Before asking whether new US House of Representatives speaker Mike Johnson is up to the task ahead of him, it is worth detailing just how challenging that task is.
Congress must pass spending bills for the remainder of this fiscal year — beginning with another temporary extension needed in just three weeks. It must approve the annual military authorization bill and the farm bill, which covers food assistance programs. It must debate extra spending for Israel and other global crises. And this is all happening in a House that was already behind schedule even before Republicans threw away three weeks arguing over the speakership, and whose Republican Party majority opposes the positions that the majority of the Senate supports.
A lot of the early reporting has stressed Johnson’s extremely conservative policy preferences, as well as his role in supporting former US president Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 US presidential election. What matters much more, however, is whether he has the skillset needed for the job he just won. Scratch that: It is pretty clear, as a former adviser to former Republican Party speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan points out, Johnson does not have the skills yet. So the question is whether he can develop them in what is likely to be a challenging, if not hostile environment.
Johnson needs to keep 221 Republicans, each with individual demands, happy. He needs to convince them to work together as a unified party even when they disagree. He needs to steer bills through the House floor, and then he would need to cut deals with the Senate and the White House. Then, when those deals are finalized, he would need scores of House Republicans to vote for bills many of them would rather oppose — and he would need those who are going to oppose them to limit themselves to complaining (however loudly) about it rather than attempting to take down the party in revenge. Or take down the speaker in revenge. Or, as has happened over the last two months, both.
It is possible that Majority Leader Steve Scalise can be of help to Johnson and the Republican Party as the new speaker learns how to do the job. However, Scalise and Majority Whip Tom Emmer were both humiliated as speaker nominees, not even getting a floor vote. It is unclear that they will be able to wield much influence going forward. Are they — as well as former speaker Kevin McCarthy and the other almost-speaker, Jim Jordan — going to be looking to avenge their humiliations? Do they each think he will be the true power behind the gavel? It is rare for even one rejected party leader to remain in Congress. Now there are four.
As a third-term member who has been on the fringe of leadership and whose pre-congressional career was in advocacy, Johnson has practically no experience in this sort of thing. His resume suggests he is more of an ideologue than a pragmatist, but his ability to win broad support in his party suggests that he must be able to portray himself as more than purely an advocate for a set of ideas.
If he is lucky, Johnson will get a bit of a honeymoon period from a Republican Party conference that is probably a little shell-shocked. However, if the radicals who helped bring down McCarthy are perceived as having won this round and act triumphant rather than conciliatory, things could quickly spiral out of control.
For an example of how things could go wrong, consider that Johnson has said that he would support another short-term extension of lapsed spending bills while House Republicans (finally) pass their own versions of full-year bills. Several radicals have argued that any such bills are a violation of conservative principles. Will they make an exception in this case? Or will they claim that Johnson is selling them out, just as McCarthy did? Then, when full-year bills are ready, will the party unite and vote for the rules that govern consideration of each bill — even if individual members are not happy with the bill as a whole? If not, there is essentially no working majority, and Republicans are back to where they were in September.
McCarthy, it must be said, was not very good at the job. At the same time, dysfunction within the Republican Party goes back decades, and confounded even skilled party leaders. Nor does it help that Trump is likely to continue to toss grenades that would disrupt even a healthy party. Realistically, muddling through is probably the best Johnson can hope for, even if he proves to be unusually good at the job. If not, House Republicans have already challenged experts’ imaginations about how bad things can get. So I will not even try to imagine it.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS