Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Can Speaker Mike Johnson find common ground with Democrats?

Can Speaker Mike Johnson find common ground with Democrats?
Getty Images

Meyers, president of DBM Content Solutions, is the former Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. Before launching The Fulcrum, David spent more than two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information.

After weeks of political chaos, Republicans selected Rep. Mike Johnson (La.) as the new speaker of the House of Representatives. Johnson holds far-right positions on a number of contentious issues and was heavily involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.


But by one measure, at least, Johnson may be better positioned to find common ground with Democrats than any of the other would-be speakers.

The Common Ground Scorecard rates officials on their efforts to work across the aisle, to listen to the other side, and to lead in a civil manner. It was developed by the nonpartisan and nonprofit Common Ground Committee, which seeks to overcome government gridlock by helping leaders set aside incivility and find ways to work together on policy issues without abandoning their core values.

And according to the scorecard, Johnson is the best example of a “common grounder” among all the Republicans who sought to become speaker.

With a total score of 40, Johnson rates as “somewhat above average,” edging out his predecessor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), by 3 points. A number of other candidates, including two who won the party nomination (Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Tom Emmer of Minnesota) scored in the “average” range. Others, including Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), received zero points.

“Some measure of bipartisanship in the form of common ground is an important element of the speakership,” said Erik Olsen, co-founder and CFO of the Common Ground Committee. “[Johnson]’s demonstrated better than many that he's willing to work across the aisle.”

Both Johnson and McCarthy won the added label of “Common Ground Maverick” because their efforts at civility and cross-aisle relations far outpace the partisanship of their home states.

Scores are based on five categories: official performance (such as sponsoring bipartisan bills), personal actions (working in public with someone from the opposite party), communications (promoting the idea of common ground), (signing CGC’s Common Grounder Commitments, and being an “outstanding common grounder.”

Johnson earned points for founding the Honor and Civility Caucus and for being a member of the Civility and Respect Caucus.

“We can be stalwarts of our respective policy positions without tearing one another down,” he said when announcing the Honor and Civility Caucus. “Although the members of this caucus will represent both political parties and a wide range of individual views across the political spectrum, our belief is that we can disagree in an agreeable manner and maintain collegiality and the honor of our office.”

He received additional points for launching the Commitment to Civility Pledge, signed by every member of his election class, and co-sponsoring legislation designating a National Day of Civility.

However, Johnson does not have a strong record of bipartisan legislating. He regularly scores below average on the Lugar Center’s Bipartisan Index, which measures lawmakers sponsorship and cosponsorship of bipartisan bills. This is not surprising, given Johnson’s views on abortion, LGBTQ issues and other policy areas.

And according to CQ Roll Call’s Vote Studies, which analyze partisanship in voting patterns, Johnson is nearly a lock to side with his party on the House floor. Since 2017, Johnson has voted with a majority of Republicans against a majority of Democrats (what CQ Roll Call refers to as “party unity votes”) 98.3 percent of the time, including 100 percent this year. Nearly half of the 40 cases in which he broke with the party were situations in which he voted for spending bills. Both Scalise and Jordan voted with the party on most of those bills.

And while aligned with the MAGA wing of the GOP, Johnson did not always side with Donald Trump during the Republican’s administration, nor does he always vote against Joe Biden. He sided with Trump on 92.5 percent of votes in 2017-2020, and with Biden on 8 percent so far, according to CQ Roll Call’s data.

He has, on occasion, been involved with bipartisan legislation. In 2017, he introduced a bill to increase transparency of lobbyists acting on behalf of foreign entities. That bill had bipartisan support and made it through the Judiciary Committee before stalling in the House.

CGC’s calculations do not include efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory. (Johnson was intimately involved in multiple efforts to change the outcome.)

“People with higher scores have been election deniers,” Olsen said.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had earned a score of 40 during her time as speaker, but that temporarily dropped to zero after she called McCarthy a “moron” in 2021.

“Some measure of bipartisanship in the form of common ground is an important element of the speakership. Bruce and I thought this of McCarthy,” said Olsen, referencing his co-founder, Bruce Bond. “We viewed him as a more bipartisan speaker than Pelosi had been. When we went down to Washington during the past year to meet with people and talk about the scorecard several Democrats didn’t give glowing reports of McCarthy but they did find evidence of him trying to be bipartisan.”


Read More

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view of teenage boy walking with arm around friends

Why many young men feel politically and socially adrift, how changing gender roles affect masculinity, self-esteem, relationships, and the future of society.

Maskot / Getty Images

Lost Boys - What Is the Role of a Man in Today's Society?

A recent New York Times article stated that young males who provided an important swing vote for Trump in 2024 are discouraged by what Trump has done and not done while in office. But they are nevertheless not particularly inclined to vote Democratic because they don't see the Party as welcoming their view of masculinity and they don't know where they fit in this society.

These young men assume that because the Party supports equality for women in the workplace and because many young women no longer have marriage and having children at the top of their agenda, the Party would not be a welcoming home for them. They see themselves as striving for the masculinity of their fathers' or grandfathers' day, where the man was the breadwinner in the family and had respect and authority. Not the weaker half in relationships with women.

Keep ReadingShow less