Brooks and Capehart on if Democrats will save Johnson’s speakership

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join William Brangham to discuss the week in politics, including Democrats helping Speaker Johnson get a foreign aid package through the House as he faces backlash from far-right members of his caucus and President Biden’s role in easing tensions between Israel and Iran.
William Brangham:
As Lisa just reported, Democrats helped Speaker Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far right members in his own conference.
On that and the other political stories shaping this week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
Gentlemen, so nice to see you both.
Jonathan Capehart:
Hey, William.
William Brangham:
Thanks for being here.
David, if someone had arrived in Washington today from outside the Beltway and they had seen what went down, which is a bipartisan group of people voting on something that they all agreed upon and that thing moving forward, they would think that’s ostensibly what governing looks like.
(Laughter)
William Brangham:
But, here, it’s viewed as this unbelievably unusual thing. Like, what do you make of what happened today?
David Brooks:
Yes, well, first kudos to Speaker Johnson. I mean, to his credit, he’s hung in there and he’s waffled and wavered and bobbed and weaved to try to stay keep his job.
But, in the end, I think he did the right thing for the country and the right thing for the world. And it was a test, as others said, that it’s important to respect democracy more than just the power of some angry minority.
And when you have a broad majority of people, not only in the House, but also in the country, and including 69 percent of Republicans, who think Putin should not be allowed to take more land in Ukraine, and this broad majority in a democracy that’s structured well, it should prevail over a long-angry minority.
The problem with our country has been over the last multiple years, increasingly, angry minorities have ruled and reasonable majorities have kept their head down.
William Brangham:
Jonathan, on this issue of this angry minority, that has always been the talk about Speaker Johnson, that he is beholden to them. He cannot dare cross them.
And yet, today, he did, as, again, it sounds like governing. Do you think that this development today reduces that — the sword of Damocles over his head, otherwise known as Marjorie Taylor Greene, over — the pressure has let off a little?
Jonathan Capehart:
No, because, what, three weeks ago we talked about Marjorie Taylor Greene submitting a motion to vacate. She just didn’t bring it up for a vote.
Then, this week, Congressman Tom Massie comes forward and says, I have got a motion to vacate. And then I believe, today, another member of Congress, another Republican, said — excuse me — I have a motion to vacate.
So, no, that sword of Damocles is this hanging over his head. It’s even gotten a little lower. But I agree with David that it is fantastic. Finally, Speaker Johnson has put aside his own professional considerations, whether he will hold on to the gavel, in favor of the broad national interests, national security interests.
But the key question for me is, once they vote on this thing, because we’re still not there yet, they vote on it tomorrow, once that’s done and these motions to vacate are acted upon, assuming that they are any one of the three, what do Democrats do? And if they do save Speaker Johnson, is he literally a Republican? Is he a RINO speaker, Republican in name only speaker?
William Brangham:
The ultimate slur.
Jonathan Capehart:
But I don’t mean it in terms of the slur that Republicans use it. It’s just, he would be speaker.
William Brangham:
Oh, quite literally.
Jonathan Capehart:
He would be speaker and a Republican, but the Democrats would be the one running the chamber.
William Brangham:
I mean, Lisa was just reporting that she’s got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some — if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that.
Do you think that will actually materialize?
David Brooks:
It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right. He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote.
And so if I’m a Democrat, I’m thinking, well, the Republicans still do have the majority. So if it’s not going to be Johnson, it’s going to be somebody else. And it’s going to be somebody else who makes even more concessions to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and that will make my life worse as a Democrat.
And so I think it’s very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson’s our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of the rest of this year. I’m looking at Chip Roy, who’s on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who’s one of the — I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and — but certainly on that far right faction, one of the smartest people, I’m looking to see which way he goes.
Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him. But if the Democrats don’t hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today. And I think it would just be a gross mistake.
Jonathan Capehart:
I mean, sure, but I don’t think it’s going to get to that point.
And I think the reason why Speaker Johnson is bringing up these bills right now, I think it’s also because of Democratic insistence that, if you do this, we will come to your rescue, but not until after you get Ukraine aid over the finish line, until after you get these foreign aid bills over the finish line.
William Brangham:
Let’s turn to what’s happening in the Middle East.
Since you were both last here at this table, Iran shocked everyone with the extent of that attack on Israel. Iran — I mean, Israel, even though they don’t admit it, retaliated against that. Do you believe that we have — that this tit for tat has now stopped temporarily?
David Brooks:
Yes, I think it’s — well, I think, before the Iran attack — and Iran is its own worst enemy.
Before the Iran attack, Israel’s reputation was in freefall around the world. And now, A, you see that Israel is actually kind of effective at things, the Iron Dome. B, you see that all sorts of countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia, are rallying around Israel, in defense of Israel, but not only them, but France, U.K., U.S.
So, suddenly, world opinions back on Israel’s side. And then, to me, one of the best things that happened this week was that Iran and Israel had to respond in some way. They have to — have reestablished some deterrent power. And so they said, they had to prove that they can reach right in the middle of Iran and do an attack if they want to.
But they did it in a very restrained way. And I have to probably give credit to the Biden administration for a lot of pressure, because there were certainly a lot of voices in the Netanyahu cabinet, let alone in Israel, who wanted massive retaliation.
William Brangham:
Right. Right.
David Brooks:
And I thought they did a very effective retaliation. And Iran’s response was pretty muted. So who knows what’s going to happen.
But it leads you to believe there’s a bit of a week of de-escalation.
William Brangham:
How do you see President Biden’s hand and the use of American soft and hard power here?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, I mean, I want to amplify what David said.
I don’t want to probably give the Biden administration credit. I will give the Biden administration credit. Remember, how many times have we sat at this table where we talked about the fact that the Biden administration from the president on down counseling the prime minister to not do this, not do that, to do this or do that, and have the prime minister basically laugh in the president’s face?
Well, ever since — well, over the last month now, it seems as though that the come to Jesus phone call that the president and the prime minister had, ever since then, it appears that the prime minister has been listening and heeding the counsel and the warning coming from the administration about all sorts of things that it was going to do, whether it’s the invasion of Rafah or pleading with them not to respond in a massive way against that Iranian attack.
And so I think that the fruit is bearing out on the president’s very painstaking and patient quiet diplomacy and public diplomacy.
William Brangham:
Do you agree that that’s what’s happening here, that we are seeing a shift now, that Biden is able to speak to Netanyahu in a way?
David Brooks:
You don’t know.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
I mean, Israel’s going to do what’s in its interest.
And it thinks its absolutely its interest, and it would be a disaster for Israel and for the region long term if Hamas were allowed to survive. So I’m still reasonably confident they will go into Rafah. The question is how they do it.
But it’s not in Israel’s interest, in my view, and I think probably in a lot of — and certainly in a lot of Israelis’ views, to have a multifront war right now. And doing a massive retaliation on Iran, suddenly, you’re looking at a Hezbollah massive assault.
William Brangham:
Right.
David Brooks:
And suddenly you’re facing a multifront war. And that just is not in Israel’s interest.
So I think they were certainly influenced by President Biden, and they need to keep the U.S., its most important ally but they’re still going to do the things they need to do. So this was a case where, in the Iran case, where U.S. and Israelis just were perfectly aligned.
William Brangham:
I mean, Biden, as you well know, is in this — he’s on this political tightrope here, because he has said we stand steadfastly behind Israel, and that if they need to go after Hamas in all the ways they need to go after it, we are with them.
How much they really are against the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Gaza is a problem. There’s a clear political problem for them here, not just Columbia University students protesting, but Democratic base voters all across the country turning against that policy and do not like the president’s stance for Israel.
I mean, how do you see him navigating that as this election gets closer and closer?
Jonathan Capehart:
Look, it’s tough, because what you have is a situation where you have a president who has massive foreign policy experience and credentials dealing with a prime minister he’s known for about 50 years who’s running a country that — where the president says there is no daylight between Israeli and the United States; however, between me and the prime minister, there might be a lot.
And he’s doing everything he can to solve all the crises on the ground over there. At the same time, all his work over here is not inuring to his benefit here at home.
William Brangham:
Right.
Jonathan Capehart:
And you have, as you were just describing, lots of Democratic constituencies who are angry with the president.
And I take the administration at its word. I believe the administration when they say, from the president on down, their considerations about how they’re handling the Israel-Hamas war and dealing with Israel, there are no political considerations involved in that. And I think that is one of the reasons why so many people are upset.
If the president were playing politics with this situation, he would be doing all sorts of things to try to please the people who are demonstrating, who are doing encampments at universities.
But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they’re doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put — who were really upset with him for not doing lots — more things on criminal justice or racial issues.
And he would say to them, I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done. And I think that is what’s happening.
William Brangham:
Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you.
Jonathan Capehart:
Right.
(CROSSTALK)
William Brangham:
Do you think Biden — I mean, again, do you believe that the politics are not getting into this, that this is just Biden’s core belief and that he’s not going to let politics intrude?
David Brooks:
Yes, he’s a lifelong politician.
I don’t — he may tell himself that story, but no human being acts that way. Like, people look at their self-interest and they’re influenced by their self-interest. So I don’t totally believe that.
I think the American people believe a couple things in a complicated way. One, they agree with what Joe Biden said. Israel has sometimes been over the top. I think there’s pretty clear majorities in the — especially among younger generations. They’re also very pro-Israel.
And so if you look at John Fetterman, the senator in Pennsylvania, who has been the most pro-Israel member…
William Brangham:
Yes, interestingly so.
David Brooks:
… like more than Golda Meir, and he’s doing well in Pennsylvania.
And so…
William Brangham:
With a very strong, Israel must defend itself at all costs.
David Brooks:
Yes, almost unabashed.
And so I think there’s a market for saying Israel is maybe over the top, but also what Joe Biden is saying, we have Israel’s back. So you can say both those things.
And as for the protests, I would distinguish between people who have — who are honestly appalled by what’s going on there, and I have total respect for that. But there are fringes, and I think the Columbia — some of the Columbia protests are part of it, whereas Eric Adams, the New York mayor, or as the president of Columbia said, are hate-filled and bigoted.
And when I saw some of the pictures coming out of Columbia, I thought of Chicago this summer, that we’re going to all go to the convention. And, just like in 1968, there’s going to be a lot of rioting, and it’s going to get ugly.
William Brangham:
Well, let’s hope it doesn’t turn quite that way, but, yes, that’s — history is certainly leading us in that direction.
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, nice to see you both. Thank you.
David Brooks:
Good to be with you.