I wanted to know what you thought about David French not being sufficiently woken for The New York Times. (Side note: The Times’s leadership responded to the pro-LGBT wokesters with some journalistic spine, defending French, Douthat and other! More, please!). David French is a highly controversial figure. This is mostly because he’s an intelligent, articulate defender pre-Trump conservatism and forces conservatives face both the failings of that conservatism (something which he hasn’t really faced) and the potentially dangerous departures many of us have made from it.
Here are some examples of your comments:
While I understand that your feelings about David French will influence how you think and comment on him, you are giving him way too much credit.
He is a Bush Republican unreconstructed and has, like many others, utterly refused acknowledgement or to grapple with the failures of their approach to politics. French, like many others, has retreated from the reality and embraced a comfortable fantasy.
David French sees life now as a movie in which David French is the star and all others are just walk-ons. This means that every issue has to be evaluated according to how it affects David French. It would be difficult for someone as intelligent as French to believe that protecting children from sexual perversion is a legitimate public concern. French sees the issue not as about children’s innocence but rather about David French’s moral marvellousness and the evil of others who are not David French.
Seriously, don’t think I’m being harsh on Trump. Read any Tweets or posts French has made about Trump and Trump supporters. Ask yourself if Trump sounds like someone talking to his fellow citizens, or like a Hollywood diva enraged that his bowl of M&Ms are red.
Another:
David French is a non-Christian conservative writer. His own values make it impossible to see where they are. They effectively deprive our society of political white blood cells that can be used to push back against a satanic assault upon our culture and institutions. This is what you will see in his Drag Queen Story Hour. His Christian worldview does not allow him to see that constitutional principles must be abandoned in the face a literal satanic push into public square. This is because the “other side”, which is fighting with the “powers & principalities” on their behalf, is not what he seems to understand. He has two options: either he gives inalienable rights of unspeakable error, or he submits (including his politics) the One who can reverse the tide.
This is something that conservative Christians don’t seem to have figured out. They say that “if we repent God will heal our country,” but repentance must also include an acknowledgment of our political values and the willingness to put them aside when necessary. While he and others like him would argue about “precedents”, at this point (and expanding upon your recent post about DeSantis), we have literally nothing else to lose as we are already in “castrating boys” and “carving up girls” phases of the spiritual war. Is it necessary to make “Make Moloch God Again” a serious movement of the left before people like DeSantis realize that Christianity must be the first in the order of political values?
Another:
I was a former correspondent and had to make the difficult decision whether I would subscribe to The American Conservative after I retired from my job in Washington DC. I moved to Uganda with my wife, where we serve as missionary faculty at a Church of Uganda University. Living on donations from mission partners is not enough. One must also make sure one has sufficient savings to cover retirement. I do miss your comments, which were always thoughtful and thought-provoking.
First, let me say that I am encouraged by the New York Tine‘ steps-by-step additions of its right-of-center commentators. David French is the most recent. These thoughts are my own, as I have been a regular reader of French for many years. It is reasonable to suppose that he was offered a deal by the Times, which he refused, and that The Dispatch could match it. A second reason is that anyone in his field would be likely to be challenged or flattered by the idea of having a greater platform to express their opinions and reach a wider audience. Mr. French must have considered the possibility of living a daily existence with the incoming brickbats of the large Left side _’ readership. But I think that he is likely to feel that the Times’ left side has lost the ability to tell him anything, given the cruelty that has become the standard method of argument for so many of the Right theses days.
The key to understanding Mr French is that, while he may be commissioned by Times to write political commentary on the issues, I believe that he starts his analysis of the issues before he thinks and reflects as a Christian, and not as a conservative. French’s faith is the foundation of everything he believes or chooses to claim as a conservative. It doesn’t precede it. He doesn’t, I believe, choose to approach the potential subject matter as if he were a Manichean. This is also the case for many notionally conservative commentators (many of whom are prone to adopting this view not out of conviction, but because they like the clicks). For those who value the identification of tribe and taking sides, Mr French’s approach makes him almost instantly identifiable as a traitor to his tribe.
Many Christians have tried to separate our political beliefs from our faith, and then to put faith first. However imperfectly and ineptly we are trying to find guidance from our faith convictions to guide our political decisions and to prioritize the issues that merit our attention. This journey has made me less of a fan of How Dante can Save Your Life, even though I admire the sacrifice and conviction he has made. These words are written by someone who is open to admitting that he might be wrong about how he ordered the issues that concern him. These words are written by me as an Anglican Christian who is regularly in fellowship with Ugandan Christians. They place a different priority on the issues we’ll call LBGTQ. I’m never sure). My faith community is still new to me. I sense that Ugandan Christians exaggerate the current homosexuality crisis and understate the importance of predatory heterosexuality. Not to mention the systemic social problems that result from the Eighth Commandment’s subparts over the support of the Seventh.
Partly because I live abroad, I spend less time reading US political commentary and more time reading Christian commentary. We are also blessed with no television sets. David French is not the only one who seeks to navigate the waters of American public discourse. You probably know all of them. Russell Moore is one. Justin Giboney of the And Campaign and Chris Butler are two other examples. Skye Jethani and Phil Vischer from The Holy Post are another two. Comment magazine is a treasure trove. When David Brooks writes about his faith, I’ll throw in my old friend and interlocutor David Brooks. I continue to read First Things and occasionally correspond with Christian writers of less renown, but still providing valuable insights. They all seem to agree that while the world may be in trouble from a Christian’s point of view, God is still in control and the world is not in danger. A Christian should continue to follow the principles of love, generosity, and not fear and anger.
David French, a main target of militantly pure, is a prime example of “militant purity”. Like the others I’ve named, he is trying to set the direction and guide Christians in the public square over the long term rather than getting sucked into the current debates. This is why they need to encourage the Christians in their ranks to follow Jesus, not their tribal sirens and alarums.
The cynic in my heart says that once the dust settles from following such a parade of culture warriors with bullhorns through the streets, we will end up the same way we have always, with only more tax cuts for wealthy people. So, yes, I am paying more attention to some Christian writers in public and less to contemporary peddlers with bright shiny objects that reflect today’s particular crisis.
Another:
As always, thought-provoking material. You are 100% correct that David French’s conservatism cannot bring back the New Woke Religion in our culture. Your Deneen-based view is also mine – classic liberalism, which is not rooted in the Christian faith, is what brought us to. I think most conservatives and Republicans are good-faith and will support you. You cannot imagine a government form and a social contract that all of us could agree to.
Reading Deneen for a few years was for me the turning point in my evolution as conservative. Then I read Michael Lind’s New Class War, along with a few classics and currents of the New-Right style. You have probably noticed many times over the years that the Republican Party of the last 40 years has not been able to actually conserve anything. What does this mean for us? The Democratic Party has embraced the New Woke Religion and left the working class. The Republican Party is made up of some nice people, some who want to return to zombie Reaganism and some who love Trump because he’s a fighter. And then there are a lot of libertarians who would prefer to give American jobs away to cheap immigrant or foreign labor. Even though there are many Republicans who believe in a God, only a small number of them actually believe that God requires us to be accountable for our actions.
Who do I vote for today? No one. Two reasons. First, I believe the anti-Federalists in the late 18th Century were wrong in short-term, but right over the long-term. You can’t have an independent Republic on a continent that has hundreds of millions of inhabitants. The second reason is where did all those young blue-haired teachers who appear on Libs of TikTok? From where do the Children’s Hospital doctors who give puberty blocks to 11-year-olds? Where did racists such as Ta-Nehisi Cobbates and Nicole Hannah Jones get their ideas? How is it possible for a narcissistic, incompetent fraud like Gavin Newsom to survive a recall after he helped run California into the toilets? All of these people are typical of classical liberalism without any Christian faith. These are just a few of the millions, millions, and even millions of Americans who have converted from classical liberalism to the New Woke Religion. It is foolish to believe that by fighting back or electing true Conservatives, we can create a more balanced America in 2020 or any time soon. Your comment is excellent. I don’t see a social contract that all of us can agree to.
What does this mean for us? To me, it means a return to federalism, but one that is more flexible than the current system. The Convention of States, I believe, is the best thing that we have in terms of the political landscape. It will benefit this country. America cannot be divided and ruled by Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley cultural values. We must drastically reduce Washington’s money supply and return most of law-making and decision-making to the states. California should not be allowed to become a haven of criminals, the homeless, and the oligarchs. Same for New York City and Illinois. Let Idaho remain Idaho, and Indiana remain Indiana. Each state and each region should be able to exercise greater autonomy than the current system. Let power be local so that it can be used to benefit communities and families.
Although I like the idea of a Convention of States being called (which is what the Constitution says when the Republic loses its way), the majority of the Organization is headed by Tea Party members who, to my mind, are not hard enough on the toxic influence of libertarians and globalists within the Republican Party. In fact, I wrote about my vision of stricter federalism in order to counter the toxic effects of hyper-individualism. Unfortunately, I don’t have much platform so I will wait and see if the movement takes shape.
The last hope is Jesus Christ. While we may not be able to save the country, He can save our souls.
Another:
Your blog is a left-leaning read. Because the left has become too totalitarian, I am increasingly backing candidates and politicians that I don’t agree with on policy issues. I also disagree with some of the mainstream left’s views on other topics (ex. the extreme forms of trans rights; the idea that bakers should be forced to make gay wedding cakes); and I would rather live in democracy than the totalitarian states so many left-leaning people seek. People to the right of my concerns are listening, while those on the left refuse to consider them.
Concerned about the changes that have taken place since Trump’s election, I keep coming back to an important issue that many on the left fail to grasp: it is possible to gain value from listening to those you disagree with. A pathological fear of contamination has driven censorship in the last few decades. It is not only horrible to hold such views but it is also horrible to even consider them. My fellow leftists have lost sight of the fact it is possible to disagree and even disagree constructively with others. Even when leftists disagree with totalitarians, which happens more often than it appears from the outside, this has led to us being subject to ostracism, even from those who are secretly in our corner.
Since Trump’s arrival, it has been easier for me to discuss politics with my conservative friends. We disagree often, but we are open to listening. It’s becoming dangerous for left-leaning people to question certain narratives. I have been involved in politics for many years and have never been able to stop talking. It is disheartening to see the number of people who have given up on it.
Even left-leaning activists have told me that they are in agreement with me but can’t speak publicly. People have written me apologetic letters expressing their disapproval at my public statements, as they fear for their reputation.
Although I have yet to find out the cause, the refusal to consider that Trump voters may have a reason to vote for him was a wake-up call for me. Millions of people voted for Trump despite his obvious problems and almost no one on the Left was willing to say publicly: “You know what? We messed up big here.” We must figure out what Trump offered his voter that we were not and how to offer it to him.
This is problematic because there are many people, such as myself, who are more moderately left-leaning and have been excluded from discussions and forced to engage in self-censorship with other left-leaning individuals for several years. The result is that extremists now control the political and cultural left. They have the support of the majority, and they shift further to the extreme. While I hope that the moderate left will eventually decide it’s enough and learn to work with conservatives, I don’t believe this will be possible. If it does, I doubt it will stop the great damage to Western Society.
Another:
I had the privilege of meeting David French twice, as well as having dinner with him once. I agree with your assessment of his current situation. David is someone I respect greatly. He has a great heart and a sharp brain. The tension that exists between David and others on the “New Right,” is similar to the tension that I believe exists among many conservatives today. This is to say, I’m not sure if the question of “have they fundamentally changed to where a fundamentally new response is required?” is a valid one. Many of my friends are also asking the same question.
David seems to believe in the validity of some of the old liberal orders and that conservatives are on a dangerous course when they try to use government power for fundamentally conservative ends. I sympathize with his view. However, I am more in line with you these days than David because of the left’s reaction to Trump in 2016 as well as the despotism of Covid.
It is a common Soviet saying, which I believe to be apocryphal, that “You may not care much about politics but politics cares a lot about you”. This is truer than ever. DeSantis seems to be the best person to help combat this. SCOTUS does some great work during Covid, but could have done a lot more.
These are some strange times indeed.
Another:
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
French is an “unreconstructed Bush era Republican,” I agree. You are suggesting, as I understand it that French’s position was sensible in the past but is now naivety and out of date. [ANSWER] No, I think his position, which I more or less shared, was wrong. And that David has not yet learned that lesson. RD]
French, like many others, is a Bush-era Republican who is not fully reconstructed. This is the problem I have with him. Even those of us who were Bush-era Republicans in the Bush era have just come to realize that the ideas and values that drove Bush-era Republicans are terrible. French is not the only one of his ideological allies who has gone “totally stupid on DEI,” as you put. All of the GOP Establishment has. The GOPe is what has been called the “right-wing Uniparty bird” over the past twenty years.
The problem isn’t just with Republicans’ inability to do something meaningful about wokism. Many of us have realized since 2016 that the GOPe wasn’t really on the side most of its voters. For twenty-two years, at least one chamber in Congress has been controlled by the GOP. It has held both chambers in fourteen of the past twenty-eight. It’s even held both the chambers of Congress as well as the Presidency for six out of the last twenty. We should not be surprised that the GOP did nothing to oppose progressivism politically or culturally during the entire time. The GOPe did everything possible to suppress the Tea Party movement in 2012-13. If you are in the majority, it comes at the expense of GOPe control. Well, Minority Leader McConnell makes far more selling votes than the Majority Leader McConnell does purchasing them.
Many of us saw 2016 as a turning point in our lives. Bush-era Republicans didn’t want to do these things during their times of political ascendency. The only thing that stopped the GOP from passing sweeping, fundamental reforms throughout the federal system during any of the six years it held control of both the House and the Senate was its lack of political will.
French is being defended by me. He doesn’t seem to understand that the grift really is a grift. He is a true believer. He is a true believer in the principles he holds dear. However, they could not have achieved their stated goals and were never intended to. While the Democrats appear to be interested in acquiring power and will spend large amounts of money to do so, the GOPe seems only interested in the ability to obtain money.
French seems to believe the lies, just like so many people these days about so many topics. French is a sincere man, which means that he doesn’t lie. However, it does not make the lies true. As I argue, and as you may be more inclined to agree, while all lies are dishonest, it doesn’t mean that all lies are false. French’s doublethinking is too much for us to ignore.
Another:
David French and other social conservative neoconservatives will not be allowed to attend the Times or any other high-profile locale. Social conservatives are neoconservatives, white supremacists and other evil fascists that are causing a massive epidemic of LGBTQ+ suicides and murders. They offer nothing to institutions or the people running them except to demonstrate the indecency and urgency of modern conservatism and the need to fight fascism.
French believes it is still the 2000s, just like many people living in neoconservatism’s social conservative ghettos. French acts as if 2008, the year of financial crash, and all that has followed since then, never happened. He believes that Americans would prefer a third Bush term or a McCain presidency if they knew what was best for them. They believe they can handle the Great Awakening the same way they handled the radicalism of 1960s. They have not internalized or processed the fact that Big Business and the security states are now on their side. The Woke militants made sure that those in charge of these institutions know what to do if they refuse to comply. If the GOP isn’t ready to take a few of their own, as DeSantis was willing to do with Disney’s, then the social conservatives should withdraw from public life to protect themselves from the next great purge.
It’s easy to see: J.K. Rowling and Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi are all liberals circa 2008 who, if anything, are more left-leaning than French. They became Enemies Of The People when they voted against any issue. Musk and Rowling don’t have the money to fight back, so they rely on the same mechanisms and procedures that French believes in.
What should we do? French could choose to admit that despite his admirable legal efforts, he was incapable of stopping the Left from dominating all aspects of modern life and winning the culture war until the point where there is only one debate: who will win the culture war. French must admit that the legal strategy to which he has devoted his whole life has failed. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome.
