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
Weakening support on the Right by reducing the number of those whom you consider on your side makes it easier for a lefty with a solid coalition to defeat the Right.
Allowing space for different positions and yes, criticism of those (ALL of those) on your side, instead of defenestrating those you disagree with, makes a coalition stronger.
This is really basic stuff.
What does it say of David French’s principles that he appears on MSNBC and CNN, has a regular column in Newsweek and has occasional editorials in the NYT? He’s even Reason’s magazine pet conservative because he repeatedly defends Drag Queen Story Hour. All of these appearances and columns are virulently anti-Trump and even worse, contemptuous of Trump’s supporters.
His Twitter feed is even worse. It reflects a person who is mean-spirited, self-righteous, insulting and juvenile. Most of his followers are progressives who appreciate him because he hates Trump. Their tweets reflect the most abhorrent views of conservatives. But I guess he’s happy he has so many Twitter followers; certainly he spends all day on the forum.
David French is the ultimate Paycheck Conservative. A conservative with sincere disagreements about Trump would never build up his career by turning to the most disreputable media outlets in the country.
Back when I still read National Review, Charles W. Cooke, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew McCarthy and even Rich Lowry would publicly rebut French and Goldberg on their Never Trump positions. Charles Cooke still does this on Twitter.
I have a lot more I could say (one of my favorite topics) but his most egregious sin is thinking he has right to publicly judge the souls of other Christians for any reason, let alone voting in elections. That is the most un-Christian like behavior I can imagine.
I’m not disputing that black Christians – or yellow, purple, or any other color – are just as much a Christian brother or sister as a white Christian. What I am saying is that there are different traditions within different religious groups. I’m going to be far more likely to criticize members of my own group (Catholics), because I understand the traditions and theology that come with it.
It depends entirely upon what the criticism is about. Theological differences are very real, but might or might not be relevant to what is being criticized. And, on a purely practical level, I am much more inclined to listen to criticism of a Catholic position when it comes from a fellow Catholic, someone who knows and understands what I believe. If a non-Catholic criticizes me for “cracker worship”, for example, I’m just not going to pay much attention. I don’t know the traditions of Evangelicals, white or black. And I certainly don’t know if there are differences between white Evangelicalism and black Evangelicalism. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were…
Then maybe HE shouldn’t be paid for his opinion, either. Maybe it would be healthier for him.
Are you an Evangelical? Are you an Evangelical who criticized Clinton, and declared at the time that Clinton’s character did in fact matter, and that his character flaws were such that he did not deserve support from Evangelicals? If not, then I don’t think French’s criticism applies to you.
French is in more than one tribe, and he isn’t talking about doctrine exclusive to Evangelicals and not applicable to Catholics or Lutherans as if we’re all Martians to one another. He’s criticizing them as Evangelicals, as Christians, as moral people generally.
As for black Evangelicals having their own traditions – that just reinforces my point (or else is a much more serious issue to discuss). French also isn’t relying on doctrine unique to white Evangelicals, is he? Why are you separating white and black like this as if they’re following different Jesus-es, as if French is somehow different than them? In context of criticism he and they are both Evangelicals presumably subject to the same Divine law. So the different traditions point is either a cop out or a seriously messed up racial outlook.
Does the Divine law of any tradition have much to say on the qualifications for a good president? I don’t think it does. Especially Christian doctrine deals with how to be a person that God says we should be. Being good people is a different question than being a good leader.
Yup, just like Drew, you want to disappear him. Nice. Censorship is something I associate with the Left, but clearly it also appeals to some Trump supporters.
I hope French does well and prospers. And I hope the same for Victor Davis Hanson, Jonah Goldberg, Charles C.W. Cooke – I like having lots of different talents expressing their views on the Right on any and all topics. I don’t feel the need to shrink the Right.
Perhaps the most bizarre thing to me over all of it was that these are the same people who framed previous elections as voting in the primaries for the most conservative who can win and then backing whoever the nominee is no matter what.
I could understand the frustration in the general because the base had neither nominated the most conservative nor one who could win based on the information they had at the time.
I can get the anger and frustration, but it could have waited til after he lost. What happened to voting for the candidate no matter what? They were liars.
And when he won?
How can I take them seriously when they have rejected all their own previous pablums and doing exactly what that strategy was supposed to prevent? I mean, I didn’t vote for Romney, but I defended him against his worst critics on facebook. Because they said we should be united behind the nominee so we don’t vote in a Democrat (the worst thing ever).
Ok… why should I have any respect for them now?
Not exactly the topic at hand but on point: National Review will no longer carry columns by Mona Charen and Jonah Goldberg. Buckley smiles.
Then I must be censored and not part of the right because I don’t get paid to write.
Seriously, are you listening to yourself?
I said he shouldn’t get PAID.
I didn’t even suggest he be fired and I didn’t say people shouldn’t read him.
I just pointed out that if he is afraid of losing his career if he speaks the truth, then maybe HE shouldn’t be paid JUST LIKE ME. Am I silenced? Am I kicked out of the Right? No… I’m just not paid for my opinion.
David French Needs To Stop Slandering Trump-Supporting Christians
French has slandered his Christian brothers and sisters by writing that ‘millions of Trump-supporting white Evangelicals no longer care about character.’
https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/24/david-french-needs-to-stop-slandering-trump-supporting-christians/#.XqMU-Y3LSIc.twitter
From what I read of him, he’s specifically criticizing Evangelicals who were critical of Clinton’s character flaw but who now give Trump a pass. I can’t think of any time that French has castigated a Catholic leader for doing the same. I think he is being very specific.
Were there a lot of black Evangelical leaders who declared that Clinton’s character flaws rendered him unfit for office, who have now gone on to support Trump? I can’t think of any.
No wonder Jean likes him. He’s not criticizing her tribe.
I hope he goes on getting paid, and paid very well.
It comes across as sanctimony with equivocations, in that Evangelicals can’t support Trump because of his past and present transgressions and crudity, but it’s OK to tacitly support Biden, because he’s not on the conservative side, so it really doesn’t matter what he believes or what he and his people would do if elected in November. Decorum is more important than outcome.
Funny, I don’t recall any of these concerns about “lopping the whole head off a tree” and such things being expressed about other leaders on the Right in the past. Bush, McCain, Romney….all were fair game for pundits on their own side. See, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a leader to face criticism from his own party or ideological position. I also think it’s OK to differ on policy positions within the Right – it’s good to hash over ideas. To suggest otherwise strongly suggests a cult of personality, such as what Obama enjoyed with those who saw him as a kind of Messiah.
Except that doesn’t follow, Jean. He’s not criticizing all of his side, if he considers Evangelicals (or even Christians more broadly) to be his side. Even if he’s rationally excluding us papists (I don’t think it is rational in this context, but assuming) then it’s not rational to exclude Evangelicals based on race. That’s just ugly, if that’s the case. If that’s not the case, then how narrow does he draw the line? Is there any such entity as White Evangelicalism? Or is he only addressing his narrow denomination – in which case the church bulletin or newsletter is a more appropriate place for his entreaty. Somehow I don’t get the sense that he views it that narrowly.
Besides, not being on the same side, in this case, is not the result of censorship or purge. It’s the result of working at cross purposes, and not actually being on the same side anymore. Having different ends in mind will do it. So will being extremely wrong and haughty about the means.
I like him because I am thankful for the work he has done on behalf of religious freedom. I like him because I appreciate his clarity when writing about legal matters (I like Andrew McCarthy for that reason too). I like him because I have met him, and found him to be a pleasant individual.
If he starts attacking Catholics for reasons that I think are credible, I will consider what he is saying. If his criticisms were to strike me as unreasonable, I would shrug my shoulders and figure that he perhaps doesn’t know enough about Catholicism. I would continue to wish him well and be happy that he was on my side.
So this is just a hypocrisy play? Still? I think this has been addressed by a lot of people, ably. Including me, admitting my own error back then and how I came to view it as an error even before Trump came along.
Hypocrisy aside: French simply cannot hand wave the binary choice issue, as if 1) Trump’s opponents are relatively free of character issues (they’re not this time either, or ever IMO), 2) the actual public policy pursued has no moral component or a lesser moral component than how Trump will have to answer for himself and his sins before the Pearly Gates, and 3) as if I’m voting for saint instead of for a political advocate.
I don’t see where you get the idea that French takes the positions you attribute to him. For example, can you point to where he says that Trump’s opponents are relatively free of character issues?
I’m not attributing that position to French. I’m claiming it as self-evident truth. What I’m attributing to French is hand-waving the binary choice issue. Then I’m offering possibilities which might justify that position if all of those possibilities were true. Which they aren’t.
You start calling in to question my Christian bona fides because you disagree with my political views? Sounds pretty “american progressive” to me.
So we are doing identity politics now? French is a Christian. We Christians, in the main, don’t believe there are black Christians and white Christians.
I don’t know what you mean when you refer to French as “hand-waving the binary choice issue”. Could you explain? Thanks.
True enough, but all the same different religious groups have their own traditions and customs. And I don’t know if black evangelical leaders stated that Clinton’s character flaws rendered him unfit for the presidency, whereas several white Evangelical leaders did – and French quotes them. Do you know of any prominent black evangelicals who did so? I don’t. Nor do I presume that evangelicals are all alike – I haven’t a clue.
If you were one of the ones claiming, back in the Clinton years, that Clinton’s character flaws rendered him unfit for office, then yes, French is calling out your hypocrisy if you aren’t applying the same standard to Trump.
So what? Were they expecting millions of subscribers? More like hundreds, or even dozens. And even if they had a million subscribers/readers, that’s less than 1% of the US.
That’s your allowed range? If French, Jonah, and others like them are just “Trump skeptics….” well… Hah.
You’d be surprised… There are still black Christians who believe what the Bible teaches and haven’t synthesized it or interpreted trough the lens of leftism. So many would have agreed with that courageous pastor. Too bad there weren’t more of them.