Or all three?
New House Speaker Mike Johnson is an election-denying, Bible-thumping, forced-birther who claims if not for abortion reducing the work force, Republicans wouldn’t need to cut Social Security. Spoiler: they’d try to cut it anyway. And he also wants to outlaw homosexuality, with the usual arguments it’s no different from legalizing pedophilia. And that it will weaken traditional marriage, never mind that it’s been going strong despite more than a decade of gay marriage (I suspect as he has a covenant marriage, he’s not a fan of divorce either). And he’s recycling the endless claims about how they’re going to impeach Biden over non-existent wrongdoing.
He also declares (at that last link) that while homosexuality is just a thing you do, “your race, creed, and sex are what you are.” Um, no, homosexuality is very much who you are. And choosing your faith is very much something you do, not something you are. Not that one’s relationship with god or gods or your belief there’s no good isn’t important, but it isn’t an immutable trait at all. As witness multiple friends of mine have changed their faith in different ways, typically after much soul-searching.
An article in New York magazine’s Intellingencer section shows he’s just full of typical Republican bullshit and undead sexist cliches to boot. For example, abortion (and I think he’s implying, divorce), lead to school shootings: “When you break up the nuclear family, when you tell a generation of people that life has no value, no meaning, that it’s expendable, then you do wind up with school shootings.”
He goes on to say, in the best tradition of conservatives nostalgic for the days before blacks and women and gays got all uppity, that “When I was a kid, the most popular show on television was The Brady Bunch. When my father was a child, it was The Andy Griffith Show now it’s murder and mayhem. We’re not in a good place in America.” Why not? “religion and morality” aren’t at the center of public life: “When the people largely respected that you didn’t have the societal chaos that you have today.”
First, he’s factually wrong. A quick reference-book check shows the Bradies, popular as they were, were never the most popular show on TV; Sheriff Andy only made it one year. And Andy Griffith started his series in 1960; the Brady clan debuted in 1969. Just how young did his father impregnate Mom?
Second, if “religion and morality” and a lack of abortion make such a big difference, why didn’t it stop the thousands of lynchings that took place in the days before Roe v. Wade? The lack of abortion didn’t stop white supremacists murdering Emmett Till. They didn’t stop the bombing of the Birmingham Church or keep Sheriff Bull Connor from unleashing firehoses and dogs on civil rights marchers. What made them devalue life?
And we’re actually in a better and more moral place. The law no longer supports Jim Crow segregation. It’s no longer legal to fire or refuse to hire someone simply because they’re a POC, a woman, Jewish, etc. Gays have equal rights — I know, Johnson thinks that’s a sign of moral decline, but he’s wrong.
Then there’s his statement that “no one’s out to get abortion doctors as they claim” — any concerns about their safety are exaggerated. Yeah, if you discount “11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 607 death threats, 42 clinic bombings, and 188 arsons that affected abortion providers and facilities from 1977 to 2018″ I suppose he has a point.
He also claims that “the failproof method of birth control is abstinence … they’ve rejected that teaching ’cause they say it’s too religious.” It’s not the only failproof method: oral sex and hand jobs work just fine. And it isn’t in fact, failproof: Texas has had abstinence-only ed for two decades and it accomplished nothing. Which is why it’s been rejected and criticized: not that it’s “too religious” but that it’s inaccurate and ineffective.
Don’t expect Johnson to explain his positions: he’s pretending he’s forgotten lots of them. He refused to answer questions about his election denialism. He wants to present himself as Sensible Conservative, not a full-on MAGA extremist. And at least some of the press are willing to settle for saying he has “deeply conservative views” or being a “staunch conservative.” That makes him sound almost like a small-town banker, shaking his head sadly at the wild-eyed radicals who think they can give everyone a pony. More precision would be good, much as would questioning about his Christian worldview: whose version of Christianity should government follow? What happens to the other churches and their rights?
At least the ever-biting Alexandra Petri certainly isn’t having it: ” Just because it was an election that happened to result in his selection as speaker of the House, did that make winning a majority of votes suddenly a legitimate way of obtaining power? Where were the doubts? Where were the questions? Where were the barrage of dubious legal arguments? Why was he just sitting there and letting people congratulate him on his election, as though it were a good thing?”
And I’ll recommend Kristin Kobes Du Mez summing Johnson up as part of an excellent interview: “For Christian nationalists, this is God’s country, and all authority comes through God. And the only legitimate use of that authority is to further God’s plan for this country. So what that means is any of their political enemies are illegitimate in a sense, and those enemies’ power is illegitimate, and they need to be stripped of that power.”