A Britina Looks on Texas Manhood

Now, for the record, I haven't said anything about James Talarico: the only mentions of him here have come from Texan99, who is as advertised a Texan and whose business this candidacy therefore is. If I were to say something about him, it would be to question not his manhood but his theology; not his testosterone but his sense. However, it is true that some folks like Colonel Kurt* have mixed those critiques.

In Texas, they picked a white male Democrat who makes Tim Walz look like Sylvester Stallone—he’d be particularly excited about the getting oiled-up part. James Talarico could be kindly called gender ambiguous, but there’s no real ambiguity. He’s a male in the way that Boone’s Farm is a wine.

Talarico, of course, also allowed them to try the Christian grift. They know about as much about Jesus followers as they do about dudes. It was kind of hilarious how they were completely blind to the fact that all his stuff about Jesus is heretical blasphemy. It was beyond their comprehension that there might be different kinds of Christians—in this case, Christians who are Christian as opposed to pseudo-Christians who subscribe to whatever kind of Unitarian pinko baloney this little demon spews. The fact that he thinks meat is murder doesn’t help, and until Graham Platner’s latest revelations, Talarico’s laughable attempts to convince us that he was down with a hot Latina chick—she was not hot and there was no way they were down to anything—were the funniest meme in American politics.

I think the good colonel is on stronger ground in his criticism of the choice of Platner, to whit, that their view of men is so toxic that his own extreme toxicity made him seem authentic to them. That's a genuine blindness arising from their bubble and their worldview. Something like that is going on with Talarico's version of Christianity, if it is indeed a version of Christianity; but it's a very big tent, as no less than Chesterton pointed out. 

Still, this female Briton has some harsh words for American judges of manhood. (Also a great line: "I recommend watching the clip of Watters and Miller in full, because Miller has the kind of natural comic gifts that usually persuade people to forsake a career in stand-up and become a funeral director instead.") 

She comes around to the idea that the two criticisms are linked: that the debate over the theology is also a debate over the kind of Jesus people are imagining. How muscular a Christianity? In Texas, I would have imagined a fairly muscular one. Less so in other places; it's a big tent. 

* That article uses the word "normal" seven times. I've met Colonel (R) Kurt Schlichter through our mutual friend Jim Hanson, and Kurt is a wild and crazy guy. How strong his claim on the idea of "normality" is I would consider an open question; certainly not normal in the sense of ordinary. Why would you want to be that? 

I'm not myself, not nearly; what is wanted is to be exceptional in some good or virtuous way. That isn't normal: the ordinary course which gives rise to the norms is to make exceptions to the exceptional standards to allow for an easy, humane middle way that ordinary people can achieve. Getting there is easy, but it isn't especially good. It shouldn't be something to take as the proper end of an action or a life, a fact these two gentlemen know well since both have numerous exceptional accomplishments each.