 Back to Think Tech, this is American Issues Take One. I'm standing in. I'm Jay Fiedel, and I'm standing in for Tim Epichella. Title of our discussion today is, what is going on with Mike Johnson's new speaker of the House? It's unfolding, but where is it going to lead? And our guests are Carl Campania and Manfred Hennigson. Carl's a member of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, long, long time member. And Manfred Hennigson is an Emeritus Political Science Professor for UH Manoa. So Mike Johnson, the new speaker of the House, apparently supported by Donald Trump and the right wing, supported and controlled by Donald Trump, and the right wing arch conservatives, OK? And Johnson is in the process of revealing himself. He's an ultra arch evangelist and an ultra arch conservative. And those things alone tell you a lot about him. We are seeing lots of news about him. Some of this is very troubling. So we need to connect the dots, and we're going to find out what he's going to do on important issues coming before the House and thus the Congress. And the moves that he may make in this very influential position as speaker as we get closer to the November elections. It's all pretty scary to have him in that job. He's a man to watch. And we're going to take a closer look at him today. So Manfred, tell us, who is this guy? Where did he come from? Why is he speaker? Whose interests is he serving? Well, you are asking a very detailed question that I cannot answer in the way you raised them. I mean, he is part of the conservative fog in the House. And whether he will survive the next few months is a very interesting question. He may be gone very soon because he seems to be confronted with the same issues that McCarthy was confronted with. His reactionary convictions will not save him from possibly facing the same fate. But I mean, he is, as you pointed out in your introduction, he is an evangelist, a evangelist, Protestant Christian. And these people, they have a very peculiar agenda, including, I mean, they are white supremacists and they are male chauvinists. They want to restore male supremacy in American family life. They want to somehow reduce the influence of women, not only feminists, but women in general, in public life. So what you have there is a reactionary agenda that is absolutely stunning. Oh, it gets worse, Manfred. He's part of a group that believes that theocracy should control government and everything in society. That's really quite it. And I remember, do you remember the First Amendment that says there shall be no state religion? That's not what this theocracy approach involves. The other thing is he believes, or he's part of a group that believes that gays should be killed, prosecuted and killed. I guess what made him famous is the funding bill where you got it through just like McCarthy. But what's making him famous now is he opposes any aid for Ukraine. And as for Israel, he's OK with that as long as you defund the Internal Revenue Service, which is a very strange linkage. And I guess a question I would ask you before we move to other issues is, that's kind of strange to link funding bills, funding for the government, funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, that the administration has proposed and needs to conduct its policy, geopolitical policy, and national policy to link them to conservative issues. Seems to me that's something we really haven't heard before. And he stands in the way of these policies of the administration. He might agree with them. The arch conservatives might agree with them, but they tag on this linkage. What does that mean to you as a political scientist? Well, look, it reflects isolationist tendencies in the country as a whole. I mean, the funding issues for Israel and Ukraine is certainly not supported in the way they were initially, especially with Ukraine. So you have an isolationist tendency reemerging in American politics, something that you had in the 20s and 30s. Rachel Meadows' new book describes that in detail how close to fascism America was in the 30s. Now, there are a lot of proto-fascist tendencies in contemporary United States. And Johnson, I think, comes very close to that, apart from good old Donald Trump himself. So I mean, you should not simply talk about these figures. You should talk about these figures representing tendencies in American society that have been there and are now becoming even more prominent. Well, it affects us, too. I mean, it's not just that these conservative things get tagged onto important bills, but it concerns us. Because to me, the next step is the fascism you talked about. Let me move to Carl for a minute. Carl, you know, there's been plenty of press about George Santos. And I do not mean to imply that he is your friend, my friend, or Manfred's friend. George Santos got expelled from Congress. But Mike Johnson voted against that. And all the Republican leadership, if you will, voted against that. It managed to get through with the strength of the Democratic leadership, Democratic votes. What does this tell us? So George Santos really doesn't belong in Congress at all. He's from another world. What does it tell us about Mike Johnson? It tells us that Mike Johnson is a puppet of Donald Trump. It tells us that the leadership understood that they needed to allow the expulsion for small lies as a sort of cover to say, look, we do kick out even our own when there's a lie that we agree with that that was a lie. If we don't agree as a lie, then, you know, especially if it's a big lie. And this is Ari Melbert, where he says, small lie, bad, big lie, good is how he refers to that. The big lie is what they all are still backing and supporting and taking need for. And that's really all that is. They're trying to point out, look, we were able to oust our own and even hurt our own numbers. And they're willing to say that. And he went through an ethics investigation. And we saw, well, they were allowed to vote their conscience instead of being directed. And that is the only aspect of it that I would say there was a bright light for. Well, it's funny because you say that. And when I think about Mike Johnson, I think about a guy who voted against the electoral ballots on January 6th, even after all the trouble in Congress and the insurrection, he voted against confirming the election of Biden. And he voted against the impeachment proceedings that were started shortly thereafter. So it seems like- He also voted for, he voted in favor of stopping the elections. He voted in favor of, I should say the vote counts. He voted in favor of the judicial actions in Texas in an effort to throw the election back to the states. So he voted in favor of all of that. He is a Republican from Louisiana, first of all. He is an evangelical. He does believe in theocracy. The problem that exists, and you referenced the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not actually say freedom of religion. It says the government shall not establish a religion, a national religion, a state religion. And these guys, these guys are saying they wanna have a theocracy for the government, for the people, for the country that will govern our country and beyond the constitution. Right, that's what, let's see, what they want is, they want the religion that they agree with. They want the words and the religion and the faith and the belief system that they can get behind, that supports everything that was just dated with regards to women need to do this and they need to abide by our rules. All people need to abide by our rules. And if they can agree with what we say, then they can be allowed to vote, but only if they agree with what we say. If not, then they're gonna be minimalized, trivialized. If not, Trump is going to utilize his retribution tour to put everybody who disagrees with him in jail. One more thing, Carl, and this has been in the news in the last couple of days, is that Johnson is going to blur the faces of the insurrectionists on the video that he had, 40 hours of video. McCarthy had the same video. So that's a problem. 44,000 hours, 44,000 hours of video. Oh, thank you. It's the US code 18, section two, aiding and abetting is what that is. And it's very clear and blatant. Not just everything that Trump has said about it, that he will get back in office and he will pardon everyone who's already been, all of the patriots that have been forcibly and correctly put in jail. Yeah, he calls hostages. He calls hostages. I love that, yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, Mike Johnson is in line with that, saying that he wants to protect people. He wants to blur their faces to protect them from DOJ prosecution. That's aiding and abetting a crime. And the thing is, what isn't really talked about too much or enough necessarily, is how all of them, it's not just Trump who's trying to protect himself from going to jail, they're all implicated. And there can be a number of superseding actions brought as a result of what has been discovered. And just because they haven't been indicted yet, they can still be indicted. And every one of these MAGA members from Matt Gaetz to Mike Johnson can be implicated in the same conspiracy, in which case they can all be put in jail. So they are all, and this is what Trump's plan was. How many of you can I get roped into this so that you have to protect yourselves and therefore protect me? You know, the argument's been made that the Department of Justice already has that video. So what's the difference if you blur the faces? And the answer has been, wait a minute, this is like the FBI's most wanted list. If it's exposed to the public, they may recognize those faces and associate those faces with a name. You've heard that, haven't you? Yes. And that's the idea of what public or private people will retaliate against them individually. Well, the only people who seem to try to retaliate or go after individuals are people that Trump identifies as hostile to him. Not hostile to the country, hostile to him. You know, Manfred, one of the most troubling things about the news recently is Trump's comment at the end of some interview on, by one of the conservative interviewers, where he was asked whether he would, you know, follow the rules or destroy the government. And he said, no, no, no, I'll follow the rules of democratic society and all that, except on day one. And it's a very quizzical kind of statement he made. What did he accept on day one? Why is day one different than all the other days? Why would you make that statement and say you'll follow the rules, but not on day one? And, you know, I don't know how you take that. I'm interested in how you take that. I take it to mean that he would change the rules on day one. Well, look, I'm not into Trump hermeneutics. I find this discussion between you and Karl interesting, but you somehow overemphasize the figures and not the fact that there are no mass protests in this country. What is the matter with Americans that they do not go into the streets and protest what is going on, that they're accepting it? So what you have here is the sickness of the country being reflected by figures like Trump and Mike Johnson. And as long as we do not recognize that and personalize the problems in the way we have done, I think people will not really recognize what is going on and how dangerous the situation is. It's not because there is Trump and Johnson. It is dangerous because people do not go in the street and protest as they do and have been doing in France, you know, for quite some time. And even before the war in Israel, you know, in the Gaza war in Jerusalem against Netanyahu, it doesn't happen here, why not? What's the matter with Americans that they accept this madness, you know, in the way they do? I am much more scared of this mass silence than of the idiocy of people like Trump and Mike Johnson. Yeah, okay, and that takes us back to Mike Johnson because the comment has been made that Mike Johnson will assist Trump as other right wing organizations will in the November elections. And as the Speaker of the House, assuming he lasts that long, and I take your point that he might not, but assuming he does last that long, Trump wants him to last that long, that he as the influential Speaker of the House will help Trump overcome any problems in that election. And remember that Trump has a history, a strong history of denying elections. And if Mike Johnson helps him do that, that's a big assist in November, don't you think? Yeah, no, that's true, absolutely true. And for that reason, you know, as much as I despise the silence of the American public, I still believe that there is a rational majority in this country that will not go the way that we are afraid of the country will go, namely making Trump the president again. I still at this point, and I discuss that with friends who disagree with me, I am not as pessimistic as I was, you know, last year, that I think the outcome of many of these investigations and trials will lead to the recognition that America cannot bring Trump back into the White House. Well, let me ask you, let me ask you about that. Are you optimistic, pessimistic? Because you know, it's like every day there is, if you're pessimistic, there's plenty of material out there, and every day it seems to be increasing. No, no, yes, you're right, you're right. So, how do you feel about this? I'm cautiously optimistic. I think that the actual support, the MAGA support, Trump support, I think is a static number. Yes. It has not been growing, but it also has not been shrinking. Part of the problem, and to go to Manfred's question as well, why are Americans not standing up in opposition? Well, I have a couple of thoughts that are one. 1988, 1989 is when it was finalized, the abolishment of the Fairness and Reporting Act and how we now have silos on steroids, thanks to social media. And therefore, we have echo chambers. So, all of the Trump supporters exist the way that they do with the strength that they do, because that's all they hear. That's all social media provides for them. Social media doesn't nor does any media outlet actually say, give a fair and balanced understanding of all of the issues and concerns. It's opinions, and its opinions presented as facts, and that's one big reason why the support is what it is. And then from there, the rest of us are all bogged down trying to make sure that we're actually recovering from COVID. We're actually trying to get ourselves back on track. We see how the economy has actually improved and how we did not fall into the tailspin of a recession that we thought could happen, thanks to bidenomics, thanks to everything that has happened, thanks to the CHIPS Act, thanks to the Investment Act, thanks to everything that has been done. We're all working very hard trying to keep ourselves above and trying to catch up again and get back on top of our financial situations, of our professional situations. So we're busy, we're occupied. But Kyle, what you say about the media situation in the United States that applies to France as well, but you have these major constant, spontaneous protests, demonstrations in Paris and other French cities. And you have it in other cities as well. So in that sense, this American silence is ominous. And for that reason, I would much more focus on this isolationist mentality isolationist mentality that you had already in the 20s and 30s in support of fascist tendencies. I mean, Rachel's, Rachel Merrill's book, in that regard, absolutely stunning. But there are other books about the, of Hitler's American friends in the 30s that describe that up to the most, one of the most prominent right-wing figures in the 30s who was buried in Hanna on Maui, namely Charles Lindbergh. So it has not become a place where people go to celebrate this figure. I'm always asking friends in Hanna, tell me please, when it begins to become a place of reverence. But I'm puzzled about nevertheless, despite of what you said, I'm puzzled about this American silence. I agree and I think it is frightening as well. I think that, I think there's apathy. I think there's fatigue. I think there's a belief by too many, far too many that it can't happen to us. So it's a conceit that will cost us if we are not. But St. Louis' famous novel, it can happen here in 1937. And at that time he meant fascism. Well, it can. Let me also mention the, perhaps the queen, the OG queen of the MAGA movement, Anne Rand. Right, yes. And her first book, Anthem, which was a fictitious story born out of her monarchical loss of monarchy in Russia and how she was opposed to socialism and created this idea, this fantastical idea, that never existed, that we need to fight against the ideas of socialism from her perspective. And the root cause of much of what came out of Anthem and then some of her following books, Fountainhead and so forth, provide the basis of thought for current GOP methodology. Well, let me ask you both a question that bears on all of this. You know, just suppose Trump is able to win and winning doesn't necessarily win the vote, you know, because he denies the other guys win and he claims to win even when he lost. So let's assume somehow with Mike Johnson's help and Vladimir Putin's help, he gets back in power, you know, with all those states which are suppressing minority votes, all the mechanisms that he has put in place, maybe he gets back in power. And, you know, per this discussion, we have a speaker of the house who's, you know, into this evangelistic theocracy thing who doesn't like gays, doesn't like abortion, doesn't like any liberal issue. And these guys, especially Trump, doesn't like democracy, doesn't like the rule of law, doesn't like the constitution. I mean, all the fundamentals of our lives over 200 plus years and certainly our lives now, together with the geopolitical issues that Manfred speaks of, isolationism, you know, has a kind of redounding effect. It isn't just that you shrink, it's that when you shrink things happen in the vacuum outside and they come back and bite you. And so my question to you is, paint me a picture of the ghost of Christmas future, you know, out of Dickens. Just suppose that Trump gets back in power with the help of his friends, especially Mike Johnson. What does life look like? I know we don't have the time to go into every detail, but Manfred, what will life look like in the ghost of Christmas future? Look, if he should get into office without having a majority, I think you will have demonstrations and civil war-like situation in United States. Now, what I am not sure about is how the military will respond. I mean, when you're looking at the opposition of many of the very prominent military leaders during the Trump administration, how they responded to him, how they really despised him and how he wants to kill them, you know, execute them, you have there, I think, in the military leadership, a constitutional affirmation that is quite remarkable. So in that sense, but we have to wonder whether we can rely on that to last. That's true. And let me throw one thing at you. And that's the Tommy Tuba Bill phenomenon where he's been holding up hundreds of promotions. Well, he seems to have relented on that, but only in part because a lot of senior positions he's still holding up. But the theory has been advanced that he's working for Trump. We know he's working for Trump and that he is trying to hold up the process of confirming senior military personnel so that Trump can have a role in appointing them as in when he takes power again. And if that's the case, then he is much more, he, Trump, is much more likely to control the military as he tried to do during his first term. Don't you agree that that's one of the big issues here in the ghost of the Christmas future? But people will remember that. The military leaders will remember what happened to them, what Trumpists tried to do them with their, with the unwillingness to go through with the appointment process. So for that reason, it may be counterproductive what they are doing. They are creating a memory that will not be forgotten. So in that sense, I must admit, I am impressed by the way American military leaders have behaved during the Trump years and how, you know, this has become public knowledge. So much that Trump, I mean, he wanted, he said, really, the last chairman of the, should be killed, should be executed. I mean, it's absolutely stunning. Well, he can control the military. Then he can implement the insurrection act against those protests you were speaking about, right? And he can squash those protests. I don't think, you know, he has not reached that point. I'm sorry. I'm in that sense, you know, I'm optimistic. Strangely enough, I'm optimistic about the military leadership. Okay. Well, let's move to Carl. We're running out of time. Carl, you know, your thoughts about the ghost of Christmas future, if he gets back in power. And let me add one thing we haven't talked about. That is Article 5, which allows for a national constitutional convention, which the arch conservatives are trying hard to do in many states. In fact, in most states. And if we had a constitutional convention, run by the conservatives, we would see the end of the Constitution as we know it. So your thoughts about the future, assuming Trump gets back in power. Okay, that's all really big thoughts and ideas there. So, Trump learned from his first four years in office there that he learned where the weaknesses are and what he had tried to do. He learned that by putting in someone like Kelly, who actually thwarted his efforts, he learned that he needed to make sure he had absolute loyalists in place everywhere. He learned where exactly we have weaknesses. And he is now systematically working behind the scenes, regardless of what he says, and specific to what he says. He wants us to be raging on and on and on about whatever it is he says. So that in the background, what he's doing is formulating the plans to put into position everyone necessary in all places at all levels of government that give him the absolute authority to do what he wants, how he wants. He has said so, and everyone of the MAGA faithful are in lockstep behind. Let's just tear up the Constitution and start again. Let's just have Trump be our dictator going forward. Have him be our strongman because we think he's funny and we think he's, for whatever reason, they think there's strength in his language that he is going to fix everything. Well, fix what? Fix what, exactly. And that's where the debate ends up being, again, there's no point in having the question that he's going to fix everything. Again, there's no point in having the question about that. Fix what? Well, if we're arguing about what we're trying to fix, if we're talking about and worrying about what he might do, well, if that's not going to change the fact that he's going to do everything in his power through state-by-state voting rights changes, through every aspect of the levers and mechanisms that exist in all of their weaknesses to bend them until they break so that he can engage in self-preservation and keep himself out of jail, and he doesn't really care about anybody else after that. And if you tend to disagree with him, that, well, you're going to end up, whether you're in the media, I mean, so much for it, he wants to tear up the Constitution. He has said so. He wants to put it aside. Manfred, you know, this is, I mean, Carl makes some very good points about the ghost of Christmas future. And remember that right now, the polls show that Trump is way ahead of anybody else and that he's likely to get the nomination, and he has a huge support in his base around the country. How much of this kind of move to the right, move to autocracy, to fascism, to denying the rule of law in the Constitution reminds you of Germany and Europe in the 30s. Look, as you know, Hitler was not elected. He was appointed. He never got a majority in free elections, but that's not the issue. I still, I mean, I agreed with everything that Carl said. It's this bleak picture that he is painting is not unrealistic, but I think the bleaker, it seems to become the more optimistic I also become because I think people will not accept that. And when you think of the abortion vote in Kansas and in other states, you, when you think of the opposition of American young women, you see their constituencies that I think have not shown up on Trump's and Johnson's radar screen. They underestimated, they think polls are actually results, election results, but there's a difference between polls and votes. And I think for that reason, now you think I may be absolutely crazy to think that there is enough rationality left in the American, that they will not let all of this happen. But remember, one other thing, you talked about the constitution. I mean, the constitution is really an obsolete document in all kinds of regards, not only because of amendment number two, but the Electoral College, the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court judges, all of that is crazy. I mean, the originalists among the law theorists are absolutely bizarre in the insistence on having to protect the original meaning of the constitution. All of these features have to be removed. They are absurd. I mean, they should take an example from the constitution that they have to create in Germany in 1948, where you do not have any of these idiotic measures that the founders put in the constitution for reasons that made sense when they did that in 1789, but they have lost meaning. I mean, think of, well, we talked about it, article. Amendment number two, the right to bearing arms. Well, it made sense, but they didn't have a standing army. And they didn't want to have a standing army because they had the bad experience of the British colonial power. But America has a standing army since the Civil War. And so the federal government has this feature there and it's hands to take care of problems that may occur. Well, Manfred, we're out of time and this deserves another discussion looking into the future and looking, you make a good point about the constitution. Unfortunately, I think the experience that countries have is two things. One is when you start pulling it apart, everything comes apart. And then you have to sort of start from scratch and starting from scratch is very hard and involves a lot of disruption at least. The other thing is that I recognize the value of the German constitution in 1948. It makes me think of the way to peace, the way to true prosperity, the way to a better framework legally for a given country may be through war. And 1948 was the product of the war that had just ended. So I think we have a long way to go here and I think the journey will be dangerous and possibly very destructive. And you guys are both right. We cannot tolerate complacency and apathy. This is a time for every citizen to do whatever he can. And thank you, Manfred Heddingson. Thank you, Carl Campania. It's been a great discussion. Aloha. Thank you. Thank you.