For years, Americans have been warned that mixing Christianity and politics poses a grave threat to democracy. The term “Christian nationalism” is invoked as shorthand for constitutional collapse and authoritarianism.
Unless, of course, the Christian is a Democrat.
Texas state Rep. James Talarico cinched his party’s Senate race primary on Tuesday. But what has been striking about the coverage of Talarico is that major outlets didn’t treat his overt “Christianity” as a threat to democracy. Instead, they treated it as a breakthrough.
In an MS Now op-ed Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons practically swooned that “James Talarico is living up to the hype – by staying true to his faith.”
“The rising star’s campaign shows how powerful a religiously fluent, faith-forward Democrat can be,” he added.
The MS Now op-ed described Talarico’s “unapologetic embrace of his Christian faith” as something that could “even help reshape American politics.” Graves-Fitzsimmons credited Talarico with opposing “Christian nationalism” from within Christianity. In the same breath, he assured readers that religion in the public square is actually OK: “Maintaining a secular democracy does not require banishing religion from public life. In fact, the opposite is true.”
In other words, faith in politics is acceptable so long as it’s the right kind of intersection of faith and politics — that is, faith and Democrats. That tone vanishes when Republicans invoke their faith.
A 2022 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show announced that “Christian nationalism’s racist past precludes revival except among GOP’s Trumpiest.” A year later, MS Now published an op-ed by Sarah Posner titled “Mike Johnson’s Christian nationalist track record isn’t a mystery — it’s a tragedy.” The piece declared Johnson “the most unabashedly Christian nationalist speaker in history.”
When Republicans, like Johnson, rely on their faith to oppose murdering babies in the womb, same-sex marriage, or leftist priorities, the coverage becomes alarmist. “Christian nationalism” is framed as a threat. But when Democrats invoke faith for their own policy aims, the coverage takes a decisive turn.
Ask VOX’s Christian Paz, who said that “Talarico’s brand of compassionate progressive Christianity, wedded to a populist economic message, has attracted the most attention in and out of the state as a core feature of his campaign. His pitch is a message of radical love, of healing political divisions, and of welcoming Americans who might not be traditional Democrats into a big-tent political coalition.”
But Paz blows the lid on the real point, that is, Talarico’s Christianity is OK because it’s used to advance Democrats’ agenda. “In that context, Talarico, seemed like a godsend to some: a religious progressive who could code as a cultural moderate on a manosphere podcast while offering a faith-based twist on the party’s message of taxing the rich and helping the poor.”
Talarico’s Christianity, the article notes approvingly, includes defending a host of leftist priorities: “Talarico himself hasn’t compromised on the cultural issues that Democratic voters still care about — he’s defended abortion access, LGBTQ rights, and gun control using Biblical reasoning.”
Faith suddenly isn’t the problem, but rather right-wing policy priorities that are rooted in faith. Paz made this clear because just weeks earlier, he had warned, “On one side is the religious right’s use of scripture and faith to justify and defend President Donald Trump’s agenda — and growing Christian nationalist sentiment.” He then lauded the pope for purportedly “setting up his bishops and priests to be … a counterweight to the authoritarian and nationalist tendencies of the right.”
The pattern repeats itself at The New York Times, where Ruth Graham wrote that Talarico “has pitched himself as an opponent of Christian nationalism from within Christianity, an emissary for a Christian politics defined ‘by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger,’ as he told Stephen Colbert in a widely watched interview in February. His slogan is ‘It’s time to start flipping tables,’ a reference to the New Testament depiction of Jesus in righteous anger, ousting merchants and moneylenders from the temple in Jerusalem.”
She praised his “fluency with Scripture” and noted how it “has made him popular with the national news media and with those who hope he can peel away Republican Christian votes. It’s not clear yet how this is resonating with those Christians.”
But the Times took a different tone in another op-ed just four years prior, with Katherine Stewart arguing that so-called Christian nationalism” should “terrify anyone concerned for the future of constitutional democracy.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision to rescind the reproductive rights that American women have enjoyed over the past half-century will not lead America’s homegrown religious authoritarians to retire from the culture wars and enjoy a sweet moment of triumph. On the contrary, movement leaders are already preparing for a new and more brutal phase of their assault on individual rights and democratic self-governance,” she asserted.
But her conclusion said it all: “Breaking American democracy isn’t an unintended side effect of Christian nationalism. It is the point of the project.”
In other words, Christian nationalism is a frightening threat that will “break American democracy” only because it seeks to further right-wing policies rather than the left-wing policies she prefers.
Time Magazine’s Philip Elliott jumped on the bandwagon, praising Talarico for “providing a masterclass on how a Democrat can link faith, culture, and politics together in a way that makes sense.” Of course, “makes sense” in this context means aligning Christianity with leftist priorities that the media favors.
And nowhere is that clearer than in Talarico’s recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he offered what he called “biblical evidence” for abortion.
Talarico claimed parts of the Old Testament include “some subtle instructions for how to perform an abortion in the ancient world” and that since Jesus included women in his ministry, it must mean he wants them to be able to murder their babies in the womb.
But as The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd explained, “Just because Jesus didn’t specifically use the word ‘abortion’ in his short ministry doesn’t mean he has nothing to say about it or, an even worse assumption, endorses it.” As Boyd notes, the Bible does say murder is a sin punishable by death and that, in regard to life in the womb, “we are knit together, known, and consecrated before we are born.”
Yet none of the glowing profiles above warned that Talarico’s use of Scripture to defend abortion constituted Christian nationalism the same way no one warns that citing Jesus to support socialism or open borders threatens constitutional democracy. The alarm is only reserved for one side.
When Republicans root their policy positions in longstanding Christian doctrine, it is a nationalist threat. But when Democrats conceal radical left-wing ideology in Christian language, media celebrate it as a savvy communications strategy and described as “healing.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
