If Republicans were hoping for Speaker Mike Johnson to play hardball over the border crisis, that doesn't appear to be in the cards. While speaking on "Face the Nation," Johnson tells host Margaret Brennan that he will not wield the leverage of a government shutdown to try to force a deal that pushes for stricter enforcement.

See: Mike Johnson and 64 House Republicans Assess the Crisis on the Southern Border

That comes as illegal immigration continues to set new records, with over 302,000 encounters happening in the month of December alone. Estimates vary, but somewhere between six and eight million people have illegally crossed the Southern border since Joe Biden took office.

As some in the House GOP threaten to halt government funding until President Biden signs their border security proposals into law, @SpeakerJohnson tells @margbrennan the government won't shut down – but his members "understand this is a critical issue." Tune in Sunday for more. pic.twitter.com/94Rf8Pu6nS

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 5, 2024

Reactions to this will likely vary. On the one hand, how effective would a government shutdown over the border even be? It is clear that Democrats do not fear any political backlash associated with the issue. Instead, they would likely just use it as messaging fodder in an election year, and perhaps with some success. 

On the other hand, some would question what the point of electing Republicans to office is if they aren't going to use all the leverage they've got. Part of politics is being willing to stand up for what's right even if there is a risk it might not work. Would a shutdown do more harm than good to Republicans? I honestly don't know, and I don't think anybody truly does. Is that an excuse to not make a stand, though? 

I suppose it's debatable, and while it may seem like I'm making a definitive judgment, I'm not. I can see both sides of the argument. Much in life boils down to risk and reward. Can Democrats even be swayed in this environment by applying pressure? Or is it better to have a strategy solely focused on winning more power in 2024 to neutralize Democrat input? Again, it's a fair question that fair people can come to different conclusions on.

Still, this latest move from Johnson does bring us back to the elephant in the room, which is what exactly was gained by the fight to oust Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? Has there been a distinct shift in governance? I would say, not really. We still ended up with a continuing resolution, and now we are getting the same strategy regarding avoiding a shutdown at all costs. Those were the two major issues that got McCarthy booted. 

To reiterate, this article is not a criticism of Johnson. I like him as a person (far more than McCarthy), and I think he's doing what he can with what he's got to work with, which is an extremely slim majority. I don't know if I agree with all his decisions, but I'm not suggesting it was a mistake to make him Speaker. 

What I'm suggesting is that Republicans might have to readjust their expectations. In the days after Johnson's elevation, there was a lot of hope that he would govern far more conservatively and aggressively, but perhaps that's just not the in cards no matter who is in charge. 

This is the problem with consistently underperforming in elections, which the GOP has done in the last four cycles. Perhaps we should all be more focused on fixing that issue at the ballot box rather than expecting Johnson to extract blood from a turnip. That may not be what some want to hear, but it may be the most realistic option.