House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson, theocrat: the House speaker and a plot against America

      by

      The new House speaker, Mike Johnson, knows how he will rule: according to his Bible. When asked on Fox News how he would make public policy, he replied: “Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.” But it’s taking time for the full significance of that statement to sink in. Johnson is in fact a believer in scriptural originalism, the view that the Bible is the truth and the sole legitimate source for public policy.He was most candid about this in 2016, when he declared: “You know, we don’t live in a democracy” but a “biblical” republic. Chalk up his elevation to the speakership as the greatest victory so far within Congress for the religious right in its holy war to turn the US government into a theocracy.Since his fellow Republicans made him their leader, numerous articles have reported Johnson’s religiously motivated, far-right views on abortion, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights. But that barely scratches the surface. Johnson was a senior lawyer for the extremist Alliance Defending Fund (later the Alliance Defending Freedom) from 2002 to 2010. This is the organization responsible for orchestrating the 303 Creative v Elenis legal arguments to obtain a ruling from the supreme court permitting a wedding website designer to refuse to do business with gay couples. It also played a significant role in annulling Roe v Wade.The ADF has always been opposed to privacy rights, abortion and birth control. Now Roe is gone, the group is laying the groundwork to end protection for birth control. Those who thought Roe would never be overruled should understand that the reasoning in Dobbs v Jackson is not tailored to abortion. Dobbs was explicitly written to be the legal fortress from which the right will launch their attacks against other fundamental rights their extremist Christian beliefs reject. They are passionate about rolling back the right to contraception, the right to same-sex marriage and the right to sexual privacy between consenting adults.Johnson’s inerrant biblical truth leads him to reject science. Johnson was a “young earth creationist”, holding that a literal reading of Genesis means that the earth is only a few thousand years old and humans walked alongside dinosaurs. He has been the attorney for and partner in Kentucky’s Creation Museum and Ark amusement park, which present these beliefs as scientific fact, a familiar sleight of hand where the end (garnering more believers) justifies the means (lying about science). For them, the end always justifies the means. That’s why they don’t even blink when non-believers suffer for their dogma.Setting aside all of these wildly extreme, religiously motivated policy preferences, there is a more insidious threat to America in Johnson’s embrace of scriptural originalism: his belief that subjective interpretation of the Bible provides the master plan for governance. Religious truth is neither rational nor susceptible to reasoned debate. For Johnson, who sees a Manichean world divided between the saved who are going to heaven and the unsaved going to hell, there is no middle ground. Constitutional politics withers and is replaced with a battle of the faithful against the infidels. Sound familiar? Maybe in Tehran or Kabul or Riyadh. But in America?When rulers insist the law should be driven by a particular religious viewpoint, they are systematizing their beliefs and imposing a theocracy. We have thousands of religious sects in the US and there is no religious majority, but we now have a politically fervent conservative religious movement of Christian nationalists intent on shaping policy to match their understanding of God and theirs alone. The Republicans who elected Johnson speaker, by a unanimous vote, have aligned themselves with total political rule by an intolerant religious sect.The philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard eloquently explained that religion is a “leap of faith”, not susceptible to reasoned discourse. The framers of the constitution and Bill of Rights thought the same. Under the first amendment, Americans have an absolute right to believe anything we choose and courts may not second-guess whether a believer’s truth is supported in reason or fact. For a believer, their belief is their “truth”, but for the republic, it is simply one of millions of beliefs across a country where all are free to believe. Thus, a scriptural originalist is by definition incapable of public policy discussions with those who do not share their faith.The grand irony is that being a “scriptural originalist” is oxymoronic. The colonies were first populated by those fleeing the theocracies of Europe – a fact the founders knew and respected. Millions were killed during the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Spanish and Roman inquisitions, because only one faith could rule. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, as well as many other kings and queens, ordered apostates killed, imprisoned or exiled. Current theocracies underscore this historical reality. The Pilgrims fled England because they were at risk of punishment and even death for observing the wrong faith. So did the Quakers, Baptists and Presbyterians. Despite the ahistorical attempts of rightwing ideologues to claim we are or were a monolithic “Christian country”, this was always a religiously diverse country, and they did not all get along at first. Jews arrived in 1654. Early establishments faded away in the early 19th century as they could not be sustained in the face of our diversity.The primary drafter of the first amendment, James Madison, was keenly aware of these realities as he reflected on the dangerous history of theocracies in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, opposing Virginia taxes for Christian education, asking: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”Madison further invoked the Inquisition, stating that a bill funding religious education through taxes “degrades from the equal rank of citizens all those whose opinions in religion do not bend to those of the legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance.” US history is proving him correct.Johnson isn’t just talking about a tax to support his brand of Christian nationalism, though the right’s religious movement, with the approval of the supreme court, has gone all out to ensure that as many tax dollars flow to their mission as possible. Johnson has asserted the hackneyed conservative theory of original intent – that the constitution must be interpreted precisely according to what the founders said – but with a twist. According to Johnson, George Washington and John Adams and all the others “told us that if we didn’t maintain those 18th-century values, that the republic would not stand, and this is the condition we find ourselves in today”. The founders, according to Johnson, were scriptural originalists and he’s here to take us back to their “true” Christian beliefs. In fact, the founders’ 18th-century enlightenment values directly repudiate Johnson’s 21st-century theocratic dogma.The Constitutional Convention itself shows how little support there is for the view that America started from a dogma-soaked worldview. During debates, Benjamin Franklin proposed bringing in a member of the clergy to guide them with prayer. Only three or four out of 55 framers agreed. The matter was dropped.Less than a decade ago, it looked like the religious right had lost the culture wars. The turning point seemed to be the decision in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015, which established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. “It’s about everything,” Focus on the Family’s James Dobson mourned, “We lost the entire culture war with that one decision.”But instead of surrendering, the truest believers vowed to supplant democracy. They doubled down on furiously grabbing political power, to force everyone else to live their religious lives. Led by the likes of Leonard Leo, a reactionary Catholic theocrat who is chair of the Federalist Society’s board of directors, Dobson and many other Republicans, including the then little-known Mike Johnson, remade the supreme court and instituted stringent religious litmus tests for Republican candidates. Unable to control the culture, they have mounted a legal-political crusade against all who refuse to embrace their religious worldview.In little over a year, since Dobbs, the theocrats have converted their belief in the divinity of the fetus and disdain for the life of the pregnant into law, in one Republican-dominated state after another. But that is just a preview. Johnson and his crusaders would like to insert their scriptural originalism into every nook and cranny of federal law and public policy, to create a blanket of religious hegemony. Conservative governors and legislators have shamelessly invoked their God as the legislative purpose behind such draconian limitations.In the US, the peaceful coexistence of thousands of faiths was made possible in great part by the separation of church and state, which was demanded by Baptists in Massachusetts, Virginia and other places where they were being ostracized, taxed, flogged, imprisoned and even killed for their beliefs. That separation, which is the wall that protects religious liberty and prevents religious hegemony, was engraved in the constitution. How cruel an irony that some of the spiritual descendants of those persecuted Baptists should, like Mike Johnson, pervert American history and the constitution to impose a theocracy that would mean the end of democracy.
      Marci A Hamilton is a professor of practice and the Fox Family Pavilion non-resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Leftist Democrats invoke human rights law in scrutiny of Israel military aid

      by

      Leftwing Democrats in Congress have invoked a landmark law barring assistance to security forces of governments deemed guilty of human rights abuses to challenge the Biden administration’s emergency military aid program for Israel.Members of the Democratic party’s progressive wing say the $14.3bn package pledged by the White House after the 7 October attack by Hamas that killed more than 1,400 Israelis breaches the Leahy Act because Israel’s retaliatory assault on Gaza has overwhelmingly harmed civilians. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed in Gaza so far, among them 3,700 children, according to the Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas.The act, sponsored by the former Democratic senator Patrick Leahy and passed in 1997, prohibits the US defence and state departments from rendering security assistance to foreign governments facing credible accusations of rights abuses. The law was originally designed only to refer to narcotics assistance, but was later expanded, with amendments covering assistance from both state department and Pentagon budgetsSeveral governments, some of them key US allies, are believed to have been denied assistance under the law, including Turkey, Colombia and Mexico.Proponents of applying the act to Israel point to the rising death toll in Gaza from military strikes on the territory, the displacement of more than 1 million people from their homes and a surging humanitarian crisis after Israeli authorities cut water, food, fuel and electricity supplies.“I am very concerned that our taxpayer dollars may be used for violations of human rights,” said the congressman Andre Carson of Indiana in an email to the Guardian, in which he accused Israel of “war crimes”, citing this week’s deadly bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp and the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) alleged use of white phosphorus.“Last year, I voted to provide $3 billion dollars of strategic and security assistance to Israel. But we must absolutely make sure that none of those funds are used inappropriately, in violation of US law like the Leahy Act, or in violation of international law.”But earlier this week, the Biden administration said it was not placing any limits on how Israel uses the weapons provided to it by the US. “That is really up to the Israel Defense Force to use in how they are going to conduct their operations,” a Pentagon spokesperson, Sabrina Singh, said on Monday. “But we’re not putting any constraints on that.”The Israeli government and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have so far not responded to calls for a humanitarian pause and have rejected calls for a ceasefire, as demanded by some progressive Democrats.Joe Biden promised a lavish military aid package to Israel in an Oval Office speech after visiting the country following the Hamas attack. US commandos are currently in Israel helping to locate an estimated 240 hostages, the number given by IDF, including American citizens, seized in the assault, the Pentagon has confirmed.Carson, one of three Muslims in Congress, said he previously raised concerns about possible Leahy Act violations last year after the shooting death of the US-Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank. An Israeli investigation subsequently admitted there was a “high probability” that she had been killed by Israeli gunfire, after initially blaming Palestinians.Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats – a political action committee that helped elect leftwing House members nicknamed “the Squad”, which include some of Congress’s most vocal advocates for Palestinian rights – also invoked the Leahy legislation.“I think the Leahy Act should absolutely be looked into right now, when we are seeing gross violations of human rights,” he said. “[The Israelis] are targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques all under the guise of self-defense or that one or other member of Hamas is hiding there. It doesn’t matter whether Hamas is there or not, because you are targeting civilians. No amount of tax dollars should be justified for that.”Like Carson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most high-profile members of “the Squad”, specifically identified the supposed use of white phosphorus – as claimed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International – as a transgression that should disqualify Israel from receiving US assistance. The IDF had said it does not use white phosphorus against civilians, but didn’t clarify whether it was used at the time.“Deployment of white phosphorus near populated civilian areas is a war crime,” she said. “The United States must adhere to our own laws and policies, which prohibit US aid from assisting forces engaged in gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.”Congressional calls for scrutiny over US funding for Israel predate the current war in Gaza.Last May, Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, introduced the Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Living Under Israeli Military Occupation bill, designed to prohibit US funds from being used to enforce Israeli occupation policies in the West Bank.“Not $1 of US aid should be used to commit human rights violations, demolish families’ homes, or permanently annex Palestinian lands,” McCollum said at the time. “The United States provides billions in assistance for Israel’s government each year – and those dollars should go toward Israel’s security, not toward actions that violate international law and cause harm.”The bill, which has not passed, was co-sponsored by 16 other House Democrats – including some who have not supported the current calls for a ceasefire – and endorsed by 75 civil society groups, including Amnesty, HRW and J Street.McCollum’s office did not respond to questions over whether she now supported extending her bill to Gaza or using the Leahy Act to block Biden’s emergency fund package.In a speech on the Senate floor this week, the senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont called Israel’s Gaza campaign “morally unacceptable and a violation of international law” but stopped short of opposing Biden’s assistance program.Instead, he demanded a “clear promise” from Israel that displaced Palestinians will be allowed to return to their homes after fighting stops and for the abandonment of efforts to annex the West Bank, a territory claimed by Palestinians as part of a future state.“The United States must make it clear that these are the conditions for our solidarity,” he said.In a letter to the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Sanders and five other Democratic senators – Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Peter Welch and Mazie Hirono – said they supported approving Biden’s proposed overall $106bn aid package to Israel, Ukraine and other foreign crisis areas “without delay”.But they demanded that an equal sum be allocated to “domestic emergencies”, including childcare, primary health care and the opioid epidemic.A separate letter the six sent to Biden asks a series of searching questions about Israel’s invasion of Gaza.“We have serious concerns about what this invasion and potential occupation of Gaza will mean, both in terms of the long-term security of Israel and the well-being of the Palestinian residents of Gaza,” it says. “Congress needs more information about Israel’s long-term plans and goals, as well as the United States Government’s assessments of those prospects.” More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Abigail Spanberger flexes her political power in a battleground state: ‘I could see her as president’

      by

      As two dozen volunteers prepared to knock doors on an unseasonably warm afternoon in late October, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger reminded them that their work helped flip her battleground House seat in 2018. She predicted it would pay off again for Virginia Democrats this year.“It is how we have won in hard races across Virginia and across the country, and it is certainly why I feel confident that we are on the right path headed towards November 7,” Spanberger said, speaking to campaign volunteers in a sunny parking lot in Manassas.Spanberger has played an active role in boosting Virginia Democrats’ hopes for election day, as the party looks to flip control of the house of delegates and maintain their majority in the state senate. The stakes are high: Republicans would achieve a legislative trifecta in Richmond if they take control of the state senate, allowing them to enact controversial policies like banning abortion after 15 weeks and limiting access to the ballot box.With her carefully crafted political persona as a centrist Democrat, Spanberger may be the right person to deliver her party’s closing message in the final stretch of the campaign. In Manassas, Spanberger laid out her vision for how Virginia Democrats would succeed on 7 November, saying: “There is nothing more important than helping people believe that the policies and the government – whether it be in Richmond or on Capitol Hill – that they want is possible.”The results on Tuesday could affect Spanberger’s own future as well; the congresswoman has reportedly told multiple people that she intends to run for governor in the battleground state. If she is successful, her victory would allow Democrats to take back the Virginia governorship, which is now held by Republican Glenn Youngkin, in 2025.For now, Spanberger has declined to confirm those plans, insisting she remains laser-focused on this year’s crucial elections.“I have enjoyed spending time with people who are in the voting mindset,” Spanberger said in August. “As for anything that I might do in the future, I’m not going to make any announcements until after November.”Spanberger first won election to the US House of Representatives in 2018, capitalizing on her experience as a former CIA officer turned organizer for the gun safety group Moms Demand Action to sway voters concerned about Donald Trump’s leadership. Winning her 2018 race by just two points, Spanberger unseated a Republican incumbent, Dave Brat, who had defeated his last Democratic opponent by 15 points two years earlier.Spanberger joined a freshman House class dominated by Democrats, part of the “blue wave” that helped the party take control of the chamber for the first time in eight years.“She was one of these what I call the ‘national security Democrats’ that were elected in 2018,” said Jessica Taylor, the Senate and governors editor for the Cook Political Report. “I think she still retains that sort of more moderate pragmatic profile, with especially a focus on national security.”Despite Republicans’ repeated efforts to oust Spanberger, the congresswoman has held on to her seat through two hard-fought re-election campaigns. Running in a newly redrawn district in 2022, Spanberger won her race by roughly five points, her largest victory to date. She has also proved herself to be an impressive fundraiser, bringing in nearly $9m in 2022.Over her three terms in Congress, she has developed a reputation as a centrist able to collaborate with Democrats and Republicans alike, as she has advocated for bipartisan initiatives like a ban on House members trading individual stocks and increased funding for police departments. Spanberger enjoys reminding voters that she was named the most bipartisan elected official in Virginia by the non-profit Common Ground Committee.But even as she cultivates a reputation as a pragmatic centrist, Spanberger has been careful to avoid alienating her more progressive constituents through her consistent support of the social issues that remain important to the Democratic base. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has given Spanberger a score of 100% on its congressional scorecard, as has the LGBTQ+ rights group Human Rights Campaign. Spanberger, who highlighted her work with Moms Demand Action during her first campaign, has also received endorsements from anti-gun violence groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.This delicate political balance frustrates her Republican rivals, who argue the congresswoman’s voting record proves she is not the centrist she makes herself out to be.“She does campaign as a moderate. Her language is moderate in tone,” said Rich Anderson, chairman of the Republican party of Virginia. “But she votes as a pretty progressive liberal out on the left edge of the spectrum.”The moments when Spanberger has publicly clashed with her party have been rare and notable. She opposed the election of Nancy Pelosi as House speaker in 2019 and 2021, a significant but ultimately inconsequential vote as Pelosi still won the gavel. Spanberger also made headlines in 2020, when the Washington Post reported that she lashed out against progressive colleagues in a phone call focused on Democrats’ losses in key House races. Lamenting the defeat of several centrist Democrats in battleground states, Spanberger reportedly said: “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again … We lost good members because of that.”“She’s been very careful to pick and choose where she goes against her party,” said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. “It’s worked for her. That’s the bottom line. It has worked and given her a lot of encouragement that she could run an effective statewide campaign, and that remains to be seen.”As speculation has intensified over her statewide ambitions, Spanberger has made a point to keep her attention on the elections happening this year, crisscrossing the state to promote Democratic candidates.“We want legislators who are focused on the issues that matter,” Spanberger told a crowd of roughly 120 people in rural Orange, Virginia, in August. “We want people in elected and representative offices who are going out and talking to the people that they represent, who are advocating for the issues that matter.”Candidates and voters at the Orange event applauded Spanberger’s seemingly ubiquitous presence in her district. Jason Ford, a former campaign staffer for Spanberger who is now running for a seat on the state senate, recalled a running joke that no one knew where the congresswoman lived in the district because she always seemed to be out on the campaign trail speaking to voters.“She’s willing to show up in every part of the district,” Ford said. “She has consistently shown that hard work, commitment to the people and genuinely caring about the issues that they care about is what it takes to be a good representative.”That approach has won her many fans among Democrats in her district. “She just cares about Virginia. She cares about the things that Virginians care about and not what Youngkin and his crowd think Virginians care about,” said Kate Handley, a 57-year-old from Gordonsville.Bill Maiden, a 58-year-old voter and former Republican from Culpepper, added: “She actually goes out, meets people and does what she says – reaches across the aisle, gets things done … That’s exactly what we need out of a politician.”Spanberger’s constituents voiced optimism about her potential gubernatorial campaign, even as they expressed dismay about the possibility of her leaving the House.“I’d hate to lose her in Congress, but I think she would be a fantastic governor,” said Lynn Meyers, a 78-year-old voter from Locust Grove. “She’s on point. She’s realistic. She’s fair. She’s not like a loose cannon like so many of our folks in politics are today.”But any statewide campaign will have to wait until after the legislative elections next week, which could be instructive for Spanberger and other Virginia politicians weighing their future plans. If Republicans are successful on Tuesday, it may encourage candidates in the Youngkin mold to jump into the gubernatorial race, although experts emphasize that it is too early to get a clear sense of the 2025 field.“It’s essentially impossible to handicap the field before we even know how these elections turn out next week and who is running,” Taylor said.On the Republican side, Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, and the state’s attorney general, Jason Miyares, have been named as potential candidates, given that Youngkin is term-limited. Spanberger may also face a rocky road to the Democratic nomination, as Richmond’s mayor, Levar Stoney, has been widely expected to jump into the primary.“My guess is that much of the commentary will focus on her as the centrist candidate and the mayor as the more progressive one,” Rozell said. “That could be a danger point for her, given the low turnout in primaries and the propensity of the more liberal wing of the party to dominate turnout in low-turnout primaries.”Spanberger could forgo a gubernatorial campaign and instead focus on holding her battleground district in 2024, which may bolster her party’s prospects of regaining control of the US House next year. But given Spanberger’s packed campaign schedule over the past few months, Anderson believes there is little question of her future plans.“She is spending a lot of time if not on the road at least making public statements in support of legislative candidates who have been nominated by the Democratic party all around the state, so that tells me that’s exactly where she’s going,” Anderson said. “I think probably within a reasonable period of time after November 7, we’ll have the answer to the question.”Although 2025 is more than a year away, at least one of Spanberger’s admirers is already looking beyond the governor’s mansion.“I could see her as president someday. I really could,” said Willow Drinkwater, an 82-year-old voter from Gordonsville. “Because she brings people together. She’s a consensus-maker.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Speaker Johnson, Israel, government shutdown and Virginia – podcast

      by

      The new speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, faces the tough task of uniting a fractured Republican party, and preventing a quick-approaching government shutdown. Jonathan Freedland and Marianna Sotomayor of the Washington Post discuss what we have learned about his approach to the job from his first week with the gavel.
      Plus, as we prepare for next week’s off-year elections, Jonathan speaks to Carter Sherman about Virginia – the last remaining southern state without extensive abortion restrictions. They look at why results there could prove pivotal for Republican chances in 2024

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes $14.3bn aid package for Israel despite Democratic opposition

      by

      The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a Republican plan to provide $14.3bn in aid to Israel as it fights Hamas, despite Democrats’ insistence it has no future in the Senate and the White House’s promise of a veto.The measure passed 226-196, largely along party lines, with most Republicans supporting the bill and most Democrats objecting.The bill’s introduction was the first major legislative action under the new Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson. President Joe Biden has threatened a veto, and Chuck Schumer, the majority leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate, said he would not bring it up for a vote.Biden has asked Congress to approve a broader $106bn emergency spending package including funding for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine, as well as humanitarian aid. Schumer said the Senate would consider a bipartisan bill addressing the broader priorities.The House bill would provide billions for Israel’s military, including $4bn for Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling defense systems to be able to counter short-range rocket threats, as well as some transfers of equipment from US stocks.“This is the first step in the process and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill so we can get funds to Israel as soon as possible,” said the representative Kay Granger, who chairs the House appropriations committee, during debate on the legislation.Republicans have a 221-212 majority in the House, but Biden’s fellow Democrats control the Senate 51-49. To become law, the bill would have to pass both the House and Senate and be signed by Biden.House Republican leaders said they would cover the cost of the aid to Israel by cutting some funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Democrats included in Biden’s signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.Republicans objected to the increased IRS funding from the beginning, and said cutting the agency’s budget was essential to offset the cost of military aid to Israel, whose tanks and troops took on Hamas on the outskirts of Gaza City on Thursday.Democrats objected to cutting money for the IRS, calling it a politically motivated “poison pill” that would increase the country’s budget deficit by cutting back on tax collection. They also said it was essential to continue to support Ukraine as it fights against a Russian invasion that began in February 2022.The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said the IRS cuts and Israel aid in the standalone bill would add nearly $30bn to the US budget deficit, currently estimated at $1.7tn.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democratic on the appropriations committee, accused Republicans of delaying aid by backing a partisan bill that does not include Ukraine or humanitarian aid for civilians. “This bill abandons Ukraine. We will not abandon Israel and we will not abandon Ukraine. But their fortunes are linked,” she said.While Democrats and many Republicans still strongly support Ukraine, a small but vocal group of Republicans question sending more money to the government in Kyiv at a time of steep budget deficits.Johnson, who voted against Ukraine aid repeatedly before he became speaker last month, plans to introduce a bill combining assistance for Ukraine with money to increase security at the US border with Mexico.“Ukraine will come in short order. It will come next,” Johnson said at a news conference on Thursday. “We want to pair border security with Ukraine, because I think we can get bipartisan agreement on both of those matters.”Congress has approved $113bn for Ukraine since the invasion began. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican to quit House citing party’s reliance on ‘lie’ of stolen 2020 election

      by

      A leading conservative congressman announced his retirement, in large part because his Republican party “continues to rely on this lie that the 2020 election was stolen”.“I have decided I’m not going to seek re-election,” Ken Buck of Colorado told MSNBC on Wednesday, after news that Kay Granger of Texas, the longest-serving Republican congresswoman, will also step down next year.“I always have been disappointed with our inability in Congress to deal with major issues and I’m also disappointed that the Republican party continues to rely on this lie that the 2020 election was stolen and rely on the January 6 narrative and political prisoners from January 6 and other things,” Buck said.“If we’re going to solve difficult problems, we’ve got to deal with some very unpleasant truths or lies and make sure that we project to the public what the truth is.”Donald Trump’s lie that his defeat by Joe Biden was the result of electoral fraud dominates the Republican party.The new House speaker, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, played a key role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, authoring an amicus brief in a supreme court case that sought to throw out swing state results and joining 146 other Republicans in objecting to such results even after Trump incited the deadly January 6 attack on Congress.Buck was asked about his own support for Tom Emmer of Minnesota, who last month attracted more votes for speaker than Johnson but was brought down by Trump’s opposition.Buck said: “Well, Tom and I both voted to certify the electors. It was a decision that I think was the right decision under the constitution.“Mike [Johnson] went to the supreme court with a challenge to the election. I think going to the courts is one thing. Trying to move the mob from the Mall up to the House floor and interrupting the congressional proceeding is a whole different issue.”Buck reported receiving death threats, after he opposed the candidacy for speaker of Jim Jordan of Ohio, a pro-Trump extremist.“Civility in politics generally is less now than it was before,” Buck said. “The ability to deal with major issues – you know, the sustainability of Medicare, social security, other big issues – we’ve got to address [those] and we can’t keep worrying about the last election. We’ve got to focus on where we’re going to take America in terms of policy.”Buck said he did not plan to leave the Republican party. Also, despite his disgust over election denial and January 6, and despite the threats he received, he would not say he would not support Trump if he wins the presidential nomination next year, 91 criminal charges and assorted civil trials notwithstanding.A “Trump-Biden redo” would present “a very difficult decision”, Buck said, adding: “I am not thrilled with either one of those candidates and I will just see what happens down the road.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Liz Cheney calls new House speaker ‘dangerous’ for January 6 role

      by

      The new Republican speaker of the US House, Mike Johnson, is “dangerous” due to his role in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the former Wyoming Republican congresswoman and January 6 committee vice-chair Liz Cheney said.“He was acting in ways that he knew to be wrong,” Cheney told Politics Is Everything, a podcast from the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “And I think that the country unfortunately will come to see the measure of his character.”She added: “One of the reasons why somebody like Mike Johnson is dangerous is because … you have elected Republicans who know better, elected Republicans who know the truth but yet will go along with the efforts to undermine our republic: the efforts, frankly, that Donald Trump undertook to overturn the election.”Johnson voiced conspiracy theories about Joe Biden’s victory in 2020; authored a supreme court amicus brief as Texas sought to have results in key states thrown out, attracting 125 Republican signatures; and was one of 147 Republicans who voted to object to results in key states even after Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.The events of 6 January 2021 are now linked to nine deaths, thousands of arrests and hundreds of convictions, some for seditious conspiracy. Trump faces state and federal charges related to his attempted election subversion (contributing to a total 91 criminal counts) yet still dominates Republican presidential primary polling.Cheney was one of two anti-Trump Republicans on the House January 6 committee, which staged prime-time hearings and produced a report last year. In Wyoming, she lost her seat to a pro-Trump challenger. The other January 6 Republican, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, chose to quit his seat.Like Kinzinger, Cheney has now written a memoir, in her case titled Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning. She has also declined to close down speculation that she might run for president as a representative of the Republican establishment – her father is Dick Cheney, the former defense secretary and vice-president – attempting to stop Trump seizing the White House again.Johnson ascended to the speakership last month, elected unanimously after three candidates failed to gain sufficient support to succeed Kevin McCarthy, who was ejected by the far-right, pro-Trump wing of his party.The new speaker’s hard-right, Christianity-inflected statements and positions have been subjected to widespread scrutiny.Cheney told Larry Sabato, her podcast host and fellow UVA professor: “Mike is somebody that I knew well.”“We were elected together [in 2016]. Our offices were next to each other, and Mike is somebody who says that he’s committed to defending the constitution. But that’s not what he did when we were all tested in the aftermath of the 2020 election.“In my experience, and I was very, deeply involved and engaged as the conference chair, when Mike was doing things like convincing members of the conference to sign on to the amicus brief … in my view, he was willing to set aside what he knew to be the rulings of the courts, the requirements of the constitution, in order to placate Donald Trump, in order to gain praise from Donald Trump, for political expedience.“So it’s a concerning moment to have him be elected speaker of the House.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Christian Nationalism ‘Is No Longer Operating Beneath the Surface’

      by

      Mike Johnson is the first person to become speaker of the House who can be fairly described as a Christian nationalist, a major development in American history in and of itself. Equally important, however, his ascension reflects the strength of white evangelical voters’ influence in the House Republican caucus, voters who are determined to use the power of government to roll back the civil rights, women’s rights and sexual revolutions.“Johnson is a clear rebuttal to the overall liberal societal drift that’s happening in the United States,” Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University, wrote by email in response to my query. “His views are far out of step with the average American and even with a significant number of Republicans.”“Yet, he was chosen as speaker,” continued Burge, who is also a pastor in the American Baptist Church. “If anything, it shows us that white evangelicals still have a very strong hold on the modern Republican Party. They are losing overall market share in the larger culture, but they are certainly taking on an outsized role in Republican politics.”Burge provided The Times with data on the changing religious composition of the Republican electorate. In the 1970s, mainline Protestants dominated at 46 percent, compared with evangelical Protestants at 24 percent and Catholics at 19 percent. By the decade of the 2010s, evangelical Protestants were a commanding 38 percent of Republicans, mainline Protestants had fallen to 17 percent, and Catholics had grown to 25 percent.Robert Jones, the president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, described Johnson in an email as “the embodiment of white Christian nationalism in a tailored suit.”What is Christian nationalism? Christianity Today described it as the “belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a ‘Christian nation’ — not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future.”Johnson’s election as speaker, Jones went on to say, “is one more confirmation that the Republican Party — a party that is 68 percent white and Christian in a country that is 42 percent white and Christian — has embraced its role as the party of white Christian nationalism.”Jones argued that “while Johnson is more polished than other right-wing leaders of the G.O.P. who support this worldview, his record and previous public statements indicate that he’s a near textbook example of white Christian nationalism — the belief that God intended America to be a new promised land for European Christians.”In a long and data-filled analysis posted on Substack on Oct. 29, “Hiding in Plain Sight: The Sources of MAGA Madness,” Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., argued that the election of Johnson reflects the success of the Christian right in a long-term struggle to wrest control from traditional Republican elites, in battles fought out in Republican primary elections.Over the past two decades, Podhorzer wrote, “the political might of organized right-wing Christianity was successfully redeployed against establishment Republicans.”The decimation of moderate and centrist members of the House was most striking over the election cycles from 2010 to the present, according to Podhorzer: “From 2010 through 2022, a historically high number of House Republicans were defeated in primaries, with the vast majority of successful challenges happening in the most evangelical districts.”The result: When House districts are ranked by the percentage of voters who are white evangelicals, the top quintile is represented by 81 Republicans and 6 Democrats and the second quintile by 68 Republicans and 19 Democrats. The bottom three quintiles are represented by 188 Democrats and 73 Republicans.Not only do Republicans overwhelmingly represent the districts with the most white evangelicals, but those Republicans are deeply entrenched, with little or no danger of losing the general election to a Democrat:“Republicans represent 98 percent of the most evangelical safe districts and 82 percent of the remaining above-median evangelical safe districts,” Podhorzer wrote. “These two categories elected just shy of three-quarters of the Republican Caucus in safe districts.”The MAGA movement, in Podhorzer’s view, was unleashed with the Tea Party movement in 2010, well before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant political figure, and the elevation of Johnson marks the most recent high point in the movement’s acquisition of power: “Mike Johnson becoming speaker is better understood in terms of the ongoing white Christian nationalist takeover of the American government through MAGA,” he writes.White Christian nationalists, Podhorzer contended, “were once reliable votes and loyal foot soldiers for almost any Republican candidate since the 1970s,” but they “rebelled when John McCain and other establishment Republicans treated Obama’s win as legitimate.”From 2010 forward, Podhorzer wrote, “the political muscle provided by white Christian nationalism’s extensive church-based infrastructure in congressional districts, and its national reach through Christian broadcasting and national organizations, has turned MAGA into a ruthlessly successful RINO-hunting machine.”It should not be surprising, Podhorzer said, “to see an election-denying evangelical Christian who favors a national abortion ban, Bible courses in public schools, and ‘covenant marriage,’ and who believes that L.G.B.T.Q. people are living an ‘inherently unnatural’ and ‘dangerous lifestyle’ elevated to the speakership.”There is a strong correlation between election from a district with a high share of white evangelical voters, Podhorzer found, and election denial: “More than three-quarters of those representing the most evangelical districts are election deniers, compared to just half of those in the remaining districts. Fully three-quarters of the deniers in the caucus hail from evangelical districts.”The most recent P.R.R.I. American Values Survey, conducted in late August, “Threats to American Democracy Ahead of an Unprecedented Presidential Election,” further illuminated the priorities of the contemporary Republican electorate.The survey asked respondents whether they would “prefer a presidential candidate who can best manage the economy” or a candidate who will “protect and preserve American culture and the American way of life.”Democrats chose a candidate who can manage the economy 57 to 40, a view shared by independents by a smaller margin, 53 to 45. Republican voters, in contrast, preferred a candidate who will preserve American culture, by 58 to 40 percent.A different P.R.R.I. survey, released on Feb. 8, “A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture,” measured support for Christian nationalism based on responses to five statements:The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.On the basis of the responses, P.R.R.I. created four categories:Christian nationalism adherents: the 10 percent of Americans who overwhelmingly either agree or completely agree with the five statements above.Christian nationalism sympathizers: the 19 percent of Americans who agree with these statements but are less likely to say they “completely agree.”Christian nationalism skeptics: the 39 percent of Americans who disagree with the statements but are less likely to completely disagree.Christian nationalism rejecters: the 29 percent of Americans who completely disagree with all five statements in the scale.Among Democrats, the survey found that 15 percent were either adherents (5 percent) or sympathizers (10 percent). Among independents, 23 percent were adherents (6 percent) or sympathizers (17 percent).Among Republican voters, 54 percent were either adherents (21 percent) or sympathizers (33 percent).In a series of questions on racial issues and immigration, Christian nationalist adherents were well to the right of Americans as a whole.Asked whether “discrimination against white Americans has become as big a problem as discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities,” 85 percent of Christian nationalist adherents agreed, compared with 41 percent of all those surveyed.Asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background,” 81 percent of Christian nationalist adherents agreed.Philip Gorski, a sociologist at Yale who has written extensively about Christian nationalism, replied by email to my inquiry about Johnson’s election:He says out loud what most others just feel: that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the founders were “evangelical” Christians, that the founding documents were based on “biblical principles,” that God has entrusted America with a divine mission, that he has blessed America with unique power and prosperity and that those blessings will be withdrawn if America strays off the straight and narrow path of Christian morality. And that it is every good Christian’s duty to make America Christian again.Christian nationalism, in Gorski’s view,is no longer operating beneath the surface or in the background. It’s now front and center at commanding heights of power. It will now be much harder for right-wing Christian activists to claim that Christian nationalism is a fringe phenomenon or a left-wing smear job. In 2021, it was still hard to find an avowed Christian nationalist in the top ranks of the G.O.P. Not anymore.Gorski wrote that Johnsonlikes to say that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.” By this, he means that the majority does not and should not get its way. That would be democracy. A republic means rule by the virtuous, not the majority. And the virtuous are of course conservative Christians like him.Eric Schickler, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, stressed in an email his view that Johnson’s election as speaker demonstrated once again the weakness of the centrist wing of the House Republican caucus, writing that the elevation of the Louisiana Republicanreinforces the message that the most conservative voices in the Republican Party have decisive influence on the party in the House of Representatives. Less conservative members from swing districts have repeatedly made noises, suggesting that they were willing to wield power to ensure that leaders would reflect their needs — but once again, when push came to shove, they gave in despite having the numbers to hold the balance of power in the House.In addition, the “entire episode” — from the ousting of Kevin McCarthy on Oct. 3 to the election of Johnson on Oct. 25 — reflects the collapse of the unwritten rule that “majority party members would stick together on the floor in speakership contests.” There is no way, Schickler added, that “the Freedom Caucus would have voted for a member seen as distant from them on key issues.”Does Johnson’s election as speaker improve Democrats’ chances to retake the House in 2024? I asked.Schickler: “It is hard to know. Johnson starts with such a low profile, it is not clear whether Democrats will be able to make him a target.”Johnson’s relative anonymity in the House served him well in his bid for the speakership, insulating him from acrimony. More recently, however, some of Johnson’s out-of-the-mainstream views and alliances have begun to surface.In a July 20, 2005, opinion essay for The Shreveport Times, Johnson argued:All of us should acknowledge the real emotion and strife of the homosexual lifestyle and should certainly treat all people with dignity, love and respect. But our government can never provide its stamp of approval or special legal sanction for behavior patterns that are proven to be destructive to individuals, to families and to society at large. Your race, creed and sex are what you are, while homosexuality and cross-dressing are things you do.“We must always remember,” Johnson concluded, “that it is not bigotry to make moral distinctions.”A year earlier, Johnson wrote, in another opinion essay:The state and its citizens have a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the marital union by making opposite sex marriage the exclusive form of family relationship endorsed by government. Loss of this status will de-emphasize the importance of traditional marriage to society, weaken it, and place our entire democratic system in jeopardy by eroding its foundation.It would be difficult to overestimate the dangers Johnson foresaw. “Society,” he wrote,cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet. If everyone does what is right in his own eyes, chaos and sexual anarchy will result. And make no mistake, the extremists who seek to redefine marriage also want to deny you the right to object to immoral behavior. Our precious religious freedom hangs in the balance.In an Oct. 26 interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News after he was elected to the leadership post, Johnson described his faith in the Bible as his exclusive guide in life:What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun? Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview. That’s what I believe.On Oct. 27, my Times colleagues Annie Karni, Ruth Graham and Steve Eder reported on a 2006 essay that Johnson posted on Townhall, a right-wing website.In it, they wrote, “Johnson railed against ‘the earnest advocates of atheism and sexual perversion’. He also decried ‘This sprawling alliance of anti-God enthusiasts’ that ‘has proven frighteningly efficient at remaking America in their own brutal, dehumanizing image.’”“In the space of a few decades,” Johnson added, “they have managed to entrench abortion and homosexual behavior, objectify children into sexual objects, criminalize Christianity in the popular culture, and promote guilt and self-doubt as the foremost qualities of our national character.”In lectures, Karni, Graham and Eder wrote, “Johnson has lamented that ‘There’s no transcendent principles anymore. There’s no eternal judge. There’s no absolute standards of right and wrong. All this is exactly the opposite of the way we were founded as a country.’”David Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, reported in an Oct. 28 article that in a series of seminars Johnson and his wife, Kelly, a Christian counselor, conducted — “Answers for Our Times” — the couple addressed such questions as:What is happening in America and how do we fix it? Can our heritage as a Christian Nation be preserved? How should Christians respond to the changing culture? What does the Bible say about today’s problems and issues?In May 2019, Johnson described the goal of the seminars to the Louisiana Baptist Message: “Our nation is entering one of the most challenging seasons in its history, and there is an urgent need for God’s people to be armed and ready with the truth.”For Johnson, the obligation “to be armed and ready with the truth” led him to become a leader of the election denial movement. In December 2020 he recruited 125 fellow House Republicans to sign on to his lawsuit seeking to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the election results.He told his colleagues that “the initiative had been personally blessed by Mr. Trump, and that the former president was ‘anxiously awaiting’ to see who in Congress would defend him,” The Times reported.In the Supreme Court brief that Johnson filed on Dec. 10, 2020, he argued that the election hadbeen riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities. National polls indicate a large percentage of Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of the presidential contest, but also the future reliability of our election system itself. Amici respectfully aver it is the solemn duty of this Court to provide an objective review of these anomalies and to determine for the people if indeed the Constitution has been followed and the rule of law maintained.On Dec. 11, in a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, but Johnson won recognition from his fellow Republicans in the House for his fealty to Trump.Asked shortly after he was elected speaker whether he continued to believe that the 2020 election was stolen, Johnson told a Washington Post reporter: “We’re not talking about any issues today,” adding only, “My position is very well known.”In theory, at least, it is difficult to understand how Johnson can justify his support for Trump, whom Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum and a contributing writer for Times Opinion, described this way in The Atlantic in 2020:A man whose lifestyle is more closely aligned with hedonism than with Christianity, Trump clearly sees white evangelicals as a means to an end, people to be used, suckers to be played. He had absolutely no interest in evangelicals before his entry into politics and he will have absolutely no interest in them after his exit. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a person who has less affinity for authentic Christianity — for the teachings of Jesus, from the Sermon on the Mount to the parable of the good Samaritan — than Donald Trump.Johnson’s ascent to the top job in the House also raises a larger, more encompassing question: Will voters care in 2024 (and beyond) that one of America’s two major political parties has been taken over by an alliance of MAGA forces and their white evangelical allies, who have clearly indicated their willingness to abandon democratic norms — that is, democracy itself — in the pursuit of power?Polling suggests that this is a far from settled question.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More