A Christian Case for Forceful yet Principled Interaction with Progressive Politics15 min read

Following the 2024 election, conservatives—particularly Christian conservatives—occupy a position of political prominence, yet encounter significant criticism. Adversaries denounce us as ungracious victors, citing the pointed rhetoric of figures such as Matt Walsh and Laura Ingraham as evidence of uncharitable conduct. Certain critics contend that such forthrightness contravenes Christian principles, advocating for a more restrained demeanor. Does bold critique, however, inherently contradict Christian values? How should we address opponents acting in bad faith amidst this era of division? This analysis commences with contemporary political shortcomings, then delineates a biblical model, motivation, method, and moderation for principled Christian discourse.

1. The Trigger: Extreme Democrat Pathology

The defeat in the 2024 election has laid bare profound deficiencies within the Democratic Party—not merely a temporary setback, but a manifest erosion of rationality and moral consistency since Trump’s first presidential term. The Democrat’s post-election behaviors and emphases have become increasingly illogical and incongruent with common sense and reality:

• Inverted Moral Hierarchy and Extremes: They have abandoned traditional ethical frameworks, prioritizing progressive inclusivity over the protection of established norms, favoring militaristic intervention over pacifist ideals, tolerating systemic malfeasance over rigorous accountability, and advocating leniency toward lawbreakers rather than upholding legal order.
• Excessive Sensitivity: They demonstrate an undue susceptibility to perceived slights, interpreting satire, humor, and critique as malicious aggression or threats, thereby conflating discourse with hostility and undermining robust exchange. This fragility stands in stark contrast to the fortitude and emotional resilience expected of adults, who are presumed to possess greater reserves of strength than children, who may understandably recoil in fear when faced with criticism or mockery.
• Resentful Obstructionism: Their stance is marked by persistent opposition devoid of constructive intent, fixating on past grievances rather than advancing substantive solutions, indicative of a disposition rooted in bitterness rather than progress.
• Reliance on Authority in a Post-Expert Era: They persist in deferring to centralized, institutional authority—despite evident corruption across academia, science, government, and media—discounting the emergent wisdom of decentralized inquiry and independent analysis in an age where expertise is increasingly questioned.
• Doubling Down on Hoaxes, Fearmongering, and Demonization: They perpetuate discredited narratives and alarmist rhetoric, clinging to the debunked “good people” hoax—misrepresenting a 2017 statement long after its context was clarified—while upholding the Russian collusion and bleach injection fabrications despite exhaustive refutations, and incessantly employing Hitler analogies, existential crisis warnings, and predictions of democracy’s demise and fascist ascendancy to vilify opponents.

Democrats have not just lost an election, they’ve lost their reason, their soul, and their way. There current position represents a systematic lapse in judgment and integrity. To refrain from addressing these shortcomings would be an abdication of responsibility.

1.1 Testimony of Democrat Insiders to the Dire Situation of the Party

This critique is not just a pejorative conservative evaluation, it comes from some of the more thoughtful Democrat supporters – at least, the ones they haven’t forced out for being honest or even constructively critical, such as Robert Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk. Many of the critics below may soon be ousted by the continued radical left commitments of the Democrat leadership.

Cheri Bustos – Former U.S. Representative (D) from Illinois

“We need to do a better job of listening to the people we represent. The message from the working class is clear: focus on kitchen-table issues, not ideological purity.” ¹

“I think we have to be very careful that we don’t let the extremes of our party define who we are.” ²

Chris Cuomo – Journalist and host of The Chris Cuomo Project

“The Democratic Party is losing touch with its working-class base. We’re not connecting with the people who built this country.” ³

“The party’s leftward lurch has left a lot of people in the middle of the country feeling abandoned.” ⁴

“The Democrats have become a party of war, of big tech, of censorship, and they’re out of touch with the American people.” ⁵

Tulsi Gabbard – Director of National Intelligence under President Trump (R), Former U.S. Representative (D), Army veteran, and former Democrat

“The Democratic Party has become an absolute charade. It is no longer the party of the people, it’s the party of the elites and the corporate interests.” ⁶

“The Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that they have lost touch with the needs and values of ordinary Americans. I cannot be a part of that.” ⁷

“The extremism we are seeing within the Democratic Party is dangerous, and it undermines our ability to have a reasonable, sensible debate about the issues that matter most to our country.” ⁸

“The Democratic Party has allowed itself to become beholden to the far left, pushing an agenda that alienates the very people they claim to represent.” ⁹

“What we are seeing in the Democratic Party today is a party that is more concerned with identity politics and wokeism than with actually addressing the real issues facing our country.” ¹⁰

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental attorney and former Democratic presidential candidate

“People within the DNC say I left the Democratic Party, but I feel like the Democratic Party left me.” ¹¹

“The Democratic Party is the party of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the big banking houses, and the military-industrial complex.” ¹²

Elon Musk – CEO of Tesla and SpaceX

“The Democratic Party has moved so far left that the Republican Party is now closest to the center.” ¹³

“I used to vote 100% Democrat, but now I think we need a red wave to save the country.” ¹⁴

Joe Rogan – Podcaster and comedian

“They had me, I was on their side! I thought they were the party of the working people. But they’re not.” ¹⁵

“The Democratic Party is failing to learn from its loss in November.” ¹⁶

“They’re gonna keep shedding people.” ¹⁷

“We don’t trust you anymore.” ¹⁸

“They’re heading off a cliff.” ¹⁹

Senator Kyrsten Sinema – U.S. Senator from Arizona (Independent)

“I’ve registered as an Arizona independent. I know some people might be a little bit surprised by this, but actually, I think it makes a lot of sense.” ²⁰

“Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened our politics and made it more difficult to get things done.” ²¹

Stephen A. Smith – ESPN commentator and host of First Take

“Woke culture and cancel culture ravaged the country. The Democrats were way more focused on that than the economy, immigration, and crime.” ²²

“The Democratic Party… they’re lost. They had a bad few months. We all know this… there’s no real national voice.” ²³

“They need to cleanse the Democratic Party as we know it.” ²²

Senator Elissa Slotkin – U.S. Senator from Michigan (D)

“Governing isn’t just about protesting or shouting at the president. It’s about delivering for people, including those who didn’t vote for us.” ²⁴

“We need to be the party that speaks to the center and to the working class, not just to the coasts or the loudest voices on social media.” ²⁵

2. The Template: Scripture Permits Bold Critique When Truth Is at Stake

In light of such deficiencies, what foundation can Christians rely upon? Scripture does not invariably prescribe temperate language. While 1 Peter 3:15 counsels “gentleness and respect” in defending the faith, it equally sanctions incisive critique when truth is imperiled. Jesus denounced the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 12:34) and “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27), addressing religious hypocrisy. Elijah derided the prophets of Baal:

“About noontime Elijah began mocking them. ‘Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping or maybe he’s relieving himself!'” (1 Kings 18:27 NET)

Paul labeled false teachers “dogs” (Philippians 3:2), expressed a desire that proponents of circumcision “castrate themselves” (Galatians 5:12), and publicly reproved Peter (Galatians 2:11). As I wrote:

Satire and sarcasm are not just permissible but necessary when confronting entrenched falsehood—Elijah did not temper his words, nor should we when the stakes are elevated. (Christian Use of Satire, Sarcasm, and Vulgarity , 2025) ²⁶

These precedents establish boldness as a legitimate instrument for upholding truth, not a transgression—providing direction amid contemporary turmoil. Indeed, those who today decry the harshness of Christian rhetoric would likely have rejected Jesus himself for his unyielding candor and lack of sensitivity to delicate sensibilities. As I noted elsewhere:

“Evangelicals today would’ve ditched Jesus for his ‘divisive’ tone—too harsh for the pews, they’d say.” (Evangelicals Reject Jesus for Disrespectful Speech , 2010) ²⁷

3. The Motivation: Pursuing Truth and Justice Beyond Simplistic Moralism

With a model established, what motivations should drive our use of bold critique? Our motivation must come from a commitment to addressing fundamental issues, fostering nuanced ethical reasoning, and promoting justice for all, eschewing the facile moral dichotomies of past ideologies.

3.1 Addressing Root Causes

Rather than engaging with superficial accusations or vague assertions—such as labeling dissent as “hate” or “disinformation”—we focus on underlying causes. For instance, instead of merely decrying economic disparity, we examine systemic policies that erode opportunity, like unchecked corporate consolidation, which in 2023 saw tech giants amass unprecedented market control, stifling small enterprises.

3.2 Embracing Ethical Complexity

We reject the binary moralism of Cold War frameworks—where one side is cast as righteous and the other evil. Modern geopolitics is morally entangled. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustified and brutal, but the West’s role is not innocent: decades of NATO expansion to Russia’s borders, in violation of post–Cold War assurances, and economic interference through sanctions and energy market manipulation have worsened tensions. The 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline—reportedly directed by the Biden administration—marked a dangerous escalation, not merely against Russia but against European energy infrastructure itself. ²⁸

3.3 Advocating Universal Justice

Our aim transcends partisan advantage—we seek justice and good for all. While progressive immigration policies often present themselves as compassionate, in practice they abandon both migrants and citizens to lawlessness. Open-border approaches empower cartels engaged in human trafficking, facilitate the unchecked flow of fentanyl and other deadly drugs, and impose unsustainable burdens on border towns and interior communities alike. They fail the illegal immigrants themselves—many of whom are exploited, endangered, or stranded in legal limbo—and they fail the American people, whose safety, wages, and social services are compromised. A just policy does not mean permissiveness; it means order, security, and compassion rightly applied. Conservatives must lead in restoring justice that protects all—not just political constituencies or ideological narratives, but the nation as a whole.

4. The Method: Responding to Opposition with Discernment and Dignity

How should this be implemented? Our method for engaging adversaries integrates discerning responses that uphold dignity, tailored to the exigencies of the present moment and informed by biblical precedent.

4.1 Redirecting Immature Discourse

When confronted with dismissive or mocking opposition, a measured yet firm response can redirect the discourse. Rather than mirroring the adversary’s derision, we subtly challenge their approach while maintaining composure. For instance, Proverbs 26:4–5 advises:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4–5)

This duality suggests a strategic nudge—acknowledging the immaturity of the critique without descending to its level—thereby exposing its inadequacy and preserving our integrity.

4.2 Elevating the Exchange

When opposition veils itself as intellectual superiority, a calm and reasoned reply can elevate the exchange. As I wrote:

“If someone says something like ‘Faith is just a crutch for the weak,’ I might respond with ‘Faith is based on more than just emotional need—it’s a conclusion drawn from reason, history, and experience, much like any worldview. What evidence would you need to consider it valid?’” (How To Answer a Faith Mocker , 2024) ²⁹

By addressing the substance beneath the scorn, we demonstrate that faith withstands scrutiny, balancing firmness with grace to invite reconsideration rather than confrontation.

4.3 Disengaging Strategically

Not every challenge merits prolonged engagement. When efforts to illuminate truth falter against persistent mockery, withdrawal preserves both time and purpose. Benjamin Franklin counseled:

State your case with modesty, so that if you’re wrong, you can escape gracefully, and if you’re right, you’ll persuade more effectively. (Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793) ³⁰

In the aftermath of 2024, amid a “media-government-NGO-oligarch complex,” discernment dictates when to persist—posing questions like “What evidence would alter your stance?”—and when to desist, ensuring our energies align with fruitful discourse rather than futile contention.

5. The Balance: Wisdom Moderates Boldness with Restraint

Boldness requires moderation. James 1:20 asserts that “human anger does not produce God’s righteousness,” and 2 Timothy 2:24 eschews contention. Our approach should, however:

• Expose falsehoods while directing toward truth.
• Employ wit with purpose, not degradation (e.g., Walsh’s humor).
• Anchor allegiance in Christ, not political factions.

Facing accusations such as “extremist,” the temptation to respond with equal sharpness may arise, seeking to match their fervor. Yet wisdom restrains us from such folly—retaliation risks compromising the righteousness we aim to uphold, as Proverbs 26:4 cautions against descending to the level of the contentious.

Wisdom ensures our sharpness remains righteous.

6. Conclusion: Boldness with Purpose

From Democratic deficiencies to scriptural exemplars, the argument is evident: boldness aligns with Christian duty when truth is at risk. In the wake of 2024, restrained language is not humility but weakness. Driven by clarity, completeness, and charity, directed by discernment and dignity, and tempered by wisdom, we address ideas and duplicity, not individuals. Eschewing both passivity and acrimony, we let evidence prevail, discourse remain steadfast, and veracity supersede labels—a mandate for principled clarity in an era of fracture.