Tuesday night saw the landslide victory of Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, over long-term incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the GOP primary for US Senator. Esquire editor Dave Homles made this observation of the televised Paxton victory party:
Paxton himself said this, a statement which may or may not be factually based on anything Democratic candidate James Talarico has said. It is among the other weird and wrong claims about Talarico circulating in the very online right-wing ecosphere, like claims he believes in “six genders” and is a vegan. All of these claims aim to demonstrate that Talarico holds views out of step with most Texans, although, being a Democrat, you could probably make that point without having to resort to distortion or invention. Paxton is a moral and ethical wreck compared to Cornyn or Cruz, a blatantly corrupt adulterer who would steal a Mont Blanc pen someone mistakenly left at the metal detector at a courthouse simply because he had the opportunity. He has a very Trump-like moral comportment, which is likely what sealed the president’s decision to endorse him over Cornyn, despite the latter’s obvious fealty to him. GOP voters in Texas wanted the previously impeached (though not convicted) Paxton, which was obvious from the first round of voting, and Cornyn was a longshot heading into the runoff. By 30 points, Republican voters endorsed the most amoral Senate candidate the state has seen because morality does not matter to GOP voters unless it can be wielded against women, minorities, or Democrats.
Having selected a moral void as their standard bearer, it makes sense that the attack on Talarico by conservative operatives is going to focus on Talarico’s religious views to try to tear down his character. To an ordinary person, suggesting someone with an MDiv from a Presbyterian seminary is not a real Christian would appear to be a tough sell, but to conservatives it is not. The non-binary God jab is evidence that they will run headlong into anything if they think they will avoid hemorrhaging actual Christian voters who find Paxton repulsive. But it’s more interesting to consider how divorced the idea of a male God is from a lot of theology. God in the Bible is portrayed as a “father” and is the father of Christ, but does the term have gendered meaning when we are talking about God? In the ninth century, John the Scot suggested that it was incorrect to apply categories to God because God is uncreated; for man, God is impossible to truly know as one knows created beings, and by his nature, God transcends the very concept of being. God is masculine in portrayals in art and literature, but these images cannot be said to portray God in any sense of the word. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, hardly a liberal theological document, it is stated plainly that “we ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman; he is God.” It isn’t that God is non-binary as we understand it, but that God exists outside of human ideas of gender or sex.
God as male is a very primitive idea that does not hold up to sophisticated theological inquiry. However, it is an important idea in the American cult of normativity, which upholds “traditional” views by exalting the nuclear family and the dominance of men in society. For many American men, any diversion from an androcentric worldview is a personal attack on them, and so there has formed a cult around the American man, his docile wife, and their “normal” family. This cult is well-represented in evangelical Christianity, where focus is placed on reinforcing gender roles and what perceived societal norms were prior to the late 1960s, which conservatives have for years marked as the collapse of their moral world order and the natural hierarchy in which white men were always at the top. Instead of viewing gains by women and minorities as positive attempts to create a more equitable society, these men view them as an attack on their position and status and therefore must be resisted and overthrown.
Look no further that Freedom Con, taking place June 19-20 at the Gorge Amphitheater, if you want to understand how the cult of normativity operates. Presented by something called Stronger Man Nation and billing itself as “an American congress of Christian men,’ this event open to men only claims to be a “catalytic experience” that will preserve “the vision of America’s Founding Fathers.” Speakers, it is claimed, “will unpack the historical precedent, biblical foundation, and moral necessity of Christian statesmanship” and their breakout sessions “will combine intellectual rigor, unapologetic patriotism, and unwavering biblical conviction to summon men and boys to this noble call as a capstone expression of stronger manhood.” Attendees are promised “a concrete, actionable roadmap to take back ground in your home, church, county, and state.” If this sounds a little more like a political rally than a religious event to you, you aren’t wrong. A peculiar version of Christianity gives a spiritual imprimatur to what is boilerplate right-wing conservatism and “alpha male” gender ideology. On the event’s website, a loop of still photos flashes by showing men lifting weights, chopping wood, riding bulls, running through mud, and generally participating in stereotypically masculine activities. If nothing else, you come away from the photo series understanding that this is gender-affirming care for a specific set of men.
There is also a strain of militarism running through it. There is a Marine, some Army veterans, and a Green Beret scheduled to speak. This is not all that surprising if you know anything about this form of evangelicalism and it goes hand-in-hand with the generic alpha male tough guy identity that all of these men want to cultivate. One of the headline speakers is Mark Driscoll, the (disgraced) ex-leader of the now-defunct Mars Hill Church in Seattle, who has been peddling this strain of Christianity since he was preaching on public access TV. It’s impossible to point to any one founder of this movement, but Driscoll is a good candidate. A rude and domineering bro pastor in street clothes, Driscoll endeared himself to his fan club and earned the enmity of everyone else by being as abrasive, homophobic, and misogynistic as possible. Eventually felled by an abuse scandal at Mars Hill, Driscoll fled the state and founded a new church in the more amenable Scottsdale, Arizona. His biography on the Freedom Con website calls him “battle-tested,” which is true if you consider being run out of your own church for being an abusive control freak a battle, as Driscoll is not actually a veteran. The “aspirational warrior” mentality adopted by men like this is a hallmark of their own feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. There is a constant worry about not being enough of a man and of being too weak or feminine. Ostensibly this is to project the most desirable qualities toward women in the hopes that they will be attracted to you, but really the need is to gain the admiration and approval of other men.
To bring this all back to Talarico, he is viewed by these same people as weak and effeminate for reasons that aren’t surprising at all. He is not a vegan despite claims by the president and other, and in the interest of polishing his bona fides as a carnivorous Texan he will now be photographed stuffing his face with barbecue at every opportunity. It won’t help convince these people, however, and will be seen as a put-on. There is no indication he “believes in six genders,” an idea which many people are convinced comes from the president hearing and then misunderstanding the term “cisgender.” And despite claims to the contrary, he isn’t any sort of theological radical, instead belonging to a plain old mainline denomination for which he has done graduate level training. What he appears to be is a very sincere, moderate liberal whose mild attitude and pragmatic policy preferences are out of step with hard-right alpha male conservatives. Will those people come out to vote for a truly terrible man instead? Probably. But how numerous are such people, and are there enough of them to counteract the numbers who will either vote for Talarico out of principle or vote for no one instead of Paxton? That will remain a mystery until the final tally comes in.
Leave a Reply