Can Democrats turn new House Speaker Mike Johnson into a “boogeyman” for the 2024 election? This is a question it took three Washington Post reporters to tackle. The Post’s answer would seem to be “probably not,” but where the reporting and analysis go—and where they don’t go—is telling. Specifically, it tells us that the framing of the article was kind of silly to begin with.
As we’ve seen in other reporting, the angle is that Democrats are emphasizing Johnson’s extremism on issues like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and more, while Republicans are emphasizing that he doesn’t shout. And when traditional media reporters consider how voters will view a politician, extremism and a lack of shouting are weighed about equally.
Probably the single most important, not-silly point here is that 2024 is a presidential election year, and the Republican presidential nominee is going to loom larger than the speaker of the House. Especially if that nominee is Donald Trump, who has loomed larger than any three Republicans combined since 2016.
“You can see Democrats saying ‘Trump and Johnson’ — but the Trump part is the much louder part,” Republican strategist Doug Heye told the Post. Or, as an unnamed Republican strategist put it, “Do you really believe that Mike Johnson will be the person they will run ads against, when Donald Trump is running from jail as the presidential nominee?”
So no matter how emphatic the “no” is in response to the question “Can Democrats turn new House Speaker Mike Johnson into a ‘boogeyman’ for the 2024 election?” there’s still a reasonable question about how relevant it is for the next election. The prospect of ads saying “Trump and Johnson” does offer Democrats an angle of attack against the 18 Republicans representing districts won by President Joe Biden in 2020: Even if all of those Republicans run away from Trump, they voted for Johnson. Linking Johnson to Trump won’t be hard to do given Johnson’s central role in getting House members to vote against certifying the 2020 election.
There’s also the simple question of what Johnson will do with his new position. If he was going to try to whip the Republicans into an effective majority that kept the government open and passed meaningful legislation, his mild manner could land well. But voters are going to be able to tell if the man leads as an extremist, and so far, all the signs point in that direction. After all, his first move—after a five-day break—has been to push an Israel aid package that includes cuts to the IRS, which would increase the deficit if the cuts were passed. But that legislation will never get through the Senate, and the House may even delay that nonstarter of a bill since some Republicans are taking off for a Trump rally.
“How can Democrats use Johnson in campaigns?” is a less important question than “Will Johnson lead House Republicans in a way that improves their low favorability with voters?” It’s not looking likely.
Finally, it’s a minor point, but the whole “he’s so mild-mannered” thing may not be as effective as Republicans imagine. I’d wager that every woman in this country has encountered—and been infuriated by—a man who cloaks his contempt for her, his refusal to listen to her, and his refusal to engage with her as an equal in smarmy condescension similar to what Johnson puts out. No, it’s not Jim Jordan-esque yelling. But we see it. We know it. And the fact that it’s coming from a guy who has repeatedly tried to legislate away our right to make medical decisions for ourselves will matter to a lot of us.
Campaign Action