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
I want to go here someday:
He identifies as poli-fluid and trans-poli.
Obviously, David French is “growing,” as so many “conservatives” do once they’re in office, or on the bench, etc.
Jim, I was the one who overreacted. See my apology in #39 above.
I’ve got it cued up – you only have to watch a few seconds…
Pays better and gets you invited to the better parties and more writing gigs.
French’s latest settles the questions about his recent participation in an attack on anti-CRT legislation. We may conclude he was acting in bad faith, with deceptive purpose, to demobilize opponents of his newly adopted leftist position.
What “bigoted structures” created by which “racists.”? What “justice” are we seeking? What “consequences”? Which “centuries” and what specific “racist harm”?
This vague agitprop is new Marxism drawn from old bottles substituting race for class. I think even Sandy Cortez might be able to do better. I know French has gotten a lot of grief for his stands here, but this is a bridge much too far.
So now David French has embraced the 1978 argument of a Marxist law professor who cited North Korea as the best example of a society with equality of outcomes. French is flocking with socialist birds of a feather.
I spent a lot of time watching the show ER when it was on, and in later syndication too. So for me, “French” is always the measure of a catheter, a tube used to pass urine.
I don’t agree with everything French writes on this, but think the detestation of him, as illustrated in a lot of these comments, is way out of line. You guys never owned David French. People change their minds on things as they learn or find new sources of influence. Seems like French is very concerned about unity in the Christian church, which as racially and ethnically diverse as it is, may be a valid concern. Perhaps that is a new motivation for him. I hope you guys can get over it someday. If all you’re looking for is a writer who will always tell you what you want to hear, always cheer for your team right or wrong, I’m not sure all these complaints about “grift” are genuine. Seems you would very much appreciate David French not writing about what he believes, not challenging his own assumptions and past beliefs, and maybe yours in the process, but only always telling you that you are right.
Again, I don’t necessarily agree with him on this stuff. I can’t get on board with using the term “racism,” or whichever form of word, without meaning “racist intent.” We need a different word for the fact that racial disparities exist in poverty rates, crime, education, etc….That said, it seems obvious to me that old racist structures – slavery, jim crow, segregation, etc…. play a role in those disparities.
To say that is not to suggest anyone should feel guilty, or that any particular solution or action is proper in response to it. It’s only to acknowledge a fact. If a nice alien explorer landed in the US today, and observed these racial disparities in income, health, culture, etc…., and then in studying the history of the country discovered that Blacks had been enslaved, then in huge parts of the country subject to all kinds of racist practices for decades – redlining, segregation, and so on, practices which obviously have an impact on the development of culture, on the attitudes and beliefs about the country and the world that are passed down the generations, wouldn’t they draw the obvious connection between those things, that the racist practices may have helped cause the disparities? Of course they would.
What do conservatives gain by denying this? What do white Christians gain by denying this if their fellow Christians believe they live with the burden of it every day?
For someone who keeps saying he doesn’t agree with French on this stuff, you sure come out guns blazing on his critics.
As a Catholic (as in belonging to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church), I must differ. He may believe that’s his motivation, but the stick he’s been taking to evangelicals willing to support Trump for the last many years looks to me like he’s interested in unity in the church of David French. Agree with me, or you’re out!
No we don’t. It’s called reality. There are disparities within each race in those categories, too. I’ll take the wise words of Thomas Sowell on this issue over David French every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
No one is denying the mistreatment of blacks over the centuries in this country. But, the remedy is certainly not to buy-in to CRT and its race hustling advocates. Conditions were largely improving for blacks (by their own efforts and MLK’s effective and just use of shame on racial bigots) up until the sexual revolution and LBJ’s Great Society destroyed the black family. Disparate outcomes today are largely due to behaviors of individuals and their parents. Not that everyone will be Bill Gates, given the chance, but most bad outcomes are due to poor choices in life somewhere along the line, not “systematized” anything.
Oh, and I only care about French in that he claims to represent my side. If he declared himself a “progressive” and a Democrat, I could almost entirely ignore him until he became a legislator and threatened me and my family with some inane and/or destructive laws. I don’t follow any progressive “thinkers” (if that’s not an oxymoron) as it is.
@ejhill #63 — Did he respond to this, by any chance? I don’t do the Twitters and don’t understand the interface, but it looks like this is someone responding to David French’s post of his article. Did he (French) have any comment on his older articles? Just curious.
I’m actually finding this thread super interesting, but I admit to being mystified about how much attention is paid to David French. Is he really that influential? I don’t think I’ve ever read an entire article of his.
My attitude to the mistreatment of blacks over the centuries in this country is how does it differ from the mistreatment of people over the centuries throughout the world?
At the same time blacks were being hauled across the ocean to be sold as slaves in the Americas my ancestors were being seized from their farms in Greece, hauled across the Mediterranean and sold as slaves in Africa. It was a tax for the privilege of remaining Christian – your firstborn son was taken and sold as a slave.
For that matter, between 1500 and 1820 (when the Royal Navy put a final stop to it) hundreds of thousands of Europeans living near the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts were being seized by Africans, hauled to North Africa and sold in slave markets throughout the African continent. These were not just those on the Mediterranean coasts. African slaving expeditions sailed as far north as Britain.
My grandparents did not get to the US until a generation after slavery ended – the 1890s to 1920s.Blacks in this country want me to pay for the ills their ancestors suffered before I was born and before my grandparents ever got here? When they compensate me for the harm my ancestors suffered at the hands of slave-trading Africans, we can talk.
It’s certainly at least worthy of discussion whether past racism still plays some “role” in today’s disparities after 50+ years of trying to fix the problems with various government programs and preferences.
From my perspective, that discussion is a quite aways from:
As I noted above, this is simply Marxism in a new guise, switching class for race. You’re free to agree with French on this extreme, if rather vaguely expressed, view, but let’s understand that disagreement with him from this quarter is based on the above-stated move to adopt a radical narrative akin to BLM while claiming a mantle of conservatism.
Let’s be clear. Anytime someone like French (or his evangelical leftist pals) starts singling out “white evangelicals” what they’re really saying is “you’re racist!”
That’s a charge that must be answered. CRT is absolutely infesting the church right now, and it needs to be beaten back aggressively.
And if the alien discussed it with Thomas Sowell, what would Sowell tell him?
Would Sowell say that racism was not even one contributing cause? (I honestly don’t know. I figure he knows, but I dont know much, and I dont even know what he knows.)
And the descendants of Frankfurt School Marxism openly admit this.
I have no first-hand experience with this, and it comes as a major surprise. It does not fit with my impression of evangelicals as a pretty conservative group that votes with the right.
Were the Mediterranean slavers “African” or Arabs and Turks?
Keep your eye on this vital Twitter account for some really surprising stuff.
Coincidentally, right now there’s a retweet of this lengthy response to David French.
True . . .
But I wasn’t referring to individuals or organizations. Private clubs can be systemically disciminatory when it comes to the racial makeup of its members. Throw in all-male or all-female groups or schools, and there’s still plenty of systemic discrimination around.
I remember Walter Williams used to talk about how discriminatory he was by ruling out white women when looking for a mate. The guy was so funny . . .
All of the above.
That is one way to view this, but maybe not the only.
When French writes and speaks, he does so in a style that says he is correct, has the only correct position and that he is firm in his convictions. Yes people can evolve in their thinking and challenge their own assumptions. That said it would be useful if French (and probably other professional writers) acknowledged those past assumptions, recognized that they are professional writers who’s past works can be search and read, they don’t just disappear like a SnapChat post.
3-4 years ago Critical Race theory was bad according to French, then it was a useful tool in a much large toolkit but still bad as a stand alone way to look at things. Now we are much closer to a full throated defense and endorsement of the theory. All written with the tone that he has the proper view (the only view that is correct), even as that view changes.
It is incumbent on French to recognize that his past writings and assumptions exist. He needs to take his readers on his journey, explain how he challenged his own assumptions, where was he wrong in 2017, or 2018 or 2020. Why is 2021 French really the right view?
He did not pick up this topic on Sunday, never having written about it, and start with a fresh position. 2021 French needs to explain and/or apologize for 2017 French being so wrong as to now be almost racist.