By
Last year, Democratic lawmakers made no secret of the fact that they did not like, trust or respect then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. When the California Republican faced a plot from some of his own members to strip him of his gavel, members of the House minority were only too pleased to lend their support and show McCarthy the door.
Seven months later, far-right Republicans launched another attempt to oust one of their own party’s speakers, but this time the vast majority of House Democrats voted to rescue Speaker Mike Johnson.
This was not a surprise. On the contrary, Democratic leaders formally announced last week that this is precisely what they’d do if given the chance.
But in the abstract, it might seem counterintuitive.
By most measures, Johnson is the most far-right House speaker in modern American history. He’s also an election denier who played a prominent role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. On practically every issue of national significance, Democrats see the Louisiana Republican’s positions as radical, ridiculous and/or dangerous.
So why in the world did so many Democrats, including every member of the party’s leadership team, throw him a life-preserver instead of an anvil? Why didn’t they simply do what they did with McCarthy and let the GOP majority deal once again with the consequences of their self-imposed chaos?
Part of this is the result of Democrats wanting to present themselves to the public as the mature party — the “adults in the room” — that can be counted on to be responsible with the institution's interests. The party has also come to realize that in a narrowly divided chamber, Johnson has repeatedly turned to Democrats to govern in recent months — most notably on U.S. aid to Ukraine — and the party has come to feel a degree of comfort with the status quo.
But a recent Wall Street Journal report touched on the most important element of all:
For some Democrats, the gesture goes beyond a reward for Ukraine aid. They think Johnson is preferable to whichever other Republican might get the job instead.
It's difficult to overstate how important this was, and is, to the party. When coming to terms with why progressive Democrats would rescue the most far-right House speaker in modern times, the phrase “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” is worth keeping in mind.
Members of the House minority party are well aware of the fact that they could’ve taken down Johnson, but these same Democrats had every reason to believe that the House speaker’s successor would very likely be worse: a Republican who wouldn’t turn to them on must-pass legislation and who wouldn’t mind if Russia took part of eastern Europe by force.
Democrats see Johnson as a radical Republican election denier with an even temperament, who hasn’t lied to them, who hasn’t broken any deals with them and who listened to reason on aid to Ukraine.
That’s not much, but for 163 members of the House Democratic minority, it was enough.