海角大神

Episode transcript

Gail Chaddock: 鈥奙ike Johnson was barely known when he was elected House speaker, second in line to the presidency. The rush to define him since that vote has produced sharply different narratives. Some see a fresh voice, committed to civility and responsible government. Others describe a dangerous ideologue, election denier, and would be theocrat, more likely to stoke fear than forge unity.  

[MUSIC]

Chaddock: This is 鈥淲hy We Wrote This.鈥� I鈥檓 this week鈥檚 guest host, Gail Chaddock. We鈥檙e talking with Christa Case Bryant, the Monitor鈥檚 senior congressional correspondent, and frequent guest on this podcast. Welcome back, Christa.

Christa Case Bryant: Great to be back. Thanks, Gail.

Chaddock: Christa, the last time you joined us, we were talking about then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and his prospects for uniting a deeply divided Republican caucus. I love how you framed that question. You left Washington and its echo chamber. And you found an interesting angle on it: that he had more capacity than the traditional narrative would allow. 

Bryant: Yes. When I went out to Bakersfield, California, his hometown, to learn more about Speaker McCarthy and what made him tick, the No. 1 thing that I heard from people who鈥檝e known him for decades is that his special talent is getting people together behind closed doors, away from the cameras, and really helping them come to compromises or deals. 

But, I think what鈥檚 become clear in the last couple of months is that that strength may have also been a vulnerability. He was probably stretching himself to meet demands on one side and then also stretching in the other direction. And then if people started talking among themselves or things got leaked out to the press, they start realizing, 鈥淲ait, he鈥檚 promising so many different things that there鈥檚 no way he鈥檚 going to be able to make good on all of these different promises.鈥� And I suspect that that was part of what undermined trust and then caused him to be ousted. 

Chaddock: After he was gone, I thought of your story again. Because the narrative on Kevin McCarthy shifted. Suddenly, he was a genius fundraiser. How would they ever function without him? He brought together a very diverse class of freshmen. And I鈥檓 thinking, where was this appreciative narrative back when he needed it in the middle of those 15 votes?

Bryant: Right, exactly, and I think it just speaks somewhat to the difficulty of governing with such a narrow majority. I can tell you, among the press corps, there was just a feeling of, 鈥淥h my gosh, is this ever going to end?鈥� You know, once he was ousted and they kept trying to find somebody else who could get enough support in the caucus to win the speakership. 

Mike Johnson was a surprise, but he didn鈥檛 have much of a honeymoon before people started diving in and finding things to criticize about him. 

Chaddock: You know, that鈥檚 also an interesting story of evolving narrative. I think back, first of all, to that sense of relief that Congress was going to be able to function again. There鈥檚 all this talk after his maiden speech of, you know, what a change of tone he was going to bring to Washington, you know? Civil, positive, even gracious. And as you say that shifted quickly. What鈥檚 going on? 

Bryant: There鈥檚 clearly a lot of concern around Mike Johnson. There have been a lot of really specific quotations or references to the many things that Mike Johnson has said over the years about a lot of these hot button topics, particularly abortion and homosexuality and same sex marriage. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, he called it a great, joyous occasion. And he later wrote on Twitter that 鈥淲e will get the number of abortions to ZERO,鈥� and he was referring to his home state of Louisiana. I think a lot of those sorts of things have generated a great deal of concern. 

A lot of people have started talking about Mike Johnson in the context of 海角大神 nationalism. And I鈥檝e been reading a lot of those articles and oftentimes, they rest on a quote or multiple quotes from college professors who study 海角大神 nationalism and who say: 鈥淵ou know, he鈥檚 a textbook example of this,鈥� or 鈥渋t鈥檚 highly unusual to have someone in this elevated a leadership position who fits this mold.鈥� But almost none of the articles give any specifics about, 鈥淥K, what is it exactly that he鈥檚 said or done that causes you to identify him as a 海角大神 nationalist?鈥� Some of them don鈥檛 even define what they mean by 海角大神 nationalism. So, there鈥檚 a need to be more specific about how people are coming to these conclusions.  

I think just way beyond the speakership race and Mike Johnson himself, I鈥檝e observed that there鈥檚 this effort to put people in boxes and figure out quickly where they stand on things. And people try to reduce uncertainty or fear by saying, 鈥淥K, I know where this person stands, and therefore this is how I should relate to them.鈥� I think that may be part of why we鈥檙e seeing this rush to put him in a box. 

Chaddock: Well, this is also a textbook case for journalists: How do you investigate whether or not these concerns that you鈥檙e hearing are valid? Fear and anger are the currency of voter turnout. This is political organizing 101. How do you, in your own work, try to figure out how to probe beneath the soundbite to see what鈥檚 there? 

Bryant: I always try to find primary documents or sources and link to those, so that my readers can see for themselves where I鈥檓 getting something. So, for example, when I was writing my piece about Mike Johnson, I knew that one of the big criticisms against him was that he was very opposed to homosexuality and same sex marriage. And one of the key things that I kept coming across was that he had co-sponsored a piece of legislation last year that would prohibit federal funds [from] being used to educate young people under the age of 10, I think it was, about a whole range of, basically, sex ed.

But included in that was topics of sexual orientation and transgenderism and things like that. It was widely described as a federal version of Florida鈥檚 鈥淒on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥� bill. And I found the piece of legislation, and I read as much as I could on deadline, to try to get a sense of like: 鈥淥K, what was it that they were actually doing here, and what was the rationale that they provided for doing that?鈥� And they cited some very specific examples of things that federal funds had been used to teach children about, and some of them were so sexually explicit that my editors actually insisted on taking them out of the story.

And I think, you know, that doesn鈥檛 absolve Mike Johnson of the criticism, or it might not assuage the concerns behind that criticism. But it does provide a level of specificity, and a document that somebody who鈥檚 concerned can go read and come to their own conclusions. 

Chaddock: It鈥檚 interesting, too, to look at the conclusions that are drawn from some of these toxic quotations, which go viral and then take on a meaning larger than, as you say, the context they may be in. I was reading a piece in the Guardian by a college professor who had this line: 鈥淭he Republicans who elected Johnson speaker by a unanimous vote have aligned themselves with total political rule by an intolerant religious sect.鈥� Now that鈥檚 a leap. I think that may be part of the dynamics of how these narratives get established and perpetuate themselves.

Bryant: Well, and I think that points to a way that journalism has been changing in recent years. Back in the day, journalism was about, you know, answering five basic questions, 鈥淲ho, what, when, where, why?鈥� and then it sort of evolved into well, everybody already knows what happens because there鈥檚 a million people publishing stuff online. So now the real value we can add is explaining what that means, and sometimes in the process of doing that, the 鈥渨ho, what, when, where, why鈥� questions get short shrift a little bit.

It鈥檚 a big ecosystem. I actually do think that it鈥檚 really valuable to have some media sources doing what I think they genuinely and sincerely believe is a service of sort of being canaries in the coal mine, like: 鈥淟ook, there鈥檚 major concerns about American democracy. And we鈥檙e not going to just dance around the edges, or just give you the facts and hope you connect the dots.鈥� And I do think that there鈥檚 a valuable place for that.

But I think the challenge is when the whole ecosystem becomes one or the other, then you sort of lose that balance and that complementary nature of the different types of journalism. It creates an environment where if you want to be seen as a respectable journalist, there鈥檚 sort of no-go zones. Like you just don鈥檛 address certain questions or you don鈥檛 entertain certain arguments, even to analyze them and determine whether they鈥檙e valid or not. And my concern, having started my beat in Congress the week of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and seeing what that kind of anger could do and could result in, my concern is that by just so ... refusing to engage with ideas that are animating a huge portion of the American population, that divide鈥檚 just going to grow wider and the potential for violence will become greater.   

Chaddock: Part of this narrative is to describe Johnson as a leading election denier, or the leading election-denier, aside from the former president himself. Do you think that鈥檚 accurate?  

Bryant: Well, I think that specificity is really helpful. There鈥檚 a tendency to put everybody in one big election-denialism box, you know. And that includes January 6 protesters who showed up with bear spray and were shattering the windows to get into the Capitol. And it includes a constitutional lawyer like Mike Johnson, who was pursuing these questions through the legal system.

It seems that Mike Johnson played two key roles. One was he led an amicus brief on a case brought by Texas regarding four swing states. That case was basically saying that these four states violated the constitution because they circumvented the constitutional role of state legislatures to be the ones to determine how elections should be carried out. And the Supreme Court said: 鈥淲ell, Texas doesn鈥檛 have standing to bring that case because Texas is not one of the four swing states and wasn鈥檛 affected by what happened there.鈥� And so the case was thrown out on standing.  

So what my colleague Sophie Hills and I were trying to figure out on deadline is, [...] did the arguments themselves not hold any weight. And what we were able to figure out is [that] even if the arguments had had weight, you can鈥檛 bring something like that after an election because they really should have been brought before the election, because once everybody votes according to the ways that the state officials have determined is legal, it鈥檚 not fair to say: 鈥淥h, well, we just need a complete redo, or we鈥檙e just going to throw out all your votes,鈥� or whatever.

And then the other main role he had, and this is where he鈥檚 called the leading architect of the Electoral College challenge, is, you know, you had Trump pressuring members of Congress to vote against certifying the election, and then you had some minority of Republicans saying: 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 do this, this is totally wrong and unconstitutional. This is not our role and also just think of what would happen if the Dems followed suit the next time our guy won.鈥� And so, Mike Johnson came in with like a third way, which is: 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 have to go along with everything Trump鈥檚 saying about the election being 鈥榬igged鈥� or 鈥榮tolen.鈥� What you can say is just the changes that were made leading up to election day were unconstitutional, and that鈥檚 all, that鈥檚 why we want to investigate this further.鈥� And so a lot of members of Congress cited Mike Johnson鈥檚 legal arguments in explaining why they chose not to certify the election. And so that鈥檚 why he鈥檚 been identified as such a key player in all of this.        

Chaddock: This speaker has made a great point, both before and after his election, to a commitment to civility. Is there any evidence, looking at him now, looking at how he鈥檚 functioning, that this commitment is real?

Bryant: Well, I did think it was noteworthy that in his maiden speech just after being elected speaker, pretty much the very first line was a recognition of his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. And he said: 鈥淚 know that in your heart you love and care about this country and want to do what鈥檚 right. We鈥檙e going to find common ground there.鈥� And you can say, well, words are cheap, and anybody can say that 鈥� it鈥檚 another thing to do it. But in the current environment in Congress, even just saying something like that, putting it at the beginning of your speech, is significant. And it鈥檚 a change in tone from how the Democrats were talking about Mike Johnson. It鈥檚 a change in tone from how many Republicans have talked about their Democratic colleagues. And so I think it鈥檚 significant, and time will tell to what extent he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. 

Chaddock: Does that mean that groups with genuine concerns about comments he鈥檚 made about homosexuality, trans [issues], abortion, women鈥檚 place and so forth 鈥� are their concerns illegitimate?

Bryant: No, I think those concerns are very legitimate. My sense is that there鈥檚 a feeling that: 鈥淲ait, we thought we鈥檇 moved beyond this,鈥� you know, just like with Roe v. Wade. Like, 鈥渨e thought this was settled law for decades, and now somehow Republicans have managed to turn back the page. And well, can it happen with all these different things that we thought were settled?鈥� And I think that鈥檚 an important part of this story, too, reporting out what is it that concerns you? What sort of hurt has he caused already? How much of this is, like about what he already did in the past versus his potential to do more harm going forward?

Mike Johnson embodies sort of the entire culture wars of the United States in one guy. And so to unpack all of that and its ramifications for the Republican Party, for Congress, for American citizens across the spectrum, and to do it in a way that is fair, and not shirking from controversy, but also nuanced and respectful, is just a huge challenge. And so, we shouldn鈥檛 be surprised that it鈥檚 hard to get it right in the first week or the first month. We all as journalists will be doing that in the weeks and months to come. 

Chaddock: Christa, thank you for that. Thank you for being willing to write about questions that are right at the edge of thought and still pushing them.

Bryant: Thank you, Gail. It鈥檚 always a pleasure to talk with you about Congress.  

[MUSIC]

Chaddock: And thanks to our listeners. You can find more, including our show notes with a link to the stories we鈥檝e discussed in this podcast, at CSMonitor.com/WhyWeWroteThis. This episode was hosted by me, Gail Chaddock, edited and produced by Clay Collins, Jingnan Peng, and Mackenzie Farkus. Our sound engineers were Tim Malone and Alyssa Britton, with original music by Noel Flatt. Produced by 海角大神. Copyright 2023.