‘Jesus was a radical’: Progressives invoke Christ to sell left-wing agenda on campaign trail
Three progressive Democratic Senate candidates – Florida's Angie Nixon, Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed and Texas's James Talarico – are invoking Jesus Christ to frame their left-wing policies as morally rooted, echoing tactics long used by the Republican Party's "Moral Majority" movement. The strategy comes as each faces Republican attacks branding them as socialist or extremist, suggesting faith-based messaging is becoming a tool progressives use to counter such labels and connect with voters ahead of the midterms.
Nixon, who upset establishment-backed Alexander Vindman and later joined the Democratic Socialists of America, told a Jacksonville church congregation that "Jesus was a radical" who fought for the same causes she champions, as she prepares to face Republican Senator Ashley Moody. El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running against Mike Rogers in Michigan, made a similar comparison on a podcast, saying Jesus was "considered radical in his time, too." Talarico, contesting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's seat, has gone furthest, training to become a Presbyterian minister and previously arguing scripture supports a non-binary conception of God, a comment Republicans have used to attack him.
- Progressive Senate candidates compare their policies to Jesus's teachings.
- Nixon, El-Sayed and Talarico face GOP attacks over radical/socialist labels.
- Talarico is training as a Presbyterian minister and cited scripture on gender.
New here? Start with this
In the United States, religious language has long featured in election campaigns, including among Republicans who have linked Christian beliefs to their political priorities. Progressive candidates are also drawing on faith, presenting policies on issues such as poverty and fairness as consistent with religious values.
Angie Nixon in Florida, Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and James Talarico in Texas are Democratic candidates for the US Senate. They face Republican opponents and attacks that describe them as socialist or extreme; their references to Jesus and scripture offer another way to explain their politics to voters.
The candidates have different relationships to Christianity: Nixon and Talarico identify with Christian traditions, while El-Sayed is Muslim. Their use of religious comparisons has prompted debate about how faith is interpreted in political life and how candidates seek support across communities.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Progressive candidates can argue that invoking Jesus gives a faith-based moral language to policies they see as addressing poverty, inequality and exclusion. By recalling the biblical image of Jesus challenging powerful institutions and caring for the marginalised, they may connect with religious voters and answer claims that left-wing politics is hostile to faith.
The case against
Critics can argue that presenting contested policy preferences as the direct expression of Jesus’s teachings risks narrowing a diverse religious tradition to one political reading. They may also see campaign appeals to scripture as strategic messaging that blurs the line between personal faith and political persuasion, especially when candidates’ interpretations are used to rebut attacks on their views.