Here’s Everything Bad about New House Speaker Mike Johnson (Satire)

There’s a new Republican leader on Capitol Hill, so as a dutiful, generic member of the mainstream press corps, I must come up with reasons why you should hate U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). After performing several Google searches, here’s everything you need to know.

Johnson “married the former Kelly Lary in 1999 in a ‘covenant marriage’ — a kind of marriage that makes it harder to get a divorce.” He once said, “I’m a big proponent of marriage and fidelity and all the things that go with it.” Can you believe this guy, who actually wants to be faithful to his wife? We prefer the lecherous type of Republican, because it’s so much easier to collect dirt on them.

Plus, the next thing you know, he’ll be observing the “Mike Pence Rule” and treating women he isn’t married to with such discretion and respect it will be impossible to manufacture the slightest rumor of impropriety. We conclude from this that Johnson must hate women and everything the Sexual Revolution has done for them, and, if you can’t follow our logic, you must hate women, too. (An anonymous source familiar with the religious Right told us the practice was actually named after some guy called “Billy Graham,” but our editor reassured us that, since no person by that name is currently involved in politics, he probably isn’t important enough to look into.)

Johnson’s weekly podcast, “Truth be Told with Mike and Kelly Johnson,” emphasizes his “evangelical Christian beliefs” and “is a blend of political and religious analysis … that illuminates Johnson’s faith-driven views on governance.” It didn’t bother us when Joe Biden’s faith or Barack Obama’s faith influenced their politics, but when it’s a Republican — or even worse, an evangelical Christian — that’s a bright-red warning light telling you an Iran-style theocracy is right around the corner.

Johnson said in 2005 that “‘truth’ was based on a strict interpretation of the Bible that ‘if someone’s trapped in a homosexual lifestyle, it’s dangerous.’” Once again, we are dumbfounded that people who say they believe what the Bible says actually believe what the Bible says. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 might say, “neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” But never for a moment have we attempted to understand the worldview of any person who believes these verses to be the literal words of God.

In 2007, Johnson portrayed “LGBTQ rights as in direct conflict with those of conservative Christians” and insisted that “Christians were the ones facing discrimination.” Neither claim could possibly be true because religious freedom doesn’t extend outside a person’s own head, all religious convictions must be modernized to approve LGBT identities, and LGBT identities are, by definition, the most oppressed.

Since Johnson made these claims, the Supreme Court overturned a national law defining marriage as between a man and a woman (Windsor, 2013), legalized same-sex marriage nationwide (Obergefell, 2015), and ruled a Christian business could not prevent a trans-identifying employee from cross-dressing (Bostock, 2020). All this goes to show the discrimination faced by the LGBT community. And don’t even get us started on Masterpiece Cakeshop (times three), 303 Creative, Arlene’s Flowers, Klein, Fulton, Dianne Hensley, and Seattle Pacific University, all cases in which Christians refused to affirm same-sex marriage or transgender ideology, even after governmental entities ordered them to do so. Yet Johnson had the nerve to say Christians are the ones facing discrimination.

Johnson “argued for student-led prayer and religious expression in public schools under the First Amendment” in 2018. Doesn’t he know that the separation of church and state requires the state to adopt secularism as a state religion? Allowing religious expression to students in public schools will train them to believe that expressing religious viewpoints in the public square is acceptable, or even confirm them in those viewpoints. That runs directly counter to the mission of public education — to smother any flickers of religious devotion in America’s youth.

Johnson earned “an ‘A+’ rating from the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List in the last two sessions of Congress and a 100% rating for the current year from FRC Action.” By using the adjective “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life,” we imply how we want you to think about this fact, without stating it outright. After all, dedicated, responsible journalists are nothing if not objective.

Johnson “considers himself a Constitutional ‘textualist’ and treats his town halls in his district, he has said, partially as ‘Civics 101, Poli-Sci 101, Philosophy 101.’” This is actually two problems at once. First, “textualism” — the notion that laws should only ever mean what they say — is the third greatest obstacle — right after the Constitution and the American people — to turning the United States of America into the progressive utopia Mao always dreamed of.

Second, educating voters on civics, political science, and philosophy is for professors in lecture halls, not politicians in town halls. Universities know what students must learn to render them effective activists for social change, and a solid grasp of America’s founding principles and governmental structure is not required. If Johnson really wanted to do left-wing activists a solid favor, his town halls would just act out a caricature of a demagogue.

Johnson “founded the so-called ‘Honor and Civility Caucus’” in Congress. “So-called” because we don’t believe a Republican is capable of possessing either. For proof, look no further than his inaugural speech, in which Johnson began with kind words for the Minority Leader but soon predicted they would “fight vigorously over our core principles.” As House Speaker leading a Republican majority, Johnson will be a major thorn in the side of Democrats in the Senate and White House, preventing them from pushing through a codification of Roe v. Wade, any LGBT policy they think of, a far-reaching climate agenda, and more government spending. It’s impossible for any person so positioned to possess the least ounce of honor and civility — at least in the opinion of neutral and unbiased press.

Worst of all, “Mike Johnson is a social conservative’s social conservative.” As a constitutional attorney, he used to defend religious freedom professionally. He has spoken out in favor of biblical marriage, and he has “longstanding ties” to Family Research Council. He even prayed on the House floor when they struggled to elect a speaker in January. Obviously, it goes without saying that a social conservative is the worst kind of conservative, one that should not be welcomed in Washington, D.C. or in any polite society. So, “a social conservative’s social conservative” is just about as ominous a description as we could think of.

(In conclusion, here’s a warning to those who think they can be reporters without working for a real news organization. If anyone dares to whisper facts that undermine this reporting, a dozen of my closest friends and allies at other media outlets will smear them as Christian nationalists, who definitely hate gay people and probably blacks too. Meanwhile, of course, this piece will by shadow-edited with nary an admission of fault.)