s what they will do. It is as though they are trying to force moderates, “normies,” ordinary sensible people, and—if it comes to it—more or less up-and-down-the-line conservatives who just happen to have an aversion to coups to either stay on the sidelines or support Democrats. 

Those estranged conservatives and would-be Republicans have to make some difficult decisions about how to oppose their (once and future?) party: working within it, working with independent groups, or working with Democrats. 

Call it three degrees of anti-Caesarism. 

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
369
By
Comments (369)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Very much appreciate your clarity regarding conservatism vs the behavior of Gaetz and Jordan.

    Wordiness question: What is the proper use of the word “instantiate?” I believe it may get misused in political discourse occasionally.

    Collapse
    1. Chris S

      I write code for a living. "Instantiate" is a common verb in the context of computer programming languages, and I rather suspect it follows an older Greek understanding, just as use of the word "type" does in similar contexts. In programming, an instance is a particular representation of a more general object. An object can be anything. One can define an object to be, say, an address object, with data fields such as street, city, state, postal code, and country. When you instantiate an address object, that object becomes particular, with specific fields such as "123 Main Street", "Houston", "Texas", "77001", and "USA". Another instantiation might be "128 Main Street", and so forth. Hence, instance is a specific representation of a more generally defined object.

      I suspect that the use of the word "instantiate" in popular or political discourse is likely to follow from the computer programming use of the word rather than from a more ancient usage tradition, if only because of the power of technology and technology companies in English speaking societies at present. Hence, understanding "instantiate" to be a verb that expresses the specific application of a general principle is perhaps proper.

      Collapse
  2. Beatrizr487

    Mr. Williamson,

    I admire and enjoy your writing style and almost always agree with you, but there is one question I always have in the back of my mind when I read a good and decent writer on politics.
    Instead of writing about it, why don’t you go into politics and help fix it. And I ask it of myself too, I might add. It seems all the ‘good’
    people lack, what? Courage?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I doubt Kevin lacks for courage. I think he knows he can do more good on the outside. The problem is that Kevin will win a total of five votes if he runs. I might write him in in 2024, though, so he’s got my vote if he ever runs for something I can vote for.

      Collapse
  3. Gry.Solingen

    The Sikhs have Satnam, “True Name” (the first element is cognate with our English _sooth_).

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Judson Heartsill

    “three degrees of anti-Caesarism”

    This is some very nice strategic moralizing, Kevin. I think a lot could be built upon this. Wish more folks wrote like this. It’s certainly personally helpful to me in sorting through how to vote and act.

    Re: the bible:

    In 2018, Kevin got in trouble with the cool kids for musing out loud that taking a preborn life is murder, and that capital punishment is an appropriate sanction for such a crime. Kevin, perhaps having the good sense to be slightly embarrassed by the bible, proposed hanging rather than stoning.

    Now, if Johnson similarly mused out loud tomorrow that murder deserves capital punishment, I’d be mighty surprised if he took a much different tack from Kevin. He’d likely also be embarrassed enough by the bible to not bring up stoning.

    The prophets said that men were prone to become biblical obscurantists whenever acknowledging the clarity of the bible was likely to result in their ox being gored.

    Johnson, for example, would doubtless engage in lots of hand-waving if presented with Leviticus 19:32: "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that sojourn with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." MAGA, after all, depends upon nativism for its lifeblood.

    And entitlements? Even if Kevin were wrong, and the bible were clear about welfare, Johnson wouldn’t care, because MAGA needs entitlements, like all political leeches need blood. Without entitlements, how can MAGA properly stir up resentments against immigrants? (Kevin is wrong about biblical clarity on welfare, by the way.)

    I’m thankful that Kevin properly interpreted Paul re: preaching Christ, and that Kevin did a great job preaching that passage against Fleischmann. I’m also grateful that Kevin didn’t feel threatened enough by that passage to engage in obscurantism about it, like he did about entitlements.

    That’s the thing about making peace with the New Deal. There is a certain amount of biblical obscurantism required to remain at peace with it. Even a certain amount of laziness, maybe even cowardice.

    I really don’t think that Johnson is impious for claiming there are clear answers available in the bible. I think it’s his hypocrisy that makes him impious.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      What would you say the Bible says about entitlements?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Judson Heartsill

        It helps to first define entitlements. Some would try to carve out social security or Medicare as non-entitlements, but it hardly makes sense to do that as folks feel... entitled to them.

        So entitlements is any use of the public purse for relief of any kind. Medical, poor, etc.

        The statutes given to Moses on Sinai reflect a society commanded by God to primarily perform direct relief. Straight from the household to the needy. A good example would be the gleaning laws. The poor could freely tread in a field to gather the purposely leftover grain.

        Another example is the use of interest free loans to a brother who has become poor and needy in the land. Direct relief; not an entitlement.

        There are some examples of relief in the old kingdom which was third party; i.e. gathered by the priesthood and re-distributed to the needy. Since Israel had a theocracy (i.e. religious authorities also judged criminal and civil cases), anyone arguing that the bible approves of what we call entitlements today has the thorny issue of blessing theocracy or claiming that the IRS and social security administrations are the heirs of priests.

        In the New testament the apostles speak of the legitimacy of the civil authorities (i.e. Rome) as consisting in their duty to punish evil and praise good (see Peter and Paul). The apostles retain charity as a church duty. This legitimate separation of societal roles was recognized in the non-establishment statutes of the American founding. The first American magistrates did not see any cause whatsoever for using the civil public purse for poor relief.

        The widespread adoption of poor relief by the civil authorities in the USA reflects the dual trend of the civil authority arrogating spiritual roles to itself, which unfortunately the spiritual authorities have been too tolerant of in their preaching and practice. Almost everybody in the churches are on some sort of entitlements now, so they view it as normal and natural, and they steer the poor toward those sources of aid rather than the church in many cases.

        I would say it is not working out too well. The social security administration does not seem to be able to pull off a loaves and fishes type of miracle, considering the unfunded liabilities therein.

        Paul said, if a man will not work, he should not eat. He also said that a man who does not take care of his own family has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Those are the most trenchant summaries of biblical view of poor relief available.

        The Bible also forbids corporate welfare, or crony capitalism. One only has to peruse all the Proverbs about bribes to see that.

        I think corporate entitlements will be much harder to eradicate than poor entitlements, as mercantilism has been with us since before the war for Independence, unlike poor entitlements. Caesar always takes his cut before doling any out to the poor.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          That makes a lot of sense to me! I appreciate the detailed answer.

          Collapse
  5. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  6. Avatar photo
    John Lewis

    Kevin is one of the best writers working. I love that he finds magic interesting, and spot on about the thing that makes it interesting. Nothing to do with tricks and misdirection. In present times we’re losing the ability for useful magic. And because it appears magical thinking will spring continuously in the human soul (psyche?) regardless of whether one acknowledges it, we still have to deal with it’s felt effects. Magic, when appropriately directed, places us meaningfully in a wild universe. Something like a moral anchor. It should provide me a language to engage with mystery (albeit imperfectly) and ground me in a sense of awe and reverence for this universe. And if I don’t give my magical thinking a useful spot to land in, it’ll insidiously reach for all the tangible spectacle we find in our world and stitch together ridiculous subterfuge. I think proper magic can be a shield against nonsense and clown car politics. Kevin brings up Frazer’s point that belief and superstition are the ‘embarrassing ancestors,’ but maybe our most brilliant public figures, scientists included, are in as much need (or more) of the kind of magic that honors our actual place among things and treats this universe with sufficient reverence and awe. It’s a filing issue. Which ideas ought to go where. And humility never hurt anyone. Not in the long run at least.

    Collapse
  7. Randall Briggs

    And worship is the right word. For those of you who may from time to time take Mike Johnson’s advice and “pick up a Bible,” the word “preach” followed by a proper noun surely brings to mind St. Paul: “We preach Christ, and Him crucified,” a slogan derived from the apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:23.

    Mike Johnson had better be careful not to venture into 1 Corinthians Chapter 13. He'd find some radical ideas that are in direct conflict with the ruling motivations in Donald Trump's GOP.

    Collapse
  8. Dawn of Destruction

    "…a Republican Party that cannot figure out a way to get the support of people who really want to support Republicans can expect to have some real trouble with independents, moderates, etc."

    That is what I find so astounding. I consider myself pretty rock-ribbed, but the GOP is doing its dead-level best to run me off. I may become a non-voter.

    Collapse
  9. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    Good Kevin. Abandon the Von Papen strategy. It is the only way to save the Republic. The Republican Party will be enthralled by the crazy populists until he sane Republican voters and elected officials threaten to vote with the Democrats if the Republican nominee is a crazy authoritarian populist.

    Sane conservatives Von Papen and Von Schleicher thought allying with the center left was too distasteful so they formed a coalition with the crazy authoritarian populists. That did not turn out well for them. I don’t think this approach will turn out any better today.

    Collapse
  10. Zjim0608

    The 4th degree is for long time Republican voters to check their ballot for RFK Jr. I voted for his Uncle because he was Irish Catholic and that trend can continue now. It is the only time I did not vote Republican.

    Collapse
Load More