James Talarico has figured prominently in the news and on social media lately, especially so after he defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Democratic primary. In the November general election, he will face either incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn or Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Talarico is best known for explaining to audiences how his Christian values inform his political positions.
Richard Conville
On a recent “Politics War Room” podcast, Talarico laid his cards on the table: “2,000 years later (after Jesus’ 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. To them, Talarico is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; demonic; blasphemous; a creepy looking heretic; completely insane.
My concern here is neither biblical interpretation nor theology. My concern is with language.
“Democracy depends upon its citizens having a rational worldview.”
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 Sen. Ted Cruz. Participating in an antisemitism symposium last January, he said, “I believe Tucker Carlson is the single most dangerous demagogue in this country.” Carlson responded, “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.
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.
“You don’t have to know anything about the topic at issue to ridicule your opponent.”
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 with some handles to grab hold of and tussle with the real issues.
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?
Richard Conville is professor emeritus of communication studies and service learning at the University of Southern Mississippi and a long-time resident of Hattiesburg, where he is a member of University Baptist Church.
Related articles:
Talarico wrongly faulted for beliefs and behavior | Opinon by Robert Sellers
Fact checking three things James Talarico said | Opinion by Brent Barry
Why are evangelicals freaking out over James Talarico? | Analysis by Rick Pidcock
Talarico: ‘If you are neutral, you are taking the side of the powerful’
Politics, faith and mission: A conversation with Rep. James Talarico | Opinion by Greg Garrett
Texas Senate primary pits white Social Gospel against Black Church tradition | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy