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.
French, White Evangelicals, and Donald Trump
I enjoyed reading David French’s columns and musings at National Review. I looked forward to reading his perspective on everything from law to religion. I still enjoy reading much of what he writes.
However, the 2016 presidential campaign and election had a demonstrable effect on French; it changed him. It changed a lot of us, truthfully. Many thought and felt that the country had two less-than-desirable choices on the ballot for president. Frankly, for the center-left, voting for its candidate was a no-brainer. For the center-right, the decision was not so easy. In addition to his recent conversion to Republican politics, there were legitimate questions regarding Donald Trump’s understanding and commitment to what remains of Republican principles as well as questions concerning his personal character, his temperament, and his ability to lead in a role that was outside of his purview.
Despite these and other legitimate concerns regarding the costs of a Donald Trump presidency, he won the election — thanks in large part to the support of white Evangelicals. Christian support for Donald Trump has wedged itself deeply under David French’s skin and he’s (figuratively) spilled loads of ink letting everyone know about his disgust for his fellow white Evangelicals.
Writing at The Dispatch, French has penned a number of pieces castigating his fellow Christians for supporting and defending Donald Trump. In full transparency, I share some of his concerns regarding the unwillingness and apprehension of Evangelicals (and MAGA world, generally) to publicly hold President Trump accountable when he errs. Over the last four years, it would’ve been in the best interest of the president — and our country — had both groups spoken up sooner and more frequently to let the president know that support didn’t equal a blank check. It would have made President Trump a more reliable and consistent leader.
Having said that, French has taken a professional Never Trump stance to use as a bludgeon against fellow Christians. He misses few chances in letting the public know his feelings about white Evangelicals that continue to support Donald Trump.
Here’s a recent piece posted this past week on The French Press.
The first portion is fairly legit. Though I think the video announcement is fairly clear, French questions how Albert Mohler, the potential next president of the Southern Baptist Convention, could endorse Donald Trump in this year’s election — specifically when he didn’t support Donald Trump in 2016.
French writes:
In 2016, he was consistent with his denomination’s clear and unequivocal statement about the importance of moral character in public officials. He has now decisively changed course.
In 1998—during Bill Clinton’s second term—the Southern Baptist Convention declared that “tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment” and therefore urged “all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.”
Mohler so clearly recognized the applicability of those words that he said, “If I were to support, much less endorse Donald Trump for president, I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.” I do wonder if Mohler will apologize. He absolutely should.
Though Mohler discusses the overall character deficits of both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, I think French misses a few things in this comparison. French doesn’t clarify the difference between the evangelical condemnation of former President Bill Clinton and the lack of evangelical condemnation of President Donald Trump.
The personal fouls and unforced errors committed since President Trump has been in office, though not excusable, are not of the same standard as those committed by Bill Clinton when he was in office. It’s a distinction with an important difference. The comparison, here, is with the moral offenses committed while in office (hence, the citation of Bill Clinton’s second term). To be consistent, we have to then compare both presidents to what they’ve done while in office.
Among many, many other indiscretions, Bill Clinton had an extramarital relationship and deliberately lied to the public about it. Clinton also lied under oath during his civil case — he denied the affair, the relationship, and that he had sexual relations with his intern; he lied under oath during grand jury testimony about his sexual relationship with his intern; he obstructed justice and persuaded his former intern to lie under oath, and was also guilty of witness tampering.
Many of the offenses that Donald Trump has committed in office haven’t (or haven’t yet) reached Clinton’s level of sinfulness (if one can use that term). Again, I’m not excusing the current president for the growing list of transgressions he’s committed (macro or micro). I’m simply highlighting the difference between the two, demonstrating why the comparison fails. All sins aren’t the same. For good reason, the Bible goes to great lengths to educate its readers about the gradations of sins — the severity of which, if not immediately obvious, are seen in the varying consequences of and responses to those sins. For example, the penalty for murder is death. Conversely, the penalty for unintentional killing (negligence that leads to killing, manslaughter) is expulsion to a city of refuge — ending only when the high priest in office at the time of the killing dies.
Additionally, I don’t remember reading French conceding the difficulty of choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary in 2016. He has repeatedly minimized or ignored the inconvenience many Christians endured as they thoughtfully contemplated and ultimately decided between the two broadly unlikeable candidates. However, in this particular piece, it’s the closest French has come to acknowledging that struggle. He says,
The role of the people of God in political life is so much more difficult and challenging than merely listing a discrete subset of issues (even when those issues are important!) and supporting anyone who agrees to your list. The prophet Jeremiah exhorted the people of Israel to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.”
Yes, David, it is, and thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious. It was a challenge and it remains a challenge. Many Evangelicals, realizing that if they voted, had a choice between bad and worse. Consequently, many thoughtfully prayed, fasted, read their Bibles, studied Christian history, sought counsel from clergy and fellow believers — and still, prayed more. In essence, for many white Evangelicals, choosing Trump, warts and all, was “seeking the welfare” of the country so that they may also “have welfare (or as the NIV translates it, “…Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”).
Moreover, Christians and Evangelicals thought about the ramifications of voting for either candidate or not voting at all. French generally flouts this process. He’s flippant when it comes to why white Evangelicals, despite the president’s personal flaws, continue to support him. He disparages his fellow Evangelicals in ways that demonstrate a clear and consistent lack of Christian grace but also in ways that he hasn’t nor wouldn’t address black Christians regarding their vote for — and support of — former President Barack Obama.
And that’s one of the areas where he’s undermined his witness on Christian political activity and accountability — his differing standards between black and white Christians. French holds black Christians to a much lower moral standard than he does white Evangelicals. Black Christians deliberately and recurrently have escaped his admonitions. In this post, he stresses black Christian religiosity but only as a cudgel against white Evangelicals and the latter’s support of Trump.
Again, French has never taken black Christians to task for supporting Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) the way he does with white Evangelicals and Trump (if he has to the same extent, my apologies to him). I would like to know why — specifically in light of the fact that he openly speculated as to what Obama’s true “religious” beliefs were.
Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama? Why didn’t French rebuke black Christians for forming a cult around him and his leadership? Did he ever implore black Christians to speak up and hold Obama accountable? Did he write numerous pieces on why black Christians were obligated to forfeit their support of Barack Obama or risk losing moral and religious credibility? Did black Christians abandon “the character test” like their white Evangelical counterparts? Were they ever in danger of forfeiting their “competence” like white Evangelicals?
I think French would have established more credibility (again, on this issue) had he held his fellow Christians who’re black to the same religious standard he holds white Evangelicals. There would’ve been some consistency in his position.
Then, there’s this:
And please Christians, do not run back to arguments about “binary choice.” When I walk into the voting booth (or mail in my ballot), I will see more than two names. I’ll also have a choice to write in a name. I will not have to compromise my convictions to cast a vote for president.
This has always been a less than persuasive argument to me. Of course, one can write in and vote for Mickey Mouse on the ballot.
But there are certain variables that exist that one must take into consideration if one wants to throw away one’s vote to maintain, in this case, a sense of moral superiority. One variable is who’s also on the ballot running for office, here, the presidency. This is particularly important if and when a notable third-party candidate is running and from whom this third-party candidate will siphon votes. Not actively voting for one of the two major candidates is passively a vote in favor of the other.
He continues:
If you do, however, want to revert to the language of “binary choice,” we need to examine the larger context. In January the nation faced a different kind of binary choice. It was, quite simply, “Trump or Pence.” When the president was impeached after he clearly attempted to condition vital military aid to an ally on a demand for a politically motivated investigation of a political opponent and on a demand to investigate a bizarre conspiracy theory, white Evangelicals had a decision to make.
They chose Trump.
They chose Trump when they would have certainly sought to impeach and convict a Democrat under similar facts.
This, too, is unpersuasive. His position underlies many assumptions that Trump was deserving of impeachment based on information contained in the transcript of a phone call between him and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. In my opinion, and not having voted for Donald Trump, I didn’t think there was enough in that transcript that qualified as a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” and I certainly didn’t think it justified impeachment, much less conviction and removal.
Second, David French is right: it was a binary choice, but not between “Trump or Pence.” It was between supporting the flagrant use of impeachment as a political tool to remove an elected president for partisan reasons and not using impeachment for politically partisan reasons, full stop. To use that embarrassing episode to reinforce an already flimsy argument against the “binary choice” argument, and to further diminish white Evangelicals, missed the mark.
Look, I get it. David French has a severe loathing for Donald Trump. In the professional and credentialed class, he’s certainly not alone. But his animosity for Donald Trump has negatively affected his judgment and conduct toward his fellow white Evangelicals.
On this issue, he lacks distinguishable Christian love when addressing them but particularly when mocking them. I admit that French may be sincerely concerned with the reputation and credibility of white Evangelicals and Christian political witness. But the way he communicates his concern looks like a white Evangelical more concerned with self/moral preservation — actively trying to distance himself from the stigma of Donald Trump. In doing so, his critiques come across as if to be saying, “I’m not like those Evangelicals. I’m a real Christian because I condemn Trump and those so-called Evangelicals who support him.”
When white Evangelicals have called him out on social media for his lack of objectivity and incivility toward them, he seems reluctant to address these objections maturely. Several times, even after respectful inquiry, engagement, and push back asking him to defend or clarify his position(s), he’s un-friended them. I’ve seen it and have been disheartened by it.
In his critiques going forward, as I’m sure there will be more, I hope David French offers a bit more Christian charity as he challenges his fellow white Evangelicals.
Published in Politics
This is also why the “he fights” argument has traction. Because President Trump fights, and it produces results. This argument about not speaking truth because it would get French branded a racist is just a microcosm of a broader posture on the right in all areas of thought.
I think he asks for consistency. And that’s not too much. To single out white Evangelicals is racist, believe it or not.
By their fruits you shall know them. I know that he sows division, he is insulting, and he is a liar and a bully.
It is when it’s a white person telling blacks what they should or shouldn’t do. It doesn’t happen much in any sphere of our cultural life, as you may have noticed – it’s toxic. But it might not have anything to do with race at all in this case- it might just be that French doesn’t presume to tell other religious groups what they should do, and instead focuses on the group he does belong to.
But I don’t know if it’s race that is the reason French didn’t spend much time criticizing black evangelicals for their support of Obama – I mentioned it as a possibility. It might be something far more pedestrian – it might be that French doesn’t spend a lot of time criticizing those outside of his own religious tradition. I notice he doesn’t spend a lot of time lambasting Catholics for their voting patterns, or Methodists, or Unitarians. Black evangelicals have their own traditions – why would French criticize a group that he has no ties to?
Again, you’re assuming the worst (not a good habit for a Christian, if you are one). And I don’t think that supporting Trump is the acid test of whether one is or is not a conservative. There are a wide range of ideas and principles that are generally considered conservative (though there are differing positions on some of them). I don’t see how narrowing your club house to only those who support Trump wins you more votes or helps you fight the Left.
No, it might be as simple as French criticizing the group he belongs to. He doesn’t spend a lot of time criticizing Catholics, because he’s not one.
Unlike the Trump supporters here……Look, French and other NTs are on the Right. They fight the Left. They aren’t the enemy.
No, they enable the left. I get that you like David French. I think he’s toxic and needs to disappear from the public square. Let’s leave it at that.
I never read French’s writing before or after Trump, but I have attempted (in vain) to listen to The Dispatch Podcast.
I’m sorry, the man is just insufferable. He’s condescending, peevish, and close-minded. I get this faint feeling of disgust when I listen to him. I think this is because he’s wounded and resentful, and when you pick up that vibe on someone the last thing you want is for them to be around. French is the kind of limping gazelle that brings lions to lions to an otherwise healthy herd.
I don’t know how you think this reflects well on him. Sure, its understandable. But this is so trivial in the grand scheme of things. How would he respond if it was his faith vs death instead of honesty vs his career? Sure, maybe that’s worth it. But he has had no issue choosing dishonesty and constant judgementalism over his career. But that’s different…
You are right that criticizing black culture is a rough job. But you are wrong that it doesn’t happen on the right. It does. But then the soft conservatives kick out those voices as being racists. Queue up John Derbyshire as Exhibit A.
It’s just cowardice.
I disagree that they enable the Left, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. But I’ll point out that if that’s true, then why doesn’t that apply to any Republican, or any public figure on the Right? There’s no shortage of criticism directed at other Republicans from Trump supporters. Aren’t you enabling the Left when you criticize others on the Right?
Right, instead that means he’s the guy always running down his teammates (but he’s holier than thou). As I say, none of the possibilities speak well of French.
Weakening support on your side for an elected leader that relies on solid support from his base makes it easier for a lefty with a solid coalition to defeat those leaders.
Weakening support for a vocal critic sowing division in a coalition makes the coalition stronger.
This is really basic stuff.
Again, as I have pointed out earlier, it might not have anything to do with race at all. It might be that French feels free to criticize white evangelicals because he is one. He doesn’t spend a lot of time criticizing Catholics, the Orthodox, Unitarians….
You aren’t a public figure. You don’t make your living from other people paying you to give your opinion. It’s pretty damn easy for someone like you to talk about other people’s cowardice.
I’m not assuming anything. I said right in this quote that I’m not sure. However, I don’t see any options that reflect well on him.
Also, I don’t want to narrow the club house. I’m just calling balls and strikes on batter French.
Depends on the criticism, doesn’t it?
I think someone who has been given a national platform and who is actively helping Joe Biden get elected by telling an important and large part of the Republican base to not vote for the Republican president is not any sort of conservative — and I am happy to show him the door.
It’s one thing to criticize the president. It’s quite another to actively campaign against him (particularly given the opposition this time) and still expect that conservatives will consider you one of them.
I’ll add to my last statement:
Both of those strategies are morally neutral, but they service a goal. If you are weakening a leader in need of a strong coalition, it’s to unseat him and replace him with someone else. Sometimes, this is good. Sometimes this is bad. But the goal of this strategy is replacement.
Weakening an oppositional figure in your coalition serves the goal of building unity in the coalition. The purpose of kicking out heretics in the church is exactly this strategy, because failing to do so weakens the Church and causes divisions to thrive, leading ultimately to dissolution… ergo why paul explicitly says kick certain people out. And the right is not opposed to this strategy as a whole. We are just fighting over who gets branded the heretic, not over kicking people out. The right kicks people out all the frickin time.
What is French’s strategy? He’s trying to kick out heretics and replace his coalition leader with ANYONE. What will be the fruits of that labor? Have you asked yourself that beyond no more Trump and finally his supporters will shut up?
I’ve been enjoying this discussion a lot, so I’m not just trying to take potshots. But I would assume that pundits who are smart enough and popular enough to actually get paid for their opinions would not be afraid to be proud of their principles, no matter what he blowback may be.
And also, weakening support for French is more like pruning – there’s not a lot you cut off in removing his support from the structure. Its clipping dead ends or non-fruit bearing limbs.
What French wants to do is analogous to lopping the whole head off a tree. That usually leads to death if the plant isn’t healthy. If it’s roots are healthy, it may grow back in time… after a very long time. And maybe by then, the shade plants it had been sheltering die from over exposure to a summer sun.
It really would have been better for the Nevers to accept that Donald Trump is their president and focus on 2024. The result of them having a four-year public temper tantrum about President Trump is that whoever they pick for 2024 I’m probably going to automatically oppose, because I think they have shown bad judgment and worse intentions.
They’ve pretty much wrecked their own brand with “great swaths” of Republican voters. Who on the right takes Bill Kristol seriously anymore?
Jean, Drew isn’t against criticism or debate. Neither am I, nor is much of anyone as far as I can tell. Criticism and debate aren’t the enabling behaviors Drew is referring to.
How does this not apply to French – with the megaphone of being a public figure? He’s always talking about other people’s cowardice and perfidy. Not everybody’s, though, just his closest teammates.
Or is he just an umpire without teammates? Hm, seems like he doesn’t call the same strike zone for all batters then.
Neither stance is honorable or admirable.
That’s why I can’t figure out what the end game here is. French’s best strategy here would be to shut up and just allow the 2020 election to play out, rather than giving off the vibe that you’d prefer Biden win this November. Win or lose, actions like that are going to alienate the vast majority of the GOP base that will vote for Trump, and in the 2024 election cycle, that makes it far less likely they’re going to listen to you or back any candidate you support.
French is sort of doing what David Frum thought he could do in 2008-09, which was back Obama (over McCain, not exactly a troglodyte far-rightie) and then come in and tell the GOP base essentially “Listen up you idiots — we have to do things my way (in his case, move left) in order to survive.” Not a smart strategy.
I don’t have a problem with that. As a Catholic, I am far more likely to direct criticism at Catholics whom I think deserve criticism (the current Pope being high on my list….) than I am going to criticize those in other traditions. I’m not going to spend a lot of time criticizing Evangelicals when I’m not one.
And your comment here is a good illustration of the difference between you and me – I don’t want you to disappear. I think anyone who fights the Left or at least is sympathetic to the conservative principles that are important to me is an ally. I might not like everything you say, I might think some of it is ridiculous, but – you are on my side. You, on the other hand, want to disappear those who don’t support Trump the way you want them to. You would reduce the number of people on the Right – I don’t want to do that.
Jean, I appreciate your comments, but have a couple of disagreements.
I don’t like the idea the black Evangelicals, or black Christians generally, are a different group. A black Evangelical is every bit as much my Christian brother or sister as a white Evangelical. Race or skin color makes no difference.
I think that this goes for different types of Christians, too. Why can’t an Evangelical criticize a Catholic or a Methodist, or vice versa? If we’re all followers of Jesus, I don’t see any reason to dismiss a reasonable criticism based on the denomination of the criticizer.
I understand your point about not being overly critical, but I’m not sure that assuming the worst is a bad habit for a Christian. At least in my view of Christian theology, we’re all miserable sinners subject to all sorts of temptation and malfeasance.
I don’t want you to disappear either, Jean. I do want you to come around to our side. But I cannot consider David French on my side when his words and actions support the election of a Democrat to the White House.
I have the same reaction. It’s similar to my reaction to John McCain. My reaction is visceral, so it’s a bit hard to explain. McCain and French are generally on my side as a policy matter, probably 85-90% of the time. Maybe it’s the tone that they take on issues on which they disagree with me, and disagree with the conservative or Republican position in general. Maybe it’s partially a matter of tone or style.
Well, when someone calls me a bad Christian because I voted for President Trump (and plan to again), I’m going to take that very personally. Can you blame me? This is my faith he’s talking about.