Cohen concludes that the Republican party may have underestimated the scrutiny Johnson’s past positions would attract.
This decision, however, has stirred controversy and raised eyebrows, especially given the other candidates in contention, such as Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-IN), who were ultimately rejected.
Columnist Michael A. Cohen, in an op-ed for MSNBC on October 30, shed light on the potential repercussions of this choice. Cohen argues that the selection of Johnson might have inadvertently created more significant political challenges for the Republican party.
He contends that while the Republicans aimed to resolve their public speaker dilemma, their decision to appoint Johnson might lead them into a deadlock with the Democrats in the upcoming 2024 campaign season. Moreover, vulnerable Republican members, particularly those in districts won by President Joe Biden, now face an additional hurdle – defending their votes in support of Johnson for speaker.
Ironically, the Republicans’ decision to reject Jordan due to concerns about his track record might be overshadowed by Johnson’s own problematic history. Johnson’s extensive record of controversial statements and policy positions, coupled with his relative obscurity, makes him a questionable choice for the speaker’s position, according to Cohen.
Cohen argues that this move might provide an opportunity for Democratic challengers to paint their Republican opponents as a threat to democracy. They could leverage the fact that every GOP House member who voted for Johnson effectively endorsed his controversial efforts, including his stance on abortion.
Johnson, a staunch abortion opponent, celebrated the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, stating, “There is no right to abortion in the Constitution; there never was.” His extreme views on abortion, including calling it a ‘holocaust,’ might not resonate well with women voters in competitive House districts.
Furthermore, Johnson’s response to sensitive issues like gun violence has also drawn criticism. He allegedly blamed school shootings on abortion, no-fault divorce, and the teaching of evolution, deflecting the blame away from guns. Even after a tragic mass shooting in Maine, Johnson insisted, “The real problem is the human heart. It’s not guns.”
In addition to these controversial stances, Johnson has faced backlash for his views on homosexuality. He has labeled homosexuality as “sinful and destructive” and promoted the racist ‘great replacement’ theory, suggesting that Democrats intend to replace white voters with immigrants of color, as reported by The Washington Post.
Cohen concludes that the Republican party may have underestimated the scrutiny Johnson’s past positions would attract. By failing to thoroughly vet him, they have potentially exposed their vulnerable members to intense criticism and might have inadvertently given their Democratic counterparts powerful ammunition for the upcoming political battle. The consequences of this decision remain to be seen as the 2024 campaign season approaches.
