GOP's sadism exposed as Republicans try to silence a Christian message
I have a pitcher full of ice water and I'm ready to use it on liberals and Democrats who are prematurely celebrating the Senate primary victory of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Yes, he's deeply immoral and corrupt. Yes, he's a cheat and a liar. (Liberal Currents' Alan Elrod said he's "a paragon of the Trumpian politician – a man whose fascism flows as much from his prejudices as his own adolescent, libidinal self-indulgence.") But Texas is still gonna Texas, and like Democrat Graham Platner's supporters in Maine, who are willing to overlook his Nazi tattoo in order to oust Republican Susan Collins, Paxton's supporters are willing to overlook a multitude of sins to stop Democrat James Talarico from going to the US Senate.
Within hours of Paxton's defeat of incumbent Senator John Cornyn, the right began attacking Talarico – and making it very personal. "Tala-freako is a creep and he thinks he’s a vegan," RNC chairman Joe Gruters said. "He thinks God is nonbinary. He wants to mutilate children. He wants to put boys in girls locker rooms. ... All those things and the fact that they are openly supporting communists and socialists." A GOP strategist called Talarico an "emasculated vegan dweeb." Stephen Miller said he was "first transgender Senate candidate."
The ad hominem attacks were so immediate, so intense and so insane that some observers took it as a sign of Talarico's advantage over Paxton. "Interesting, if not surprising, that rightwingers have collectively agreed that their line of attack against Talarico is that he's supposedly feminine," James Surowiecki wrote on Twitter. "Not a trace of substance, just culture war bull----. Because how, on substance, do you defend voting for Ken Paxton?"
In speculating about the reasons Talarico is suddenly and "directly confronting attacks on his masculinity," according to NOTUS, I think liberals and Democrats still give rightwingers too much credit. They are not smearing him because of his strengths (which are many) or Paxton's liabilities (also many). They are smearing him because that's what they do.
As was the case during Donald Trump's three campaigns, what matters to many voters isn't leadership or policy or character. What matters is the collective desire to punch down on people whom the mob believes are deserving of it. (In this case, Talarico is associated with LGBTQ folks.) GOP campaigns are now like Vegas: what's done there stays there. They are vacations from morality, excuses to indulge in deviance and depravity. That Texans would suffer by electing Paxton doesn't change the fact that slandering "Soy Boy" is going to be fun.
Sadism is the point. We should draw attention to that moral failing by defending Talarico, not only on ethical grounds but on unambiguously religious grounds. This is not an easy thing to ask of some of my liberal brethren, as religion to them is frequently the problem in American politics, not a solution. But if nothing else, let this convince you: the most extreme smears against Talarico are not explicitly gendered. They are explicitly religious. He represents more than a viable Senate candidate who might – might! – turn Texas purple. Talarico embodies a viable path toward breaking the right's monopoly on faith, especially the Christian faith.
On Wednesday, this is what US Senator Mike Lee posted on Twitter, quote-tweeting a post by the DNC that said: "Texas: James Talarico is the only candidate who will put you first."
To the most conservative Christian sects in the United States (Mike Lee is a Mormon), Moloch is probably second only to Satan (or maybe the Antichrist) among figures of evil in the Bible. Secular liberals see this comparison and shrug. (It's just more of the same kookiness.) Religious liberals, however, see it as bad faith designed to prevent Talarico from attacking his political opponents where it hurts most. If Talarico is allowed to explain himself and his theological views, free of the slander against him, the most conservative religious voter might come to the conclusion that despite being a Democrat, he's still a good Christian.
Hold that in your mind as I remind you of the time, three months ago, when the Trump administration threatened to punish late-night comedian Stephen Colbert for airing an interview with Talarico. (This threat came after CBS had caved to Trump's bullying and cancelled his show.) In effect, the government banned Talarico. (The interview was posted online.) But what did it ban? Two decent men discussing the corruption of faith by politics.
"For 50 years," Talarico said:
the religious right ... convinced a lot of our fellow Christians that the most important issues were abortion and gay marriage, two issues that aren’t mentioned in the Bible. Two issues that Jesus never talked about. Jesus in Matthew 25 tells us exactly how you and I and ... our fellow believers [are] going to be judged and how we’re going to be saved: by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger. Nothing about going to church. Nothing about voting Republican. It was all about how you treat other people.
He continued:
Don't tell me what you believe. Show me how you treat other people and I’ll tell you what you believe. And I think in our faith we’ve got to get back to those fundamentals. My granddad was a Baptist preacher in South Texas, and when I was little, he told me that Christianity is a simple religion, not an easy religion, he would always clarify, but a simple religion, because Jesus gave us two commandments: love God and love neighbor. And there was no exception of that second commandment. Love thy neighbor, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or immigration status or religious affiliation.
I suspect Mike Lee was reacting to Talarico's biblical defense of abortion. He said God asked Mary for consent before impregnating her. Therefore, Talarico reasoned, a mother's life has privilege over that of an unborn child. While there is indeed a history of Protestants (though not Catholics) taking that view for granted, it's beside the point, as Talarico makes plain. Abortion is a modern concern, not a fundamental one. He pushes it out of the realm of religion and into the realm of politics. That, for the religious right, is deeply threatening.
Rightwingers want the public to believe that being a liberal and being a Christian are incompatible. Yet here's a man from inside the church (Talarico is a Presbyterian) speaking for a legitimate, though often ignored, theological tradition. Not only does that frustrate efforts to maintain the view that being a good Christian requires opposition to the variations of "race or gender or sexual orientation or immigration status or religious affiliation." It suggests that the Messiah himself might have been liberal. (He was, relatively speaking.)
No wonder Lee calls him Moloch.
This is why sadism is the end, not the means. Rightwingers must smear Talarico. They must make him seem like a perversion of Christian virtues, not an evangelist for them. He must not be allowed to speak for himself, only to react to the allegations against him. And that's why liberals – even secular godless liberals – should defend him, not only on ethical grounds but on unambiguously religious grounds. You don't have to care that a mob slandered Christ, too.
But Christians should.
