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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS