MAGA has won the Speakership of America’s House of Representatives.
It is difficult to be more MAGA-like than Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson.
He is opposed to Ukraine; supports Israel; maintains that Trump won the 2020 election; is a born again evangelical Christian who quotes the Bible whenever possible; voted against the Biden budget; is a member of the right-wing Freedom caucus; is opposed to same-sex marriage; opposes abortion and has Trump’s endorsement.
Moderate Republicans – and just about everyone else – were terrified at the prospect of the election of right-wing “legislative terrorist” Jim Jordan. He seemed more intent on tearing down the political establishment then working with it. So they blocked him, again and again and again.
The moderates wanted Minnesota Congressman Tom Emmer wielding the Speaker’s gavel. They looked as if they might succeed. Then Donald Trump interceded – in a complete reversal of his previously stated neutrality, and in contravention of all political conventions – slammed Emmer for voting to certify Joe Biden’s election and endorsed Mike Johnson.
By this time the moderates had been worn to a frazzle by long nights, ruined weekends and endless rounds of votes. They risked being blamed for a government shutdown if a Speaker was not chosen soon as well as being accused of preventing vital aid reaching war-torn Israel and Ukraine. They voted for Johnson for an easy life.
They will most likely live to regret it. Moderate Republicans are telling themselves that the lesser of two evils has been elected. But the only real difference between Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson is the decibel levels at which they operate. Jordan’s reputation is as a loud-mouthed arch-conservative bully. Johnson is quieter. He has as worked more in the Capitol Hill shadows and he has not been in Washington as long as Jordan. But Johnson is every bit as uncompromisingly far-right as Jordan and just as ruthless in pursuit of his political agenda. The difference is style, not substance.
Johnson also has another characteristic that Jordan lacks. He is perhaps the most religious evangelical Christian in the US House of Representatives. He hosts a Christian podcast with his wife Kelly and his acceptance speech before the House was peppered with Biblical references.
His pre-congressional career included a stint with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organisation which campaigns for an end to separation of church and state. Johnson has gone on record to say that “the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.”
Any serious student of American history knows he is wrong. First of all, you have to look at the issue within the context of 18th century Britain and America. Britain had an established state church with the monarch at its head. The church was corrupt and many of those who sailed to America did so because they disagreed with the teachings of the Church of England and its venality.
The US constitution reflects this distrust of a state religion. It does not, as such, spell out separation of church and state. The First Amendment merely says: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
It was not until 1802 that Thomas Jefferson (and one cannot be more founding father than Jefferson) clarified the issue in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut. He maintained that the First Amendment clause created a “clear wall” that separates church and state. Every subsequent US judicial ruling has agreed with his interpretation.
This does not sit well with Johnson and many of his ilk. They would like to apply 2,000-year-old Biblical rulings to 21st century secular law books. Furthermore, they believe that they have been chosen by God to perform this task. Johnson said in his acceptance speech: “I believe that… the Bible is very clear; that God is the one who raises up those in authority.”
For most people, the concept of the divine right of kings (or politicians) was fought over and discarded nearly 400 years ago.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
7 Comments
An interesting article, particularly the discusssion about Johnson’s religious beliefs. Interestingly, his view that ‘God is the one who raises up authority’ can also be interpreted as being against the divine right of Kings since it means that if a rebellion were to succeed in overthrowing and replacing a leader, it would mean that God had wanted that change!
On the issue of his strong religious beliefs, I am one of those who is completely neutral as to whether politicians are theist or atheist – what is important are the policy positions they support and their personal integrity.
As a Christian, I disagree with the new US speaker’s views and so does Munther Isaac of Bethlehem Bible College. In a book called “The other side of the Wall” published in 2020, Munther explains how conservative evangelicals around the world have the wrong approach to the Middle East because they have the wrong theology and are misusing the Bible.
Munther shares with all Palestinians the hurt of the nakbha yet accepts the existence of the state of Israel and the role of Muslims in the area, but clearly shows that what he calls Christian Zionism is totally contrary to the Christian gospel as is any support whatsoever for the current Israeli government.
On the matter of Kings (and most Christians greatly overuse the word ‘King’ in relation to Jesus) even in the Old Testament there are passages that say God warns people against having authoritarian kings.
Further to my Christian comments, regarding kings some Jews would agree too. The former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, wrote that the last thing we want in any country is a theocracy, i.e. a supreme rule by people who belong to a particular faith group. In his book “The dignity of difference” written in reaction to 9/11 he calls for the acceptance of differences of belief as fundamental to any system of faith and therefore no one group can claim that God is on their side only.
@Nigel Jones
Just a comment about ‘theocracy’ – the issue is not so much about whether a supreme leader belongs to a particular faith group but on whether than leader rules in accordance with the tenets of that faith group.
Belonging to a faith group, in itself, should never exclude anyone from high office.
I have a problem with anyone who invokes God or the Bible or any other religious text to support a political belief, policy or position. God is by his very nature infallible. If a political position is derived from the Word of God then it too must be infallible. That means it is not open to discussion or compromise which is at the heart of democratic government and I support democracy.
if there is one thing worse than confusing politics with religion or misunderstanding any relationship between them, it is turning politics into a religion.
Three notable rulers across history invoked their divine right to rule, as God given:
Charles I
Louis XIII
Nicholas II
All had a sticky end, let us hope this new character has a much more peaceful end as Speaker, ASAP.