Republican US Representative, Mike Johnson, from Louisiana was elected as the 56th Speaker of the House on October 25, 2023.
I’ve been wanting to write this article for a few days already. Finally, today I got a chance to sit down and write about the significance of this event. This is another historical moment, although there is quite a disagreement if this is a happy or challenging moment in our American history. I will let you decide what is the answer to that question, but I must note that this is a far from straightforward issue. There are lots of twists and turns in this situation.
Let’s start with the fact that the mere reason why a new speaker of the House had to be elected is because the previous speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted in a coalition lead by Republicans themselves. In particular spearheaded by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). In case you were not aware, there was a sizable number of Republicans, not only in the House but across the country who had many choice words (not kind words at all) towards Rep. Gaetz for spearheading Rep. McCarthy’s ousting.
Rep. McCarthy was voted out on Tuesday, October 5, 2023, and the race for getting a new Speaker of the House was contentious to be fair (backstabbing to be borderline hyperbolic). There were a few contenders for this position. Many of which most people would not be able to pick in a height line, but the most prominently recognizable was Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) – the guy that seldom wears a jacket and who speaks very fast. He tried repeatedly to get that post and ultimate failed to get elected even though Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives. In fact, there was a very vocal coalition against him. Then again, Rep. Jordan likely burned a few bridges during his tenure.
Rep. Jordan failed to reach the coveted speaker of the House gavel after three attempts. To add insult to injury, each voting round awarded him fewer votes than the last. Rep. Jordan has been viewed by many as a very polarizing figure in the American political discord no matter what side of the aisle you lean towards. Obviously, what many would qualify as a controversial record has not helped him out in reaching across the aisle to gain Democrats support either, especially when he keeps talking smack about The Left.
It is worth noting that when the House had an open voting, a lot of the fellow Republicans voted in support of Rep. Jordan but, on the secret vote – in his own caucus where the names are not recorded as far how each representative voted – Rep. Jordan’s support was far less than what is in the no-secret vote. Strange huh? This is important to note, because it shows potential baggage on how the voting record of each representative can affect their political stances and incumbency. Also, there were numerous reports of intimidation and downright threats to members of Congress and their families who openly voted against Jordan.
Blaming the Democrats
It seems more like a talking point, a buzz word, or a trope for Republicans to discredit Democrats when it comes to some of the setbacks the Republicans in Congress have been facing in the past few weeks. To be honest, much like most of the country I am sick of this partisan “us against them” mentality that keeps permeating our political system. Votes seem to be going strictly down party lines regardless of the need for an actual dialog necessary to reach a win-win situation. And by that I don’t mean a “compromise;” I don’t like the word compromise because a compromise leaves stuff out of the table – somebody gets disenfranchised. I like a win-win situation. A win-win is attainable (there is precedent in Congress about that in the voting record), but it takes more than effort. That is why we elect people to positions of power to perform that demanding duty on behalf of ALL Americans.
So, I am sorry, but I will have to fly the bullshit flag when I see Republicans blaming the Democrats for not voting in favor of the Republican caucus candidate. Are Republicans willing to vote in favor of the Democrat candidate caucus? No, they are not. Therefore, it is unreasonable to think that either side would be compelled to vote outside party lines. This needs to change, as I mentioned, but I don’t see an end in sight any time soon.
Republicans also have the majority in the House of Representatives at this time, however razor thin, so in either case the Democrats votes are less of those of the Republicans. Even if all Democrats voted unanimously over any issue, they are not going to win. Do I wish things would be different? Yes, of course, and I stated as much in the previous paragraph. But, once again, it is exceedingly naïve to ascertain that there is going to be a truly bipartisan agreement based on the obvious gridlocks that we’ve observed in the last several years.
Case in point, Rep. McCarthy and other Republicans blamed the Democrats for voting in favor of removing him as speaker of the House. I don’t know if this gaslighting that Rep. McCarthy and company are spewing works on anybody, but it is very patronizing to anybody who is actually paying attention. The Democrats were starkly opposed to having Rep. McCarthy as the speaker of the House in the first place. They did not vote to elect him and, given the opportunity to vote to remove him, what the hell would Rep. McCarthy think they would do? No Duh! I mean, historically, it took Rep. McCarthy the most amounts of votes to gain the speakership in the first place (15 tries), and that was only after giving severe connections to the more extreme parts of his party who ended up removing him from his post anyway. Like, nobody saw that coming. I did, even back in January.
Yes, the Democrats do have their choice for speaker of the House and his name is Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). For this last vote, unsurprisingly, Democrats casted all of their 209 available votes for him in every ballot while Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) got all 220 votes (of course) from the Republicans. Rep. Johnson, although a very obscure figure when compared to some other US Representatives who make headlines more often, is not without controversy.
For this article, I will not delve too deep into those controversies because I don’t want my words to be perceived as leaning towards favoritism or partisanship for, or against any personality. However, some of these facts will not be easy to read for some people who might have a political bias at this particular time in our history. If the person was a Democrat and had the same baggage, I would be writing the same things that I am writing now. To anybody with a political bias I would recommend them to check this same article in the future when the emotional factor is quelled. Yes, emotional factors are deliberately part of the political discourse. The good news is that facts are impervious to emotion. The bad news is that there are a lot of people who vote based on conjecture instead of facts.
Why am I talking about emotional factors? Simple, because our country political discourse is currently largely polarized based on emotions. We need to return to some adequate level of pragmatism to realize what are the facts and underlining issues. This is not the time in our history to be willfully ignorant, or to let our emotions take the best of us, especially whenever we face statements that [we] otherwise find challenging to our perception [of what we want to believe is true, even if it is not].
What is at stake?
Actually, a lot! For starters, the extension to prevent having the US government shutdown expires mid-November. We have been without a speaker of the House for over three weeks (22 days). That is also important because during that entire time a lot of other significant events have occurred- among other things, the attack on Israel by the violent extremist group, Hamas.
When Congress lacks a speaker of the House then a lot of legislation that will afford our troops the funding to conduct operations comes to a stand-still. It is worth mentioning that USA’s military role in this conflict is to prevent this situation from spilling and expanding away from the region. A lot has happened in the last few weeks, but that is a topic for another article. I have chosen not to write much about the Israel-Hamas conflict yet because of all the historical sensitivities that surround this struggle. But, for anybody who thinks that these are not correlated somehow, think again. There is a lot more than what meets the eye riding on these events. Anybody who has been paying attention to history in the last 70+ years will be able to explain to you why.
Which is a good segway to speak about why this new speaker of the House is significant during this time in our history. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has openly spoken about how his decision making and governing style derivates directly from biblical doctrine. Is this a good or a bad thing? Well, it depends if you happen to be in the same Christian Denomination as Johnson, or you are anybody else [for that matter].
By the way, he seems to subscribe to one of the many Baptists sub-denominations. Aside from many specifically contentious theological doctrines, he also subscribes to an Evangelical segment that believes in a young Earth believing that the world is ~6,000 years old. This can be attested by his open support to the Young-Earth Creationist group answers in Genesis – meanwhile, the rest of the scientists agree that the world is 4.543 billion years old. For any eagled-eye mathematicians that means many people who make a living on several independent established and demonstrable sciences had independently concluded that our planet is 4,543,000,000 years old, or 4,542,994,000 older than what young Earth Creationists assert. I’ll let you be the judge of who is correct. But I think you can imagine which number I lean towards in this issue.
Among other things, House Speaker Johnson’s political career is built on the claim that the USA should be governed as a Christian country. There is a slight [euphemism for huge] problem that not everybody in America are Christians, and a follow up problem is that a lot of Christians do not agree in great swaths of their own doctrines. Hence, we have thousands of Christian denominations, although there is an estimated nine million Baptists (combining all branches for Baptists), and there is a further estimated 210 million Christians combining all denominations (including Baptists) in the USA. Of course, there are 332 million people in the country. So, let’s do a bit of quick arithmetic to show why this fact is significant:
332,000,000 US People
– 210,000,000 US Christians
_____________
112,000,000 US non-Christians.
Are these 112 million people supposed to be mandated to convert to Christianity? If you are in the group that says “YES”, let’s discuss and please answer, “Then what Christian denomination should we all convert to?” House Speaker Johnson is a Baptist, so is every other Christian alright with following this denomination as the theocracy of the land? Let’s use quick arithmetic to ensure we are capturing this reality:
210,000,000 US Christians
– 9,000,000 US Baptists
_____________
201,000,000 Other-than-Baptists US Christian Denominations.
I am not trying to start a religious contention in this article, but if we are talking about a democracy, and the House representing ALL Americans, then this is an important topic to understand if religion in politics is playing a central role. I was unable to discover how many exact numbers of Christian denominations exist in the US at this time. I tried, and there is a lot of information that does not actually narrows it down, but instead it bundles a lot of larger segments of Christianity and does not give an exact number.
However, there are about 45,000 Christian denominations in the world. So, under that metric, if we consider that the US is pretty much a microcosm of the world it is bound to have a similar number of Christian followers. For this experiment, we’ll divide people equally among Christian denominations in the world. Since Christianity should be world-wide, correct? Although these 45,000 denominations do not agree with their doctrines, if they did there would not be a need for divergence.
210,000,000 US Christians ÷ 45,000 denominations = about 3,889 people.
Why am I doing this? Well, simple. Christianity, when combined with the many denominations, is indeed a huge religion. But, when you put it in separated denominations, there are a lot of minorities (as you can see in this rough average) that are religious with a common theme. They diverge very drastically in doctrine and epistemology. In other words, it is very risky to proclaim only one denomination or religion as the law of the land. But, if you’re still in favor of this please consider the following if you’re willing to convert anybody to Christianity:
For example,
What if the “Christian US” was all Jehovah Witness? Or…
What if the “Christian US” was all Latter-Day Saints (Mormon?) Or…
What if the “Christian US” was all Catholic with Augustinian doctrines? Or…
What if the “Christian US” was all Pentecostal? Or…
What if the “Christian US” was all Christian Orthodox? Or…
What if the “Christian US” was all Southern Baptist? I can go on with all the 44,994 remaining Christian denominations but I hope this makes my point.
Hopefully, this makes sense as to why there is a separation of church and state in the United States of America. It actually PROTECTS your right to worship whoever, or whatever, you want which is freedom of religion. For example, if you are a Southern Baptist, would you be cool with being mandated under Catholic Doctrine? Which includes doing all the ceremonies and rituals under that doctrine? And, of course, adjust your epistemology accordingly? How about the possibility of instead of being allowed to practice your Southern Baptist faith, you are now required to be a Jehovah Witness? They are also considered Christian. Yes, I am very sure most Christians would not be cool with anybody imposing a denomination that is contrary to their current epistemology. Well, the same is pretty much true for anybody else, no matter what their current belief (or lack-there-off) they have chosen to follow.
Why do you think we don’t have a requirement to be forced into a particular religion? Because otherwise we would not live in a democracy, or a republic for that matter, but rather we would be stuck in a theocracy. For example, countries who live under Islam have a theocracy and the Koran and Sharia Law are the law of the land. If you don’t agree with it, well too bad because it is the law in those countries. By the way, in Islam there is a death penalty for apostacy (or leaving the faith). Would you be OK if that happened in the United States, too, as a mandatory theocracy?
If that gives you pause, even a little, then the same feeling goes for anybody who does not agree with your own particular denomination. That is why we have religious freedom. The separation of church and state protects every religion and prevents any one denomination from becoming the mandate of the land.
I am spending some time on this religious leaning of the speaker of the House because he is so adamant about governing under his religious interpretation. It worries me that under that metric not all Americans are being represented equally. In other words, believe what you want, dude, but don’t force it onto anybody else. Nobody is stopping him from being a hard-core Baptist. If that works for him, cool – but that does not give him authority over imposing his religious doctrines onto everybody else from the third highest office in the land. In other words, please respect all other 323,000,000 non-Baptists in the country. Want examples about the worldviews he wants to impose? Sure:
He is very vocal against LGBTQ+ people. He wants it to be criminalized. He is on record stating as much, and how he disagrees with what he considers as “a choice.” Being LGBTQ+ is not a choice, much like being straight is not a choice. You are either straight or not. So, if you’re in that 7% of the US population, he has made some pretty inflammatory comments about you. My position is simple; love the person you love and spend your life with them if it is mutually consensual.
Among the same misunderstanding he believes that LGBTQ+ leads to bestiality. For example, erroneously stating LGBTQ+ would be inclined to marry their pets. That is a very slippery slope that dehumanizes people.
He has a very deep misunderstanding of evolution, and to add insult to injury he also based that on some public statements he has made regarding school shootings (look it up but it might make you mad).
How did we get here?
Yes, that begs the question, how is it that we ended up with House Speaker Mike Johnson? Well, it might be by design. There were two other candidates for speaker of the House who gained the majority nomination to run by the Republican caucus, but they voluntarily stepped down. The most recent example is Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn). He was the Majority Whip, and his voting record does show bipartisan participation. He resigned even before the vote came to the floor, and only four hours after his nomination.
Rep. Emmer, however, did not enjoy former President Trump’s good graces. Trump had called Emmer, among other choice words, a “RINO”- or Republican in Name Only- which is some sort of insult that conservatives throw at each other if they are “not conservative enough.” What is interesting to me is that it’s likely that Rep. Emmer could have gained political support from the Democrats to be elected as speaker of the House because his voting record already reflected a willingness to work across the aisle on certain key issues. As a political strategy that would have been very inconvenient to the Republican’s narrative that the Democrats are not willing to work with the Republicans on electing a Republican Speaker of the House.
Of course, that was very true with candidates such as Rep. Jim Jordan, and it was true with Rep. Mike Johnson, but although we will never know how it would have been with Rep. Emmer- because the vote did not come to the House floor- I have a feeling that Rep. Emmer might have been able to get at least a few votes from some of the Democrats. In fact, that would have been a wise move for the Democrats because that would undermine any narrative that they are unwilling to work with the Republicans to reach agreements across the aisle. Selecting Rep. Mike Johnson was very likely to prompt the all-so-common voting we see segmented by party lines.
As I mentioned before, the voting record is designed to be a tool for good, but it can also be politically compromising, especially when it comes to lobbyists or other special interest groups. Most Americans won’t care much about the voting record a politician cast for whatever legislation reaches the floor, but those who fund campaigns do pay attention to that closely. I am not necessarily talking about grass-root donors but instead, those who have a lot more money to spend. And, no, that kind of spending money in politics is not just altruistic, but there is an expected return on investment.
Far from implying that, House Speaker Mike Johnson is coming with a nefarious agenda, and I am just stating the obvious. There is a valid reason for why House Speaker Johnson was selected to take this role. Although Johson is far less vocally famous than more polarizing figures such as Rep. Jim Jordan, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s voting record and career have spearheaded several issues that have been very contentious in the American political discourse. Let’s list just a few for your information:
He is pro-Election Denial, in asserting that former President Trump won the election (this is a very important factor, and I’ll expand more on that shortly). In fact, he was one of the architects of this narrative that is now better known as “The Big Lie.”
He blamed the last mass shooting on “the human heart.” In case you were not aware, the last mass shooting was in Maine and is the deadliest one in 2023, and 2023 has already experienced 565 mass shootings. And, yes, that is more than previous years. It just keeps getting worse and worse. He is very much against common-sense gun regulations which by the way the majority of Americans support (which is not the same as confiscation of firearms, by the way – a lot of liberals also love their guns, and some tend to own quite the collections).
We already discussed his issues against you if you happen to be a LGBTQ+. He was in favor of criminalizing what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Not sure why anybody should care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms no matter if they are straight or LGBTQ+ – just staying, that’s creepy.
He wants to impose his religious views onto the rest of the country, which is what he did before being elected to Congress. He was an attorney who fought in favor of some controversially charged religious issues.
His voting record goes against climate and clean energy policies.
And I can go on, but if you do a quick Google search you will find enough material to read for hours so I will leave it at that for now. I mostly want you to have a timeframe of reference in case you want to do more research in the future. But I will return to the one that I find most contentious, and that is the election denialism. Let me explain why this is such an important issue.
Why is election denial dangerous?
First, a few facts. Former President Trump did not win the 2020 election. There have been multiple lawsuits to contend the election results, and they all failed. Many other criminal charges have been levied against Trump and some of his followers that categorically demonstrate that his narrative of a stolen election was found false. In fact, a few of his attorneys who were pushing this narrative flipped on him now that they are face-to-face with serious criminal charges. But there is a more important issue, and it is that this narrative of a stolen election is convenient to countries who do not want America to remain the shiny city on the hill. What does that mean?
Well, simple. There are a lot of authoritarian countries out there who are bidding for becoming the number one nation in the world. That would mean that whatever narrative of authoritarianism they spew would become the new normal. America does have room for improvement, but we are not in a political climate whereas if you speak out of turn the government will drag you out of your house and make you “disappear.” But those disappearances, or violent repercussions, do happen in other countries where elections are actually a sham.
The election in 2020 was the most secure election thus far. Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college in 2020. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. There are simply fewer people who wanted to have Trump remain President of the United States. So, it should be a credit to Trump that under his watch the election was not rigged, yet he is somehow telling the world that he was presiding when election fraud occurred. Such a gigantic problem would actually not be good optics for his ability to govern, just saying. Yet, in the same election, a lot of Republicans did win a few races, and they did not contest those results, including Mike Johnson’s ballot. Bizarre, huh?
Anyway, claiming election fraud in the US would make other countries in the world seem “acceptable” to have rigged elections. In other words, “if the US has rigged elections being the leader of the world, then it would be normalized to the rest of the world.” Now, that is a convenient narrative to all of those authoritarian countries. But, fortunately, the merits on the evidence do not hold any water. Let’s explore.
Commonly you hear the trope that President Biden did not hold big rallies like Trump as the smoking gun for why there was election fraud. So, let us dispel this very quickly. Democrats do not really go to rallies, and if they vote they will vote but that does not mean they will be wrapping themselves with their candidate’s regalia while spending copious amounts of money to support their candidate of choice. They will just show up and vote, and perhaps donate some money to their campaigns, but otherwise they do not make a big fuss over it.
For example, it’s very unlikely that you will see Democrats buying hats, shirts, hoodies, flags, merchandise, and stay in line for a rally hours before any of their people speak. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on that, they would instead donate to a campaign up to whatever is the allowed amount. Instead of spending on merchandise, they will listen or read what they have to say in the platforms that they consume. For example, instead of going to a rally to view the candidate as they speak, they will login to a website and hear what the candidate has to say from the comfort of their own home. Also, 2020 was smack in the middle of COVID-19 and Democrats preferred to stay home and social distance than going out to rallies and, by doing so, minimize the chance of getting infected with COVID. And, yes, many of them also listen to Right-wing news, they just don’t agree with their narrative.
However, these factors have mostly been forgotten by some of the Right-wing voters. Some don’t even know what happened on January 6, 2021, and that is already startling. By the way, that is the day of the insurrection and assault on the Capitol in Washington D.C. and what caused former President Trump to be impeached for the second time. There are many criminal proceeding and charges against Trump because of that, even though it took more than two years for the indictment to come to light.
The point is that a lot of otherwise very caring and good people who are currently supporting some of the more extreme policies were simply not afforded the full story by their outlets of choice. In other words, Republicans and Democrats can and have worked together, even if they don’t agree on everything. But there is a lot more of what makes us similar than different. That is not convenient to some people who want to push a certain agenda. We have politicians who repeat adversarial talking points verbatim and their constituents parrot them as well. Some people will follow this agenda because they have been lied to while others do so because they are willfully trying to deceive their base.
I have heard the point of views of many so called MAGA Republicans, and they are indeed good decent people, very patriotic, and have a lot of love for the country. But I say this with a lot of love in my heart; they have not been afforded the full story and, yes, I have told them as much in person while giving them an opportunity to see the full context.
It is actually very startling to see how much Republicans actually agree with Democrats on some common denominator policies. In conversations with both sides, I’ve noticed they were onboard with certain doctrines BEFORE they knew that those were political policies that they thought they were supposed to dissent upon. It’s fascinating! I find it very disturbing that good people are being utilized by certain politicians to spread misinformation. If you are a MAGA Republican, it will do you well to read and listen to news that are not from your usual “trusted” outlets- both, from the US and internationally. You will discover the obvious, and that is that some of the key information is not making it to your ears. Some of that misinformation is forcing your vote, but this vote is actually against your best interests.
Whether you love or hate Trump is not the issue, here, but the fact is that he has 94 criminal charges and several civil lawsuits. He is also not winning on any of them. Understand that some of those judges were appointed by Trump himself. And any person who was his supporter but had to dissent- well, Trump disavowed them exceedingly fast.
It is worth mentioning that if you file even ONE charge for a case (for example pertaining to an indictment or a lawsuit) [especially] against a high-profile figure that means that actual evidence exists in order to bring said case to court. Especially in high profile cases attorneys would prefer not to risk losing their bar license for bringing a frivolous case to trial – especially if it cannot be won on the merits. The US Government is not in the business to bring a trial they don’t think they can actually win – and if they bring a case will be armed with evidence they gathered well before goes to trial. This realization can be very traumatic for people who have a deep level of devotion towards Trump (or anybody else who enjoys their devotion for that matter).
But it will, just like breaking up with a significant other that sometime in your past gave your butterflies in your stomach. The facts in the end will dictate how that relationship will survive. Some of the people who flipped on him [Trump] felt that their relationship with him was not as positive as they originally envisioned. You might be one of them, too, in the future. Who knows? The fact is that, although very vocal, the MAGA voter just happens to be dwindling for the very reason I just mentioned, and I have met a bunch.
They loved Trump, and they tried to prove somebody else wrong before they found out the [verifiable] truth available pretty much everywhere else, except their usual go-to media outlets. Then they got mad at Trump, and now they are not MAGA Republicans anymore. Still pretty awesomely patriotic Americans, though. Some others (who did not particularly like nor dislike Trump) already realized some that otherwise freely available information before giving Trump a chance to galvanize his power over them. That is why Trump would call anybody else “fake news” – even outlets he previously endorsed if they said something critical of him at some point. It would be counterintuitive if he didn’t – obviously he does not want his fans to hear anything that could be considered disparaging.
A pretty sizable segment of the MAGA Republicans is indeed very patriotic and spirited but we also have to remember that all MAGA or non-MAGA are also required to understand that the world is a lot more complex than what is being afforded in many outlets. I am willing to bet that MAGA Republicans will not be very happy with Trump if they actually figure out that not everything relevant for their decision making and devotion has been percolated in the rallies and their outlets of choice. There is simply a lot that whoever are controlling the narrative are not telling them [MAGA supporters].
How do I know? Well, I have been looking at a lot of MAGA outlets and I can tell you that there is a lot of pertinent information that is being left out. This information could indeed change a MAGA mind. I’m not even kidding. Don’t take my word for it. The factual and official information is available to you. That includes information about the topic within Today in America. And, yes, I have met a lot of ex-MAGA people who were not super happy with Trump after they learned about the full context. Try to prove me wrong. The information exists and it only requires critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Look at the official records that are posted for public consumption. I have even posted some on this site. I only write facts so you’re welcome to prove me wrong, but that means you will have to do some research outside of your usual outlets. In the end, you’ll be happy to embark on that research adventure. Please let me know in the comments how it went. Happy research! HLC