Character matters, but policy also matters

Is someone who openly espouses heresy about the nature of God truly "acting like a Christian?"

When David French wrote about James Talarico, French described him as a "faith-forward" politician and "one of the few openly Christian politicians... who acts like a Christian." (More on that in a minute.) Talarico and his backers are trying to cast the 2026 U.S. Senate race in terms of personal character, especially given the notorious ethical problems with Republican candidate Ken Paxton.

The elephant in the room is when Talarico described God as "non-binary." This is directly opposed to the doctrine of Scripture itself, which describes God as our Father in both the Old and New Testament. When The Lord Jesus Christ (who was incarnated in the body of a man) taught His disciples the Lord's Prayer, He started the prayer by addressing "our Father who art in Heaven." I question whether someone who openly preaches this heresy is truly acting like a Christian.

But let's put that aside. Let's assume that Talarico actually is a decent person and faithful Christian. Let's accept the premise that in terms of character, there is no contest between Talarico and Paxton, with Talarico being better by a wide margin. That still does not mean that Christians should choose Talarico over Paxton. I hate to invoke a phrase used by apologists for President Trump's immorality and nasty demeanor, but we are not choosing a pastor. We are choosing a lawmaker, and it actually does matter what policies Paxton and Talarico will be supporting in the United States Senate.

Talarico will be a consistent voice for putting boys into girls' sports, and he has expressed opposition to restrictions on abortion. He will vote for higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations, and a consistently "progressive" agenda. Paxton would not be perfect, but his voting record will be much more aligned with the positions of conservative Christian voters than Talarico would be.

Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch argued that Talarico will be 1 of 100 Senators and his unpopular positions will remain unpopular, and the damage Paxton will do to the Republican Party and the public perception of conservative ideology would outweigh that one vote. That is a reasonable perspective from a long-term view, but there is also the danger that giving Talarico the platform of the U.S. Senate seat would also do damage by normalizing his more extreme views. It would also strengthen the Democratic Party in Texas, which has serious national implications in Presidential elections. Electing Talarico would not punish the Republican Party itself for nominating Paxton, but the Republican primary voters who chose him by a wide margin.

All of this could have been avoided by nominating John Cornyn, a solid conservative with a solid voting record, but that is no longer a possible option. So now Texas voters are faced with two bad options: A man of bad personal character or someone firmly on the Left of the Democratic Party. If I was voting in Texas, I would be voting for Paxton with an eye on the 2032 Republican Party primary and replacing him with someone better.

---