New York Times Reporters Downplay Talarico’s Radicalism

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Monday, March 09, 2026

 

I’ve already said my piece about James Talarico’s attempt to put a left-wing gloss on Christianity and why I think it nearly self-evident that it will not work politically in Texas. Here I want to talk about how the press is covering him, using today’s NYT article by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias as our example. And I’ll skip over their claim that by disputing conservatives’ understanding of Christianity, “he poses a new kind of threat to Republicans.”

 

The reporters let Talarico distance himself from his most incendiary past remarks by claiming he stood by their substance but “probably would have said them differently.” If they asked him how he would have put them differently, they don’t share it with readers. I’d say that while a lot of criticisms of Talarico are valid, the remarks in question — about God being non-binary, white people inescapably carrying the virus of racism, etc. — were crystal clear in their meaning.

 

Lerer and Dias also present this view of the substance of the theological debate:

 

His focus on the Scripture’s literary style and historical context reflects how many mainline Protestants, and many Catholics, interpret the teachings of Jesus and their implications for public life. Conservative evangelicals generally have a more literalist view of the biblical text.

 

“Many mainline Protestants, and many Catholics” do not, as Talarico has, invoke the supposed “Gospel of Thomas” — accepted as part of the Bible by no major branch of Christianity — to support the soundness of his political positions. (From Wikipedia’s entry on the subject as of the afternoon of March 9: “no major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative.”) But the Times account doesn’t mention Talarico’s use of the Gospel of Thomas at all.

 

And biblical literalism is, of course, unnecessary to reject Talarico’s view of the Annunciation as a justification for abortion. Nor does that view reflect some sophisticated understanding of the Bible’s “literary style and historical context.”

 

Talarico isn’t proselytizing for normal liberal Christianity. He’s way out there. He’s entitled to his views. But Times readers, who may not all know the lay of the land within Christianity, need better guides to it.