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
I like that analogy and haven’t seen anyone use it. Some have said that they’re like umps who call balls and strikes but never RBIs. This is better. It seems they think Trump’s strike zone is from his ankles to his neck.
Hand waving being a term for dismissing, brushing aside.
Binary choice issue being the idea that there are only two candidates with any real chance, and a vote for a third party is, like Evan McMullin, is in effect like a vote for one of the main choices. Siphoning Republican votes is a vote for the Democrat and vice versa. Ralph Nader or Ross Perot are stark examples, but it doesn’t have to be that stark to be relevant.
French dismisses that concept as a reason to vote for Trump over McMullin (or Mickey Mouse) even if the hypothetical Evangelical were still queasy with the character of both major party candidates. He’s saying that “Character Counts” is the primary criterion, so that if character is lacking then that candidate is disqualified over anything else. Especially for Evangelicals. Especially for Evangelicals who opposed Bill Clinton under teh banner of Character Counts.
French can’t call me out for anything. He’s not got a clue who I am.
@arizonapatriot One of the major, consistent critiques about black liberation theology (and liberation theology) is that it deviates so far away from orthodox Christianity– precisely because it’s a Christianized version of Marxism. Christianity and Marxism are two competing world views that, despite one’s enthusiasm and diligence, can’t be effectively integrated or harmonized into an improved (localized) Christianity.
I studied both in seminary… so believe me when I say that you didn’t misunderstand; your analysis is correct. I really appreciate your caution and humility as you approached this issue.
Thanks for the explanation. The problem I have with the binary choice concept as you define it – and here I am speaking for myself, with no reference to anything French has said – is that it narrows my choices. I don’t feel that any one person is owed my vote – they have to earn it, as far as I’m concerned, by being mostly (mostly, not entirely) aligned with the principles that are important to me. Dittos with a political party – if a party no longer espouses the principles and positions that are important to me, then I’m not going to vote for its candidates. It seems to me that not voting is a legitimate choice if there is no party or candidate that corresponds to my views.
@derryckgreen, your OP is a great response to David French. Just dynamite.
As is my wont, however, I will quibble with a couple of things.
I’m sure I’m not the first to point out that the never-ending stream of naked vitriol, dishonesty, and hypercritical pettiness employed against Donald Trump (both before and after the 2016 election) has been more than enough. What is to be gained by Trump’s supporters piling on?
For me, this is consistent with my long-standing belief we should be very careful about criticizing those on our side, as that may very easily come back to bite us. That’s especially true with Trump. Imagine how much more support he would get from the party, and from swing voters, if those in his own party didn’t buy into so many false charges and hysterical attacks against the man. How much more would have been accomplished in the first 2 years?
Has there really been a lack of evangelical condemnation of Donald Trump? I mean, here we are, discussing an evangelical’s unending condemnation of Donald Trump. And he’s hardly the only one.
I doubt we can find another president for which evangelicals, or anyone else, have made a practice of preceding every positive comment with phrases like, “for all his moral failings,” or “aside from those awful tweets,” or “I may not support everything he does, but…”
Of course, I knew that in 100+ comments, someone else would get to this before me. But I added my two cents anyway.
@painterjean Race could very well be the reason. We don’t know but we can intellectually speculate. However, to your point– black and white Evangelicals have the same religious beliefs and makes both fair game for honest critique. In the transnational, multiethnic body of Christ, the gospel is the foundation for brotherhood. So French would’ve been and will be on solid ground should he decide to hold black Christians religiously or theologically accountable.
Traditions are different and you have a case there. But again, French critiqued Obama’s religious beliefs because radical black theology (black liberation theology) and the denominational belief system of United Church of Christ, especially at Trinity in Chicago, varied from traditional Christianity. Again, French has the ability to critique Obama and black Christian support of Obama on religious, hermeneutical and theological grounds, none of which includes race.
So we’re still left wondering why he didn’t or doesn’t hammer black Christians with the same vigor of white Christians.
Other than basically organizing for the Left’s presidential candidates, and others.
Forgive me if it’s already come up in this discussion, but why do Catholics get a pass? Or other non-evangelical Christians who support Trump? Why is it only evangelical Christians that must explain ourselves?
Besides, the term “evangelical” doesn’t seem to be of much use these days, as no one seems to know what it means.
This sounds like a cue for another excellent post by Jerry Giordano, this time on “Brave, Brave Sir David.”
This seems to actually fit well with many others, such as my (white) mother, who apparently believes – and says – that Jesus was the first Marxist.
Ok, but I’m talking about ideas, not people or parties. I think French is too. French says: if you’re serious about character then you cannot vote for someone of bad character, or else you’re a hypocrite. I don’t think that is realistic. Instead I say: if you care about abortion, immigration, prosperity, liberty, whatever policy issue then there are only two candidates with a chance and one of them will be worse for your values than the other. Voting for a third party instead of the least bad realistic option helps the most bad realistic option without getting you anything concrete.
It has nothing to do with owing any one or any party. I voted for Romney, McCain, Bush, Bush, Dole. I didn’t really like any of them, but I thought they were all better than Obama, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton. Obviously better. Not perfectly so, but obviously so; positve for my values actually. I thought Trump would be obviously better than Clinton. More than that, I though he would be actively positive for the national level policies I care about.
That is Lileks-ish. High praise. (and FIFY)
Of all His sayings in the Holy Gospels, Christ’s sermon on the dictatorship of the proletariat is my favorite.
It doesn’t bother you that he supports electing a president who would be AGAINST the kind of religious freedom, etc, that you value?
There may not be many in the professional commentariat, but I don’t think we’re all that rare among the laity.
But I think what you’ve just said is that, if you care about abortion, immigration, prosperity, liberty, whatever policy issue, then those things, in your opinion, should matter more than character. In other words, you and French are looking at different priorities. He’s not saying, don’t pay attention to those issues, he’s saying that if you place character above those other issues, then you should not vote for someone who has bad character. It all depends upon what a person puts first on the list of priorities! IF you value the things you mention over character, then character, while certainly not unimportant, is not going to trump the other considerations. IF someone claims to value character over all – which some Evangelical leaders did in the Clinton years – then those other issues aren’t going to trump the character issue.
I think it does have something to do with the party, for the simple reason that when a president is elected, he’s putting into positions of power many people from his party. So what that party believes is important, because it will be reflected in policy – and personnel is policy!
The one positive NT David French has going for himself is …. he is not Rick Wilson.
Yes. No one is saying: don’t pay attention to character. No one is saying: I used to think character is important, but now that it’s Trump I no longer think character counts. But now that it’s a Republican candidate, I no longer think character counts.
Yet isn’t that what French is accusing Evangelicals of doing? Of dismissing character now when character was the most important thing back in the 90’s? Of claiming to value character now yet setting it aside (hypocritically, illegitimately?) to vote for Trump?
The main issue of the binary choice is that you ARE going to get ONE of the two possibles.
Or, I would add, not voting at all…
If French is the evangelical he claims to be, he should have had serious theological issues with Mitt Romney. But he supported him. Which is to say that for French, he put piety before theology. He seems to want piety over anything else. Is that really the highest virtue? I submit it’s no virtue at all. It may be a manifestation of faith, but it is no replacement for faith.
Sadly, my mother is not a very smart person. To her most of the bible is going to be just “pretty words.” Any deeper meanings will be beyond her understanding. The end result is, as with a lot of Muslims around the world who are at least functionally illiterate and can’t read their own holy book at all, they rely on others to tell them what it means. Often with tragic results.
Yes. My comment was in context of your statement that you don’t owe any candidate or party your vote. I agree with that, and I agree that what candidates and parties believe is important because those beliefs are probably reflected in platform (at least on paper). It’s about the ideas and values that matter most to you, not about the party or the person.
Which means that elections are an exercise in getting teh most you can for your beliefs and values. Sometimes (often) that takes the form of least bad.
Damning with faint praise. (Praising with faint damnation?)
Since no politician – or other person, for that matter – has yet been, or is ever likely to be, a sinless saint, then I would make that “always.”
Only Rick Wilson could be Rick Wilson. Because nobody else wanted to be.
Yes, that is what French is accusing at least some Evangelicals of doing. And I don’t see why he’s wrong to do so. I think the accusation fits.
That doesn’t make sense. Back in the 90’s voting against Bill Clinton was easy for the religious right for a lot of public policy reasons. Railing against bad character was was the cherry on top.
Now, people who still care about things like abortion and other policies friendly to religion: it’s still easy to vote Republican and Trump even if you think Trump’s character is unusually sinful.
Which does French have a problem with? Even for those who made hyperbolic claims about the importance of character in context of Bill Clinton back in the 90’s, which is worse? Being hyperbolic back then or being realistically prudent now? Does French claim it’s better to be consistent in error than to correct course?
No, it does not in the least bit suggest a cult of personality.
The difference with Bush, McCain, and Romney, is that pundits like French were merely criticizing them. They weren’t declaring them candidata non grata, or endorsing the Democrat, or forming a third party.