Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
David French and the Dialectic
The left moves, and has long moved, by dialectic. The activist-academic class introduces a concept or word into the public debate and shoves with all its might, taking its own logic to its flashiest conclusion. This conclusion being nonsense, pushback inevitably follows, prompting the activists to scamper back to their safe, warm mottes. But things don’t snap back to the way they were. No. The terms, ideas, and slogans introduced by the activists stick around. They’re subsumed into the broader culture, their edges rubbed off. They become part of the scaffolding of political debate — the mental furniture of the American mind. It is by this process that figures like David French (who is no longer a conservative) will come, mark my words, to defend transgenderism against the onslaught of transhumanism sometime in the 2040s. It is because of this process that conservatism is all but a myth. Conservatives cannot conserve — not in our current culture, at least.
That David French is no longer a conservative will come as a surprise to nobody. I say this not because of his anti-Trump writings (there are perfectly good reasons to dislike Trump — I voted for him, and I can recognize that), but because David French, like the jolly band at The Bulwark, has shown himself eager to accept the terminology, framing, and general worldview of the cultural left. Just today, he published a piece titled “Structural Racism Isn’t Wokeness, It’s Reality.” French writes:
This argument echoes tenets of the secular right-wing consensus on race—that racism exists only when there is individual malign intent, that remedies for racism should be limited to imposing consequences on individual racists, and that there is no intergenerational obligation to remedy historic injustice (“I’m not responsible for my ancestors’ sins”).
Under this mode of thinking, the concept of “equality under the law”—as mandated by the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act—is both necessary and largely sufficient to address the causes and consequences of centuries of slavery followed by generations of Jim Crow.
Sounds reasonable enough to me, don’t you think? Apparently not:
Enforcing the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and passing the Civil Rights Act was (and is) necessary to end overt, legal discrimination, but it was hardly sufficient to ameliorate the effects of slavery and Jim Crow. These effects are so embedded in our system that powerful people often perpetuate those structures even when they lack any racist intent at all.
Ah, yes. Systems. Structures. Power (the ultimate aphrodisiac). The irrelevance of intent. All so conservative, no? (On Tuesday, David French will be telling us that sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder.) French finds biblical justification for his newfound worldview, citing a story in 2 Samuel that suggests an “obligation of repentance and atonement” for Israel’s “former leader’s sins.” He goes on:
Time and again, there are non-racist reasons for wanting to maintain the structures racists created. Thus, you can begin to understand the cultural and political divide. A person who harbors absolutely no racial animus gets angry when they’re told they’re perpetuating systemic racism, or that racism can exist without malign intent. To be told you’re perpetuating racism when, in your heart of hearts, you know you’re making choices based on road safety, your child’s education, or the beauty of your environment can feel deeply offensive.
Can “feel” deeply offensive? No. It is deeply offensive. More:
Regardless of my ideology, the objective is justice. It’s not “conservative” justice or “progressive” justice. It’s simply justice. So if my ideology leads me astray, and the solutions I propose are inadequate to the enormity of the task, it’s my moral obligation to rethink my philosophical frame.
Finally, it is vital to approach the immense challenge of racial justice with an extraordinary amount of humility. Christians should not be so easily triggered by words that sound “progressive” or which they believe might be “inspired by CRT.” A movement that long derided the “snowflakes” on the other side now reacts as if allegedly offensive pastoral word choice is a microaggression all its own.
Ah, yes! Here, French pulls out the left’s favored definition of snowflakery: Refusal to get on the right side of history. For the right, a snowflake is someone who demands that reality be changed to meet his preferences; for the left, a snowflake is someone who declines to accept the left’s changes.
Anyway, this is about much more than word choice. In his piece, French has managed to (a) dispatch of colorblindness as a standard by which to judge laws and actions, (b) promote the notion of collective guilt and (c) the related concept of infinite obligations (more about that later), (d) accept a complete redefinition of the word “racism,” and (e) browbeat conservatives for failing to adopt the left’s favored language and framing.
Way back in the mists of yesterday, the word “racism” had a meaning, or a few closely related meanings, widely accepted by left and right. It could describe a belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of a given race or a reflexive dislike of a given race or a belief that races ought not to mingle. In any case, it was a word attached to beliefs about something. But by a process of alchemy (and social pressure), the left has transformed the word. Rather than describing a belief about something, it now describes a state of affairs in which statistical inequalities exist between demographic groups. Racism, once an ism like gnosticism, is now an ism like capitalism. It’s been defined down. Now, why? What’s the use of this new understanding of racism? The answer is obvious: to delegitimize the existing political and social order by attaching a morally loaded term to it, and to therefore prime the ground for revolution. Just as one becomes complicit in capitalism by buying and selling, and by supporting politicians who decline to put some other economic system in place, so, too, does one become complicit in “systemic racism” by enjoying the benefits of the status quo, and by failing to support political measures which bring about perfect equality.
For fifty years, the bleeding-hearted have sought to solve America’s racial problems with transfer payments and social programs. David himself admits this much. For fifty years, the bleeding-hearted have failed to solve any of them. In the meantime, the same problems have spilled over into broader American culture. Much of white America is now a rubble heap. Does David French really believe that conceding the language and joining in the collective self-flagellation will do anything to solve these problems? The hard truth is that nobody knows how to solve these problems. Nobody. Does David French really think that the resulting failure to live up to expectations won’t result in a general loss of faith in the existing political system and rising demands for some new one? (This is already happening on right and left, whether French likes it or not.) What will he have gotten for his woke virtue-signaling, exactly? And what sort of “atonement” does French think is appropriate? DEI bureaucracies in schools? Anti-racism training in all businesses? A new Pledge of Allegiance? “Trigger warnings” in the National Archives rotunda or on library websites? Or something spicier, like reparations? What?
Besides, at the heart of French’s argument is a conception of justice that I, a conservative, cannot affirm. I reject the left’s ever-popular contention that I owe everything to everyone, that everything causes everything, that everything is connected to everything else, that racial justice is affordable housing is trans rights is public transportation is animal welfare is Palestinian liberation is abortion. On the contrary, I have obligations to my family, my friends, and my immediate community. But my obligations are not infinite. I’m under no duty to commit myself to “anti-racist” political programs. I’m under no duty to apologize or accept responsibility for acts committed well before my birth by people with no relation to me. If I’m to be a proper Catholic, I should avoid racism (classically understood), but that’s as far as it goes. My real duty is this: to care for my little corner of the world. It’s good enough. It’s all I can do.
Well, that and not talking like the woke.
Published in Politics
Mr. C and I were just talking about how the Left (and its useful idiots) never solves anything. It’s actually worse than that, though. They never even identify the problems correctly.
You’ve got to give the devil his due. Once he gets a hold of someone like French, he’s very hard to escape, apparently.
Welcome back!
Thank you!
Admittedly, I don’t spend much time thinking about David French. But when I do, such as after reading a critical review of one of his published works like this one, I can’t help but wonder, “Who does French think he’s talking to? Who does he think is going to to be persuaded by his arguments?”
I really don’t know. He lost me quite some time ago. I know of no conservative reader who reads him and cites his work. I suppose there are Progressives who point to him and say, “Look, here’s a ‘good’ conservative…a ‘nice’ conservative…a ‘reasonable’ conservative.” All I can conclude is that he’s made himself into the textbook example of a useful idiot to the Left.
It sure seems like he’s more concerned with being invited to “good” cocktail parties, than anything else.
Unfortunately, he’s talking to certain ex-Ricochetti. Take a look at the comment section (if you dare), and you’ll see what I mean. Very disappointing.
There’s an audience for this sort of stuff, I’m sorry to say. French and the people in his corner operate under the assumption that every popular idea must contain some truth, so they cast about for ways to harmonize whatever they already believe with whatever they think they’re supposed to believe. They’re the synthesists in the dialectic. It never occurs to them that maybe rejecting the premise is a good idea. Maybe.
Exactly.
There is no longer any doubt that David French has been acting in bad faith for a long time….what a POS.
To be a proper Christian you need to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor. That is an aspiration standard and it goes farther than you can reach. So, do care for your corner of the world, but endeavor to do more.
David French is a grifter than makes profit from trolling the Right. Wipe your sandals of him and move on. There is a good discussion on the difference between the legacy of racism and of systemic racism. But that might be different post.
Man, if anyone needs to see an example of the hell of “nested comments,” that should do it!
I still think he’s acting in good faith. He’s just a fool.
What I find ironic is that the first David French piece I read, long before I knew anything about David French, was an article bemoaning the lack of manliness in modern America. At the time, I found it annoying — but that’s because I didn’t understand the stakes (or what a feminized society truly looks like). Now, David French is the posterchild for a particularly effeminate strand of “conservatism.” How things change!
Now there’s a potential post with some, er, legs.
I occasionally see things like the woman confronting the front desk staff because a “trans” man exposed himself in the women’s locker room and the poor excuse for a man accusing her of being transphobic, and I think, “where are all the real men??” Where are the husbands, fathers, brothers who would storm into that locker room and pick that trans dirtbag up by his ears and toss him into the alley??
Gents, we really need you step up. Our civilization needs you to step up. We’re in serious trouble.
And, P.S., I know feminism is a yuge factor in men stepping back. We women need to do our part, too. Mama’s, don’t raise your daughters to be feminists.
Where are they? Not at the spa. That’s for sure!
When I saw this article I was floored…really floored.
If the system is so systematically racist and always has been as Mr French argues in this article why was he not discussing it at National Review….where were his biblical evidence then about systematic racism years ago….then I realized oh yea….some of the push back has been by Trump supporters so therefore I and my ilk at The Dispatch must support CRT…..I am 100% convinced if the Trump Republicans went all in for CRT Mr French and his ilk would be condemning it all day.
Nobody is denying the issues any multi-ethnic society has regarding ethnic relations…our sins/dirty laundry is all out there for the world to see and as a society we must always work to do better…..very few against CRT denies this…..what is the issue is the intellectual background of this idea…..the Marxian idea that the system is inherently racist and thus must be destroyed…..Mr French knows this….which really makes this article even worse because all it is about is him crying about Donald Trump….take away all the word play and language gymnastics and at the bottom is the hatred for Trump supporters or anyone who supports a new kind of Republican Party…that by the way is much more inclusive than any Republican Party Mr French et al supported.
This is an excellent review of the article. Thank you!!
I tried to look at the comments, but there’s like hundreds of them, and some of the comments have over a hundred “replies”… and it’s all NESTED, which is just awful!
Are you saying there are recognizable Ricochet “handles” that I might recognize if I was here long enough to have seen them before?
I recognized a couple of names, very disappointing indeed. On the bright side, there were also comments (not by anyone I recognize) along the lines of “I’m done with David French and I regret ever giving him money”.
If David French had been around in the Middle Ages he would have wrote “Ye Conservative Case for Islamic Rule in the Holy Land.”
Yeah, the ones that we really need to toss out by the ears are the feminists. But we can’t, because a man can’t push around a woman without looking like a monstrous bully. I think that women used to be wise enough to defer to male leadership, to avoid precisely this problem. But equality, I guess, and careless thinking by the David Frenches of a prior generation, and here we are.
Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22. Do so as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. 1 Peter 3:5-6.
I doubt that 10% of conservative Christian women would take this seriously.
These lessons don’t sit well coming from men, I think. This is due to the rebelliousness of women, which started in the Garden. It’s for the older women to teach this to the younger women. Titus 2:3-5.
So there, I’ve stepped up. It’s not enough to avoid raising your daughters to be feminists. You need to teach them to be obedient and submissive. This is right out of Scripture. I doubt that the reaction to this comment will be positive, but I guess we’ll see.
Seems like there should be an “olde” in there. “Ye Olde Conservative Case…”
Reminds me of a comment I saved from Ricochet, just over a year ago, by someone who I don’t think is a member any more.
Jerry, I don’t think you read quite far enough in Ephesians: 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; also v.28-29 – So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church.
I don’t accept that first definition. It is a big mistake to think that a particular population group can’t be superior or inferior to another — if you want to use such loaded terms — with respect to some particular behavior, trait, or characteristic. The possible existence of group differences, in averages and distributions, is an empirical question, not a moral one.
That first definition of racism, if accepted, requires that we lie about many things. This is a bad idea, I think.
Like some others, never-Trumpism drove him off the rails.
He lives south of Nashville. I doubt “good” cocktail parties are high on his list of requirements.
OK, so this response leaves me feeling a bit disappointed, and a bit ticked off. It is somewhere between an evasion and a non-sequitur. Perhaps I’m incorrect in these feelings, and if so, I ask your forgiveness.
Do you seriously think that I don’t know what Scripture teaches about my responsibility as a husband? Of course I know this. I don’t go through the Bible just looking for ammunition to use against others. I’m fully aware of the Lord’s expectations of me, and of my shortcomings.
But I wasn’t writing about that. I was writing about the responsibility of women. What I wrote is absolutely correct, and I think that it is utterly unnecessary to address the corresponding duties of men in this context. The one has very little to do with the other. In fact, insisting on addressing the responsibilities of men, in this context, looks to me like an evasion of the truth about the proper duties and role of women. As if I’m not supposed to point out the truth about the 20th Century rebellion of the women which has, in my view, contributed mightily to our current mess.
If I were addressing the responsibility of men, I would have cited the verse you references in Ephesians, plus 1 Peter 3:7: “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” Notice the “weaker vessel” part, which is, I don’t doubt, equally unpopular today, even among conservative Christians.
French has turned the final corner, and found he’s staring at a mirror showing him exactly what conservatism has fought against: America in 2021 is all about racist policies in the past that whites today must remedy. It takes any agency and autonomy from individuals (here black people) and twists them into minor roles in a novel about a benevolent white Christ-figure. French is the woke martyr that every liberal, upper-class white woman who screamed at a black cop about BLM wishes she could be. French writes, “These ‘conservatives’ have placed a secular political frame around an issue with profound religious significance”
A “church” that embraces everything alongside scripture eventually loses the foundation of truth from which it was built. Past religious leaders have used their influence and that of their religious brand to sway followers & civil rights – but it’s a church that holds politics on the same level as biblical teaching to convey the same lessons that caused the evangelical bloat. It’s the flip side of progressive leftism’s woke religion. Reimagining tenets of faith to find just cause for political ends is a disfigurement of both religion & politics. French fails to distinguish the problems of doing both, instead choosing what side is morally acceptable.
@jennastocker
“Reimagining tenets of faith to find just cause for political ends is a disfigurement of both religion & politics.”
Thank you for this comment, Jenna! Such a succinct, cogent statement that would have taken me multiple paragraphs to say myself and left any readers in a cloud of confusion…
There is no systemic racism in this country. The last vestiges (Jim Crow laws) were wiped out by the Civil Rights Act. However, there are still racists around, and the left uses that as “proof” systemic racism still exists.
Maybe I should take it back. It’s the left trying to re-introduce systemic racism, whether it’s racial quotas in hiring and promotions, racially biased college admissions requirements, or mandatory CRT training . . .
Stad, you are wrong on that one. There is one powerful systemically racist organization left in the US. It is the Democrat Party. They were conceive in racism, born in racism, and remain racist to this day. They dress up racism as equity while keeping people of color on a plantation of powerlessness, paying them off with scraps from their table.
They believe in systemic racism because they are systemically racist and cannot imagine anyone else could not be as twisted as they are.
The only thing they can do is say “there’s a problem.” They can’t identify the problem, so they can’t solve it either. But they can actually say there is a problem.