James Talarico has figured prominently in the news and on social media lately, especially so after he defeated incumbent Democratic US Representative, Jasmine Crockett, in the Texas Democratic primary. In the November general election, he will face either incumbent Republican US Senator, John Cornyn or the current Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.
Talarico is best known for explaining to audiences how his Christian values inform his political positions. On a recent “Politics War Room” podcast, Talarico laid his cards on the table: “2000 years later [i.e., after Jesus’s life on earth], he is still pushing us to be better neighbors, to look out for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, the vulnerable, to stand up to powerful people.”
Talarico’s Jesus, however, is quite different from the Jesus of orthodox Christian Nationalism. Their different understandings of Jesus have opened a flood of invective toward Talarico from far-right, conservative, Republican influencers, pundits, and pastors. Talarico is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; demonic; blasphemous; a creepy looking heretic; completely insane (Baptist News Global, 3/12/26).
My concern here is neither Biblical interpretation nor theology. My concern is with language. Such name-calling negates one of the principal requirements of democracy: discussion and debate, where elected representatives as well as voters make political decisions based on the validity of the evidence and argument on the issue at hand. Democracy depends upon its citizens having a rational worldview.
While we’re on Texas politics, consider Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Cruz, participating in an antisemitism symposium last January said, “I believe Tucker Carlson is the single most dangerous demagogue in this country.” Carlson responded, later in the program, “No offense to Ted Cruz or all the other dumbos who are always saying, . . .”
Cruz calls Carlson a demagogue, and Carlson calls Cruz a dumbo. This is not democracy in action. It’s more like the classic scene in Pee-wee’s Big Adventure where Pee-wee Herman and his neighbor Francis get into an argument. Francis says to Pee-wee: “You’re a nerd. You’re an idiot;” and Pee-wee responds: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Where’s that exchange going? Nowhere! Just like too much of the political dialogue in today’s Congress, across social media, and in ordinary talk among the regular people you and I meet every day.
Why does this happen? First, it’s easy. You don’t have to know anything about the topic at issue to ridicule your opponent. Just call your opponent a derogatory name. Second, it feels good. In sticking your opponent with an offensive label, you make some points, especially if you get the approval of others within earshot or in your friend group. It’s an ego boost. Third, it takes work to analyze your own position and reflect on your reasons for holding it.
If you are tired of the ridicule and name-calling, there’s a better way. You could cite as evidence your own experience or training with the issue at hand. Or you may be able to find some information, facts or data that support your position. Or finally, supporting your position may evoke strong emotions that make agreeing with you feel good and right.
Those strategies provide people on both sides of the issue with some handles to grab hold of and tussle with the issue. For example, maybe there are good reasons to believe that your particular experience is (or is not) relevant to the issue. You can also argue about the importance of the facts, data, and information to the issue at hand. And finally, those emotions evoked by taking your position may be shown to be contrived or they may be shown to be quite legitimate.
The upshot? Democracy is impossible when the language of politics is short-circuited--when we turn to ridicule and name-calling as our first option in political discussion.
Is rational debate possible? Can we get beyond “I know you are, but what am I?” If not, why not? Can we get beyond Pee-wee Herman politics?
