By
About a month ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan made a curious case against a bipartisan border bill that had been negotiated in the Senate. “Let’s say ‘timeout,’” the Ohio Republican told Fox Business, “and then let the American people decide how we want to deal with this in November.”
In other words, as far as the Ohio Republican was concerned, Congress rejecting the bipartisan compromise wasn’t quite enough: Jordan also believed that lawmakers should take a “timeout” for the remainder of the legislative session — roughly 11 months — ceasing all work on matters related to immigration and border policy.
Evidently, Sen. Ron Johnson wants to go quite a bit further: The Wisconsin Republican talked to a conservative outlet called Real America’s Voice and said he doesn’t just want Congress to stop working on immigration and border policy, he wants Congress to stop working on everything.
“Inside the bubble, Republicans say, ‘We need to get a result, we need to effectively govern,’” the third-term GOP senator said. “Um, to me, that’s almost code words for, ‘We got to do Democrat-lite.’
“I subscribe to the William F. Buckley definition of conservatism, which is standing athwart history and screaming, ‘Stop.’ We have to stop this madness. So, there’s a fair amount of stopping that’s being required here, and I think we’d be far better off if we never passed another piece of legislation.”
It’s worth noting for context that the Wisconsin Republican made the comments in response to a question about the bipartisan spending package that Congress approved last week that prevented a partial government shutdown. (It passed the Senate with 75 votes. Johnson voted against it.)
To be sure, the senator packed quite a bit into these 30 seconds, but I have a few follow-up questions:
If Johnson is uncomfortable when he hears his own partisan allies talk about getting “results” and governing “effectively,” why exactly is he a member of Congress?
If the senator equates effectively governing with Democratic policymaking, is Johnson implicitly suggesting that the public should see Democrats as the officials who care about delivering results for the public at the federal level?
If Americans would be “far better off” if federal lawmakers “never passed another piece of legislation,” why is it that Johnson is sponsoring and co-sponsoring all kinds of legislation? Is he of the opinion that his own bills should be rejected?
Did Johnson let Wisconsin voters know during his statewide campaigns that, as part of his Capitol Hill service, he’d be uncomfortable with suggestions about getting “results” and governing “effectively,” or did he suggest to those voters that he was a competent and capable legislator who’s eager to deliver for his constituents?
If Johnson is uncomfortable with congressional policymaking, and thinks Congress should never pass another bill, would he consider resigning and letting someone more interested in governing fill his seat?