Mothra said:
It's interesting that you keep framing this as though the objection to Talarico is some hysterical fear that he is personally going to "trans the kids." That's a straw man.
The concern is that his broader philosophy treats longstanding beliefs about faith, family, sex, and human nature as obstacles to be redefined rather than truths to be preserved. To those of us with traditional values, that's not a side issue, but the central issue.
Indeed, the valid concern for myself and I am sure many others is that many of Talarico's positions flow from a broader worldview that challenges traditional understandings of family, sexuality, religion, gender, and moral authority. People who hold more traditional views see those issues as foundational, not peripheral. When you look at any one position in isolation, it may seem insignificant. But taken together, they reflect a value system that asks society to reconsider institutions and norms that have existed for generations.
As for the "principled voter" argument, I've always found it odd that independents are automatically treated as the thoughtful adults in the room. But being unaffiliated isn't inherently a virtue. In many cases, it simply means a person hasn't committed to a coherent set of principles. My experience with independents is most lack a strong moral compass, which just means they float between positions depending on the issue or the political moment.
A voter can reasonably conclude that Paxton's flaws disqualify him. But it's equally reasonable for someone to conclude that Talarico's underlying worldview is a bridge too far, regardless of how likable or articulate he may be. There's nothing irrational about that.
I don't agree with everything you've said, but I appreciate the nuance in your response. It's very different than the "agree with Trump or you're an evil leftist commie" I typically see on this board.
To specifically address your points:
Well taken on the "traditional values" point. I can absolutely see how, to someone who holds to a traditional view of gender, sexuality, etc. or "faith, family, sex, and human nature," as you so eloquently put it, that Talarico's position on many of these topics can be seen as threatening or a slippery slope. If we elect someone who holds a looser view on these issues than you're comfortable with, what's to stop the next person up from holding views that depart even further from the moral center that someone with a "traditional values" worldview holds, and so on. It's a legitimate concern.
I would also like to commend you for using the term "traditional values" as opposed to those who would term such viewpoints as "biblical values." Holding those viewpoints is not wrong from a moral standpoint, in my opinion. But there is a very tenuous (at best) backing in Scripture for those viewpoints. I would argue that the best way to term those values is to say they derive from a faith tradition. They don't necessarily follow Jesus's teachings, which are largely ambiguous on many of those topics. You and many others may see your viewpoints as foundational, but I would posit that there are many who would disagree with that idea, and that their viewpoints are also valid. It's an extreme example, but there are many people in the past 50-75 years who held the viewpoint that non-whites were inferior to white people under the guise of "traditional values." Not to say your viewpoint is that misguided, but adhering to "traditional values" is not a True North, from a morality standpoint.
On the "independents are the only thoughtful adults in the room" point, I concede that there's a ton of merit to that. Independents often hold themselves out as morally superior, because they reject the unsavory portions of both parties. As to why I'm independent, I chose to register as such because I truly hold positions that are in each party's platform. I also hold positions that cannot be reconciled with the former within the construct of either party's tent. Happy to expound on that more specifically.
Someone can absolutely vote for Paxton on moral grounds. They can probably even do so on biblical grounds, although I would likely challenge them on their interpretation of the Bible. That doesn't make them evil. They've decided what they are willing to tolerate and what they cannot stand.
Likewise, someone can vote for Talarico on moral grounds. They can probably even do so on biblical grounds, although I would likely challenge them on their interpretation of the Bible. That doesn't make them evil, either.
For me, again, I do not live in Texas and have not for a decade. I do not have a vote in this race. If I did, however, I would vote for James Talarico and not feel an ounce of trepidation about it. Am I comfortable with all of Talarico's positions, particularly as it relates to gender and transgender care? No. Am I much less comfortable with Paxton's corruption and the message it sends about what we as a society will tolerate from our elected leaders? Hell yes.
Ultimately, I've determined Talarico's problematic aspects would not impact his day-to-day decisions in Congress, as the Senate rarely rules on matters of gender or sexuality. The Senate does, however, legislate on matters of financial policy, securities trading, corruption and fraud, and retaliation. Electing someone to office who has run afoul of every single one of those things is unconscionable to me.
None of what I've mentioned here even touches on the fact that I personally know Ken Paxton. I think he's a massive POS that I wouldn't entrust with my dog for a weekend, much less my state for the next 6 years, were I a Texan.
