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.
On Last Night’s Sohrab-David Rumble
Last night Catholic University hosted an intellectual debate between the New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari and National Review’s David French. The whole conversation was initially kicked off by a tweet of Ahmari’s, declaring (paraphrasing) that we must fight back against the cultural rot infecting our society, like drag queen story hour at libraries, with more than just kindness. The example Ahmari offered of that excessive kindness was David French, a man known throughout the conservative movement as exceedingly kind.
I happen to think that this whole debate, which set conservative intellectuals on a tear for over a week on Twitter and in the pages of every major publication, was set off by a poorly considered tweet on the part of Ahmari. I agree with him that the conservative movement has allowed the Left to pummel us, and the decision to go with Donald Trump in the primaries was an overcorrection. We chose Mitt Romney and Romney (as much as I admire him) did little more than smile when the Obama team basically called him a murderer.
But where I part with Ahmari is using the example of David French to illustrate where excessive kindness hurts our ability to push back against the Left’s abuse. During the debate, Ahmari contended that a President French wouldn’t have stood by Brett Kavanaugh, which is an outrageous assertion considering French was one of the strongest writers in Kavanaugh’s corner. A key Senate staffer during those deliberations concurred:
We actually used David’s powerful Kavanaugh defenses while advancing his confirmation in the Senate.
Ask Republican Senators who the most valuable voices on the outside were. Guarantee David is at the top of every list.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) September 6, 2019
Overall the evening accomplished little; ad hominem attacks were too freely thrown about, mostly on the part of Ahmari, though after the event he did take to Twitter to apologize for what many found the most offensive, a perceived swipe at French’s military service in Iraq.
I sincerely thanked @DavidAFrench for his service when we began our debate. In questioning David's political courage, I did not intend to question his literal personal courage in serving in Iraq. For that I apologize.
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) September 6, 2019
Ahmari mentioned a piece from French written in the early 2000s about gay marriage, showing French had a change of heart about how to tackle the conversation. Ahmari used this change of heart against French, to which French should have mentioned that at that time in history, Ahmari was an actual communist and active with American communist organizations. We all have changes of heart, and it was disingenuous of Ahmari to use French’s against him when he has had several himself (in addition to his politics, Ahmari also experienced a conversion from nominal observance of Islam as a child, to atheism, and most recently, to Catholicism and was the topic of his most recent and widely acclaimed book).
The entire premise of the evening was Ahmari’s assertion that French and those of his “ilk” are doing too little in response to the cultural rot taking place in our society, with the example of the drag queen story hours. But in response to “what would you do?” Ahmari had few ideas, and the ideas he did have were, quite frankly, chilling from the perspective of a constitutional conservative. One of the examples of solutions offered by Ahmari was Senator Josh Hawley’s Internet Censorship Bill, which French called an “unwise and unconstitutional mess.” Ahmari’s feelings about the First Amendment, paired with what he said recently about the Second, left me questioning how he feels about the Constitution and its role in our modern lives.
Military-grade weapons should have no place in our streets.
In a historic cover editorial, the NYPost comes out in favor of banning assault weapons. Now.https://t.co/ZYOVSFzZVR
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) August 5, 2019
BREAKING: The late 18th century was not the be all, end all of wisdom.
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) August 5, 2019
The evening’s debate will be repeated on the campus of Notre Dame next week (it’s unclear if it will be livestreamed). The conversation about tactics is an important one, and hopefully it can continue with fewer personal attacks and defenses, and more about how to fight back against a dangerous cultural tide against conservatives, religion, and family.
EDIT: You can watch the debate for yourself here:
Published in General
Regardless of the content of the discussion I think it is good for any group, coalition or party to have these debates and discussions on a regular basis.
Just as I find the ongoing debate over conservatism under Trump to be necessary and useful.
Full disclosure: I am a fan of Mr. French.
Thanks for posting, especially the link. I’ll watch it later today. I’m very interested in this fight as it seems to be for the future of the conservative movement and perhaps, the country. But the more I learn about Mr. Ahmari the more I wonder if he isn’t just a confused angry child – still going through growing pains and trying on different identities – convinced with each new identity that he’s finally found the TRUTH. Perhaps it’d be better if we just stopped listening to him. He’ll probably grow up and settle down eventually. At that point hopefully he’ll understand that he won’t always get his way and accept living in a diverse world where different people pursue their own happiness in different ways, all under the legal protection of the most robust constitutional republic the world has ever seen.
P.S. His obsession with Mr. French is just weird at this point. I don’t always agree with him either, but decency and amiability are, whatever else they are, not failings.
And HE is accused (rightly) of ad hominem attacks?
That strikes me as weird too. It is not like he is calling out a policymaker or someone who is shaping the national debate. Most Americans never heard of David French so to come out with the term “Frenchism” is just silly.
Ahmari is right wing Pajama Boy bragging about how tough he is. He never comes up with a winning idea, a winning move, or a strategic plan that goes beyond the usual vague fightfightfight. He doesn’t know what a cultural fight is. He doesn’t risk a thing. He’s not worth listening to.
Whatever . . .
I don’t see any questing for solutions out of Ahmari, just a claim that we could get better results by–how? Making a real mean scowling face that will scare the left? This is like Hans Blix in Team America: Ahmari will write a really devastating letter. And if our opponents ignore it, he’ll…write an even tougher letter. If that’s all he’s got so far, he should think twice before criticizing other members of the right.
There’s a myth that’s become popular and trendy on the right, that political defeats are a result of us being so cuddly and soft and nice and sweet. I don’t know which weird masochists came up with it, but it’s not true. It’s a reassuring myth to many.
Edited . . . I don’t take kindly to threats.
You mean this?
Is that “I shall have the last word!” or “Here’s more to Shapiro’s story, a side of the story which I can tell because I was in the thick of it fighting the good fight”?
When people exhort that Something Must Be Done About This Awful Problem, of course those who have already been doing something about it are tempted to pipe up, reminding others, “Hey, something is being done — has been done for a while now, you’re welcome! And if you don’t think what we’ve done is enough yet, why not join us who’ve done something rather than belittle us as if we were the enemies of getting anything done at all?”
It’s understandable that folks worry French & co’s tactics won’t be enough. That worry is nothing new. What does seem new-ish is the idea that somehow the more that needs doing will be accomplished by tearing down those who’ve already done.
Not worth it.
I’m not here to say “David French is wonderful–I just love the guy!” I’m not even here to defend his views on Trump, which I don’t share. Or his views on evangelicals. In fact, I’m here pretty much solely to express some dislike of Ahmari and his tactics, and I’m not the only one on the thread who is focused on Ahmari’s cheap, easy NeverNRism. If people don’t like French for criticizing other conservatives, what is Ahmari doing any differently? What’s Ahmari going to do?
Here’s a lousy answer: “Well, I don’t know, but I’ll say this–he won’t back down!” That’s the only defense I’ve seen of him and it doesn’t cut it.
French says he knows and respects fellow Christians who voted for Trump. Is there a reason to doubt French on this?
French wouldn’t be the first person to tell his co-religionists he thinks they got something wrong, and it seems to me most of the time, most people on the right are fairly good at looking past one another’s perceived religious errors. Of course things get more complicated when the religious difference also involves politics. But it sounds strange to say a guy like French, who is an evangelical, is in the business of needlessly insulting evangelicals.
Unless any time sincerely religious people have a sincere difference among themselves in living out their faith, they’re needlessly insulting one another?
EDIT: Still not worth it.
EDIT: Nope.
I agree that Christians as a whole have a substantive vision of the good to advance, one that should not settle for procedural freedom, but the sticking point seems to be, how should that not-settling be enacted? Using force of law that risks undermining procedural freedom, or through other forms of witness which don’t risk procedural freedom?
Plenty of people who value procedural freedom still serve in ministries, and advance Christian culture in other ways. Yes, it’s frustrating how not-enough that advancement often seems. But honestly, I wonder if one of the reasons the advancement seems so not-enough is that it is too interested in resorting to the law in reaction to culture, rather than fostering a culture of its own?
French will continue to make dull procedural points about stuff like the difficulty in getting obscenity law to prosecute someone who’s not exposing too much, but merely oddly-dressed. Perhaps we can blame that one on women of the past for their hoydenish insistence on wearing pants, which some did attempt to prosecute as if it were a sexual fetish? (Though if you ask me, having women wear the skirts is the more sexual fetish — easy access.)
Namely, that we cannot afford to settle for procedural freedom, but we must advance a wearing pants, which some did attempt to prosecute as if it were a sexual fetish? (Though if you ask me, having women wear the skirts is the more sexual fetish — easy access.)
I can assure you that boys have always known this.
This has been a Ricochet R> Heterosexual Minute.
The More You Know ™
We haven’t hit that sweet spot.
It is one thing to attempt to advance your substantive vision of the good under a regime of procedural freedom. It is another to seek to eliminate the regime of procedural freedom if you don’t get your way. It seems to me Ahmari is in the latter camp, which makes him no less dangerous in my book than the leftist tyrants we all abhor.
I’m pretty sure Ahmari has some limiting principles that leftists don’t. Perhaps not at many as we like but he is still part of the constrained ideology of conservatism.
Conservatives aren’t immune to the same problem that affect’s the Left. Instead of seeking some common ground you must adopt every proposal I put forth, and believe everything I believe.
Unfortunately there are some conservatives that believe everything must be done on a national level. All decisions must come from Washington DC. That raises the stakes in the political and culture wars which in turn makes any disagreements more acrimonious.
The fastest way to stop Drag Queen Saturday’s in your local library is to stop voting for bond measures that increase funding for your local library. That’s not as exciting as grandstanding in the Beltway, but just like Leftists conservatives are attracted to the bright lights of DC. Living where the brighter the lights leads some to believe that they are smartest person in the room. Chicks in an incubator must indeed be a highly intelligent life form if that’s true.
I’m in agreement that conservatives and their odd effeminate ways in recent leadership have emboldened the evil in our culture. I agree that Donald Trump as President was a clumsy response to these past decades of cowardly conservatives.
I didn’t see the debate and after reading the post, I have zero desire to. We are as someone noted, trying to find the “sweet spot” and this debate is just a mindless rehashing of tired stances that created the current mess. French is and has been a wet turd that creates more problems than he fixes. Ahmari is bull looking for a China shop. Both voices are only hurting conservatism. We should’ve moved past people like these by now. Hopefully the OP moves us closer to that.
Exactly. Let me add that one of the draws of DC is that it’s the one place from which you can lord your vision of the good over everybody. Why concern myself with my local library when I can make Make (All) Libraries Great (By My Lights) Again!
At the end of the day, it’s an unwillingness to tolerate a diversity of visions of the good that is EXACTLY Ahamri’s problem. We are NEVER going to agree on the good. It’s simply unrealistic to delude ourselves about that when there are 330 million of us. Our options are tolerance or violence.
And now we have elements of the left and elements of the right trying to out-intolerance each other. Nothing good will come of this and it is exactly why the “procedural freedom” of David French and so many others is the only solution for civil peace. Yes, it is a compromise. Life is a compromise. Civil society is a compromise. It is better than the alternative.
EDIT: No minds will be changed.
EDIT
I’m sorry, but both French and his wife have long hid from criticism behind his deployment as a company JAG lawyer in Iraq. He was not in active armed combat with the enemy.
Now, granted, not everyone who wears the uniform is. There are Grunts and there are POGs (Persons Other than Grunts.) When in combat the Grunts are acutely aware of the support the POGs give them. They are the supply chain, the repair and replace guys, the hot shower and decent meal guys. But I will guarantee you, not one of them in the heat of battle ever, ever said, “Damn, I wish they’d send us more lawyers!”
Ah, David French. The most interesting thing about Ricochet.com is that it is a conservative website where close to 100% of the podcasters hate the Republican president. Maybe the percentage is closer to 80%. I don’t know, but the percentage is high. French was on two podcasts here. I think the same conservatives would rarely criticize President George W. Bush or other certain flawed beloved Republicans.
How much Trump hate do we really need in this world? Do we really need much more?
I get to hear all of these stories where podcasters are traveling the world. That’s not the world where I live. The Obama economy and Obamacare crushed rural America. It was a lost decade is some ways. Since 2010 I have only traveled over 100 miles away from home twice, and one of those trips I was drafted to drive my mother to a family event which was only slightly further away.
I usually never go to the big city and listen to Trump hatred. The leftist cities must be in constant inner turmoil due to Trump. I ventured to the big city a few weeks ago. The calmest person I saw was a PhD scientist who very slightly mentioned politics by saying that ever time he opens up his computer some type of Apple news feature pops up with some terrible story about Trump.
Yeah, maybe hate is too strong a word for how many Ricochet podcasters here feel about Trump, but you better believe that many of them will vote against him next time in a hope that a Democrat wins the presidential election. I’ve heard John Podhoretz constantly ridicule Jim DeMint’s comment that he would rather have 40 conservatives than 60 Republicans. I think one version of DeMint’s quote is, “I’d rather have 40 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.” Well, Mr. Podhoretz, conservatives also won’t get much done when Elizabeth Warren is president either. Smart people are supposed to understand the concept of trade-offs, but some Ricochet podcasters seem to be the new utopian dreamers.
So if Trump shows up with a non-alcoholic Heineken, everything works out?
Say what?
I’m tired of never Trumpers (though French is a soft never Trumper) and I’m tired of pro-Trumpers assigning the “never Trump” label after any criticism of Trump.
You are saying that at least 80% of Ricochet podcasters hate Trump. From your lips to God’s ears. Except that it isn’t true.
Here are ten podcasters who clearly don’t hate Trump: Jon Gabriel and Stephen Miller of The Conservatarians, James Lileks and Peter Robinson of the Flagship Ricochet Podcast, Greg Corombus and Jim Geraghty of the Three Martini Lunch, and Victor Davis Hanson, Bill Bennett, Andrew Klavan, and Bryon York of their own podcasts. If they represent the 20% who don’t hate Trump, then there would need to be 40 podcasters to make up the alleged 80% who hate Trump.
Please start naming off all 40 podcasters who hate Trump.
Or perhaps you would agree that you engaged in a bit of Trumpian exaggeration?