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.
Ahmari vs. French-ism
Sohrab Ahmari is my new go-to conservative writer after reading the autobiographical story of his conversion from elite intellectual leftism to Catholic conservatism. My conversion was similarly simultaneously religious and political, though not as dramatic as his. Still, we share a worldview which he expresses much more eloquently than I ever could.
In his piece for First Things, Against David French-ism, he takes up a theme I have long considered sorely neglected by conservatives debating the culture wars: the necessity of asserting moral authority in the political realm, rather than adopting the modernist’s faith in individual autonomy. We must understand that, by living a Christian life, we already stand as a rebuke to the Left, which it aggressively will not tolerate.
Only, the libertines take the logic of maximal autonomy—the one French shares—to its logical terminus. They say, in effect: For us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it means to be human, lest your disapprobation make us feel less than fully autonomous.
They have a point: Individual experiments in living—say, taking your kids to a drag reading hour at the public library—cannot be sustained without some level of moral approval by the community. Autonomy-maximizing liberalism is normative, in its own twisted way. Thus, it represents the interiorization, and fulfillment, of French’s worldview. And this is how David French-ism gets trapped.
You want to teach your kids the sacredness of marriage and the marital act? Do you think public schools are going to let you get away with that? That’s insulting and bigoted toward the unwed parent(s) raising your kids’ classmates. Your stance in favor of the unborn is a hardship you impose on women who want to solve their problems with abortions. How dare you be so uncompassionate?? How does it hurt your marriage if everyone gets to define marriage according to his or her (or ze’s or zir’s) own appetites? Why not monagamish? Or throuples? Or wedlease? And who are you (we, the polis) to say?
I realize Ahmari and I are in dangerous waters with this argument. We’ll be accused of wanting to establish Catholicism as the state religion. Or, worse, a Catholic theocracy. I do not expect my Protestant brothers and sisters to agree with us on the necessity of a living moral authority; it is one of the greatest divisions between us. But, I adamantly believe we need to have the discussion about drawing lines, who gets to do it (preferably, we, the people), and where the lines ought to be drawn. By neglecting this premise, we are forfeiting the culture war to the Left, which has no such compunction about asserting its authority over our lives.
Published in General
Libertarianism is the political philosophy of the gifted adolescent, not the adult. Individual minds to the right of the mean, if they are well-protected and well- supported, exaggerate their competence and imagine themselves to be competent adults. Adolescents of both right and left orientation are subject to this delusion.
For people of both left and right, libertarianism is an excuse to betray the society that nurtured them. For people of the left it’s an excuse to be a libertine.
I just read that piece this morning, and I thought it was very good. The problem with the French-ism approach to culture is the same problem with the pacifism approach to war. The pacifist says that if we lay down our weapons our enemies will see how peaceful we are and follow suit. The French-ism way says that if we just display good Christian virtues, the libertines will see how virtuous we are and try to be like us.
(Narrator voice: “They won’t.”)
I’ve long been a fan of Sohrab and started reading him while he was still at WSJ. That being said, I did not find the piece at all helpful to the cause that Sohrab, David, and many of us care deeply about. I will write a separate post today going through my reasoning. Sohrab is a fantastic writer and I admire his fervor. Catholicism and conservatism need people like him, They also need other voices like David French.
Westy,
Yep, and thus over a thousand years of this central moral ideal of Western Civilization is trashed in short order. Not only without a fight but with help from “sort of” conservatives too.
What could go wrong?
Regards,
Jim
When out of power, the left demands that we abide by our principles of individual freedom and autonomy and allow them to live as they wish. But when in power, the left refuses to allow us the same individual freedom and autonomy and demands we live by their principles.
French assumes some degree of reasonableness on the part of the other side in the culture war. This assumption is deluded.
First problem is that Sohrab’s “libertines logic” is exactly the logic that he uses for his own position. The Left says to feel “autonomous” everyone must agree with them. They can’t be trusted to choose to affirm their actions, no, they must be forced to affirm the desires of the Left.
David French says no! He then chooses to fight, legally, to affirm his no and makes his disapprobation known and has faith that in such a circumstance where force is forbidden Truth eventually wins out. So the charge that French shares a belief in maximal autonomy at least in the way the Left sees it is wrong. Then Sohrab writes:
Which makes David French’s point for him. As long as David French holds the line on our individual rights the left can never be free of our disapproval, never being free of that disapproval means their position is not sustainable and they fail.
Instead as Shorab writes in his article :
“But conservative Christians can’t afford these luxuries. Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty. “
Be the left demand conformity, be free of our enemies opinions and force them to go along with us. Only allow freedom where the good of society, as directed by us, is served. In all other cases compulsion. This is leftism with different ends and it will end in very predictable and terrible ways.
Liberalism allows freedom, it allows the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, it allows the revivalists and 2 centuries of the Mission movement that helped make Christianity the largest religion in the world. It allows for the reformation of manners and values and makes a place for the critic and the non-conformist.
Government and force always promise quick and direct solutions but it proves to be a poisoned pill.
Just like the “Tucker Wars” and “The Cold Civil War”, what do you and Sohrab want to do? What is the new strategy? How do we get from this awful, awful place to Nirvana?
You can say the David French strategy is bad, but there are never any specifics as to what would replace it. As you mention, does Sohrab want to establish a state religion? I don’t think so, but I have to guess because his piece did nothing but complain about where we are and bemoan the nice demeanor of David French and classical liberals like him.
You say we need to have a discussion about this topic. Great, but expect that the discussion will ask you what strategy you want to employ. If we’re just going to discuss the losses in the culture war, and criticize the people like French for how they are fighting against the left, it would be a pointless discussion.
Adopting the left’s principles does us no good in the long term. It makes little difference if we just become the left to defeat the left. What was the purpose of our victory?
Freedom of association demands that we must allow a Bible Study and a Drag-Queen reading time. I am happy for those two have their consequences of those two different choices play out.
Once we start using force to make people to go to the Bible Study and shun the drag Queen the true value of that choice is gone.
If I am forced to take my kids to a Drag-Queen poetry reading, well then that is why we courts, lawyers and basic rights. If the law and government fails us in protecting our Freedom we have our 2nd Amendment rights and I think in such a situation I would rather have David French by my side as opposed to Sohrab Ahmari.
He makes no such assumption, as his actions have shown.
Has not the faith come out from oppression, persecution and deeply decadent societies before and re-established the morals of the faith before? Has not the Holy Spirit moved in the hearts of men throughout time to honor God and love their neighbors? Have not sexual morals changed for the better many times through out history?
Is our faith weaker now? Is our God weaker now? Does the work of Spirit not still avail?
Government action and power is a poor substitute for the power of God.
Don’t know who Ahmari is or what exactly constitutes “Frenchism” (maybe I’ll read the links when I have more time), but I do agree with WC’s comment about forfeiting the culture war. “Forfeit” is the right word because you can’t call it losing if you refuse to participate.
Remember when people argued that using the force of government to redefine the institution of marriage was a “live and let live” proposition? That was followed by bakers getting sued and fined and now we have the “Equality” Act. Pretty sure the “let live” part was always just a lie.
I think there are many who agree with your argument but are afraid to say so. The boys at TnT do a good job of this – in fact, the second T, Tim Gordon has a book on asserting moral authority in the political realm: Catholic Republic. Why not make this book your second Ricochet book review?
The first point is that certain factions of the right refuse to acknowledge that we’re in a culture war.
The second point follows on from the first: by refusing to acknowledge the culture war, they remain on the sidelines.
The left has Washington, Hollywood, news and entertainment media, social media and the tech industry, big business and multinational corporations. The left has all these and more out there on the battle lines fighting for and winning hearts and minds day by day. The left is always advancing.
The right has . . . Donald Trump? But certain factions of the right would prefer to sideline him as well.
So where does that leave us?
Losing. Always losing.
One thing I’ve noticed about David French is a rather selective application of tolerance. I don’t see the tolerance he advocates in approaching the Left reflected in the intolerance he has for those who consider Trump’s flaws of lesser import than the Constitutional liberties and citizen welfare he espouses.
To be fair, French is not alone in this. It seems to be a recurring theme among some others with NeverTrump positions.
This is totalitarianism, whether it flies the black flag of antifa, the red flag of the communists, or the flag of the Church. No, just no. And, it’s the best way I can think of to get those who value liberal, natural rights, and are your allies in many ways, to turn their backs on you. I’m not a fan of French in general, but when he’s assaulted in this fashion, I’ll stand on his side.
Is that a David French position?
Has David French been on the sidelines?
Has Donald Trump been winning the culture war?
Where have you seen this applied? French criticizes all those that hold positions and advance policies that harm the cause of Conserving our rights and freedoms guaranteed by our political order as detailed in our founding documents. He might be wrong in certain instances but he is consistent.
When he criticizes Evangelicals it is almost always for damaging hypocrisy as opposed to someone voting for Trump because the thought of President Hilary was too horrible to bear. When an evangelical leader for instance claims that Trump’s infidelity to his wife is ok but Clinton’s infidelity was evil he needs to be called out on it.
I don’t find that to be tolerance extended to the Left but not to the Right.
This is so defeatist. The premise of the article is bringing society back to a moral framework and reordering our culture back towards permanent things. You are not talking about that. That means faith, and if you have faith you do not despair. Your language is entirely secular and sanitized of the reordering Ahmari speaks of. If you want that, why are you using the secularized language of the left and speaking of war with the absence of what you are defending? Why not go on offense and bring the fight to them by showing them what is good as opposed to simply fighting what is bad? If you want to use the language of war- fine, I accept that. The good news is, Western society has thousands of years of Judeo-Christian heritage and tradition that is woven into sinews of our society, law, and mores that cannot simply be undone. The opposition has their flavor of the week and by the time they can invent arguments to support their position, its out of vogue again. Oh, and we have God. That is pretty nice too.
One is either for pluralistic liberalism (the orginal intent of the founding fathers) or one is not. I think it can be reasonably argued that the left today is not actually interested in pluralistic liberalism, as they will seek to stamp out and down any divergent views with the power of the state or other institutional authorities. What is the Culture War then? A fight to restore and preserve pluralistic liberalism or to take the reigns of power and institute our own (in my case) Catholic doctrines?
Have we given up on Classical Liberal notions on the right? It is clear that some have, so the question is what system will replace our old liberal order? And if we are not in charge of every aspect of it can we ever feel comfortable? Ultimately if it becomes a struggle for power the side most committed to violence will win, because violence is the ultimate expression of political power. If you aren’t willing to spill blood how serious can your really be? We lived in this system once it was the pre-liberal system, where one had to be either a Catholic nation or a Protestant nation because neither could tolerate the other to have power over themselves by the other.
Would we give the devil the benefit of the law?
I believe he is among those who complain about the use of the “war” metaphor. But I didn’t check with him.
Yes. Though he’s been on the front lines of attacking evangelicals who voted for Trump and declaring them hypocrites. Once upon a time I appreciated French’s view. But I got tired of his constant denigration of me and those like me who looked at our options in 2016 and decided to vote for the one least likely to outlaw our faith.
He has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than any President since Reagan. I’d say he’s done better than Reagan, but that could be largely a factor of just how far to the left we’ve drifted since then.
No, it’s realist.
Why one or the other? Why not both?
But it has. And with swift and terrifying speed.
It is. But also remember that we are fighting a long defeat. (Something I’ve been meaning to write about.)
I thought French-ism was the belief that one can be self-righteous by building and then slaying strawmen.
The old liberal order has already been replaced.
You tell me? Everything you are saying is negative, defeatist, and in no way reflects the beauty and tradition you wish to defend. I understand the concern, Drew. The straw man that you are trying to tear down is misguided. You are not fighting. You are complaining about the other side. If your goal is to be Paul Revere- then that is fine. We have a lot of Paul Revere’s- all over television and radio. They get great ratings, have many followers, and do absolutely nothing to reorder society. Negativity sells, but it does not persuade.
Please do.
I just did.
Er . . . so?
Let’s go to the text:
The point — unless we are willing to use political power to promote a traditional moral code, we will always be losing to the forces of the left who have control of all the levers of culture and see our objections to their libertinism to be nothing but irrational religious belief — fine for you people we’ve shoved down into the catacombs, but doesn’t value autonomy to the extent we desire.
French attacked people for support Trump on religious grounds.
That is a fact.
So it is clear French wants people’s faith to be used politically when it is for outcomes he wants. Just not for outcomes he does not want.
Classical Liberalism used to be the Geneva Convention of American Politics. In our domestic struggles we had, on both the left and the right, came to an agreed framework of respecting the other side. The WWII generation had seen the extremes of authoritarian rule and their grandfathers and great-grandfathers had seen the results of politics into warfare during the US Civil War.
The Left has abandoned that framework. And in any struggle, the advantage goes to those that are willing to fight asymmetrically with a willingness to play outside the rules.
And then they discovered that, through the courts, they could not only change the rules, they could circumvent the framework for changing said rules that our Founders gave us. Who needs the Amendment process when all you needed were five allies on the Supreme Court?
Add the last ingredient is the abandonment of the battlefield. When it comes to cultural warfare we allowed ourselves to be blitzed. We not only withdrew from fighting the culture war, we agreed to fund it – through government budgets and through our commerce. While we blabbered on about individual artistic expression, they plotted on how they were going to stop us from participating and make us pay for it.
The anti-Trumpists think he’s delusional about Mexico paying for his wall and yet fail to see how much that’s actually worked in the past. We not only traded in our values for cheap amusements, we funded and supplied the People’s Liberation Army for cheap labor and the Walmart Special of the Week.
I’m just old enough to remember when libertarianism (or feigned libertarianism) was all the rage . . . and when a certain type of educated conservative wore the label “classical liberal” with pride. My, my — how things have changed!
. . .
My two cents? This is a conflict without a solution. Healthy moral norms, like social capital, can’t be created by an act of the will. They develop spontaneously and without planning. They’re either maintained, or they die. If they’re gone, they’re gone. The best we can do is to conserve what little good exists, and to fight for the space to realize this good — in other words, to practice “Frenchianism.”
Unless we’re willing to literally split the country into two states, each with its own conception of the good life, politically involved people will continue to cudgel each other until every friendship is ruined, every community is riven by constant squabbling, and every person is miserable in one way or another. And the apolitical will look on in bemused disgust, then retreat to their world of cute cat memes. In other words, nothing will change.
How’s that for optimism?