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
But that’s not how some Evangelicals framed it. Some Evangelical leaders stated that character was first and foremost, and that a lack of good character was disqualifying. It was not the “cherry on top”!
Agreed.
I think that’s what he’s asking of those Evangelicals who did state, quite publicly, that character was first and foremost – Did you not really mean it then? Or do you owe Clinton an apology? Was it mere hyperbole back then, or are you being hypocritical now? Those aren’t unreasonable questions to ask.
Someone posted earlier about the possibility of reformation and redemption. Is there any evidence that Trump has cheated on his wife, or assaulted a close family friend or whatever Juanita Broderick was, while in office? Or even within the last couple decades or something? There was all kinds of evidence of that, with Clinton. Seems like “even Christians” believe that having committed adultery 20 years ago, is less of a disqualifier than having committed adultery YESTERDAY.
To what end? Once answered, why continue to harp on it?
Were those questions answered by those Evangelical leaders? If so, I missed it.
Now that’s interesting… and here is a spot where pastors and Trump differ greatly from lawyers and those who have a simple preference for dry dialectic persuasion…
Pastors and Trump operate in rhetoric… not dialectic. Part of the argumentation is going to be hitting people in the feels. It’s important that rhetoric can be supported by dialectic, else you are selling lies, but for rhetoric to be true, it doesn’t need to be literally so. This is where phrases like “everyone does…”, “nobody thinks…”, and “all X are…” live. They aren’t literally true, but they are true enough that the average person recognizes truth in it. Pastors are trained in this for sermons while also being trained in reason and logic for in depth study of the word.
So when you say pastors were claiming that character is the most important – did they literally mean that? Because I can guarantee every pastor claiming it at the time likely had other reasons for disliking Clinton and used the moral failing as an opening to dissuade their own flocks from voting for him.
Now I was barely 10 at the time, so I have no recollection of this, but I have witnessed here at Ricochet that one of the personality characteristics that has Ricochet split on Trump is a foundational view of the use of rhetoric. Either NTs don’t understand it and take him too literally or they don’t understand its value or they have a personal preference for a different form of persuasion that they apply to the population at large. And I’ve seen it the most among people who are lawyers by profession, which is odd in itself, because they should also be trained in rhetoric.
To what end?
Of course, French conveniently ignores the fact that our choice was between Trump and Clinton’s wife. And ignoring the fact that, as far as I know, Trump’s former sexual immorality was consensual, not allegedly criminal. And ignoring the fact that Clinton’s philandering occurred in the Oval Office itself. And ignoring the fact that Clinton lied about it blatantly on camera, and lied about it under oath. And ignoring the fact that the acceptance of Clinton broke a serious moral standard that previously applied, sort of, so applying that standard to our own candidates would not create asymmetrical political warfare. (I say “sort of” because it turns out that FDR and Ike and JFK all had affairs, while in the White House, too. At least, I’ve read and heard that this is true.)
I never excuse President Trump’s sexual and moral failings. He sinned repeatedly. His divorces were morally wrong, too. I’m a sinner myself, by the way, though I haven’t done those particular things.
I simply do not demand that my political leader be a moral paragon. I know of only one moral paragon, and I don’t expect to ever vote for Him for President. He’s a king, and He doesn’t need my vote.
Derryck, I can hardly tell you how much I appreciate the confirmation. I never found any meaningful discussion about this during the Obama campaign or Presidency, and I didn’t have anyone to really ask about it. I had to do my own research and draw my own conclusions, and while I was pretty confident about them, I have been wrong once or twice. OK, once or twice a day. On a good day.
I vaguely remember a CNN panel years ago — Van Jones may have been on it — discussing the issue, and saying that Wright’s views were pretty common in the “black church.” Whatever that is. The impression that I drew was that some significant proportion of black “churches” followed this Black Liberation Theology, but I’ve never seen it quantified. Is it 50%? 5%? I have no idea.
So your post was so terrific, and your background in seminary school so impressive, that I googled you. You have a YouTube playlist! (Here, everybody.) With a Prager U segment, no less. I know what I’ll be listening to this weekend.
Well, I can’t use the same tune. I had to give this one some thought. We want something about being pompous and self-important, I think.
Something to the tune of Abba’s Should I Laugh Or Cry would be good, but I’ve already used it for Greta Thunberg. Don McLean has a great song called Everybody Loves Me Baby, but it’s probably too obscure (here, if you’re interested — it’s hilarious).
So, to the tune of Carly Simon’s You’re So Vain (here on YouTube).
Let me know if you think it’s good enough for a separate post.
I like it, but Righteous Dave sounds like a compliment. What about something like Pompous?
Or Sanctimonious, but that would be a tougher rhyme.
As to the argument that if I said during the Bill Clinton days character matters above all other issues, then it is hypocritical to change and say in the Donald Trump days that there are other issues that matter more than character, I note that times change. Issues I thought 30 years ago didn’t matter much, now matter very much. Thirty years ago I had no reason to think that issues like freedom of religion or freedom of speech or our right to keep private property or our right to raise our children according to the values we thought best were even issues to think about in voting for political candidates because no candidate was challenging them. So it seemed to some of us reasonable to say that personal character is the defining characteristic for a political candidate. But now that some quite basic American principles are under attack, we realize that in fact we do prioritize issues other than character. Issues that were invisible and therefore irrelevant to our decisions thirty years ago are now visible and relevant.
Morning Jerry,
Your new song “Righteous Dave” is the best so far. If an album were to be made with part of the money going to Ricochet, I would buy a couple and we could have a contest to design the album cover.
Do you have similar opinions on the likes of Steve Bannon, Miles Yiannopoulos, and similar figures? Cause I don’t think French, Goldberg, or Charon do…..
I technically agree with you, but the people you are defending generally don’t. I certainly don’t want to censor them, but I have difficulty caring when they are treated the same way that they have advocated other segments of the Right (not just controversial spokesmen that happen to be popular at one point or another) be treated.
How is he ignoring it? He’s taking the previous statements of Evangelical leaders at their word. And they didn’t add qualifiers at the time: “We hold the position that character matters unless the other candidate is worse”. That’s not what they said.
Again, the Evangelical leaders didn’t qualify their statements. They didn’t suggest that adultery was ok if consensual and not conducted in an august setting.
How is French ignoring all of that? It’s not even relevant to his beef, which is the hypocrisy of Evangelical leaders.
How is this about you? Were you a public, respected Evangelical leader back in the Clinton years? If so, did you issue statements about how important character was in elected officials, and how a lack of it was disqualifying? If not, then I don’t see why you think French is castigating you.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate for French to call out the hypocrisy of those Evangelical leaders, clearly a batch of holier-than-thou types with flexible principles. And flexible principles aren’t principles, they’re just preferences.
Although both French and Wilson possess the same indefinable visual appeal which is most appreciated when they confine their appearances to radio or podcast:
We used to say “A face for radio, and a voice for print.”
Agreed. And there are other valid reasons to have changed too. Those reasons are both obvious and reasonable. What is the point of running down people who railed on about character in the 90’s (like me)? Is the expectation that I’ll break down under questioning like in A Few Good Men? That I’ll brashly declare: because I serve Donald Trump blindly and unconditionally!
As I say, there’s plenty of valid reasons to have taken that position in the 90’s and a different position now. Why keep hammering at it?
To what end?
To what end Jean?
Why is this so important to you and French that you’re willing to hammer this so much? Suppose these people say: “I was already dead set against Bill Clinton; I was making what turns out to be a hyperbolic and ineffective appeal to those who were not dead set against him. Of course character still counts, but also of course it’s not the only thing that counts in politics. We’re not voting for messiah or saint, and good men in history have not always been morally sound”. Or maybe they say: “I was wrong back then. Character counts, but it isn’t the only thing.”
Then what?
Very well said.
Jean, looking into French’s writing a little more, it’s clear that isn’t what he’s doing, although that is the part the OP quoted. French is not just asking specific people, he’s passing judgement on “many millions of Trump-supporting white Evangelicals”. In the process leaving out a whole range of the more obvious, more reasonable, and more likely. Here’s how he characterizes it:
French the NT thinks that the Orange Man is Bad in every way. Not only do many millions of white Evangelicals not care about character anymore, they now don’t care about negligent loss of life due to Trump’s supposedly incompetent Wuflu response. Why would these many millions of white Evangelicals do this? What is French getting at? Nothing good or real in my opinion.
It’s clearer to me now what French’s end actually is: running down millions of his compatriots so he doesn’t have to back off of his NT hysteria even a little. Reading more carefully turned out not to be exculpatory for him.
So Jean: do you share that end? If not, what end are you seeking by supporting French in this?
Right. Because Jesus stoned the woman caught in adultery, didn’t he?
To address the question of whether or not these spiritual leaders mean what they say.
I’d say, thank you! Now I understand!
Frankly, since I’m not an Evangelical, I don’t feel that I have a dog in this fight – I didn’t pay attention to those Evangelicals back then, and so won’t now. But I certainly will defend French’s calling them out, since that’s his faith tradition. I think it’s important for those of us in the pews to hold our spiritual leaders accountable, to the extent it is possible. And if they turn out to be hypocrites, well, maybe we needn’t bother to listen to them or hold them in any regard.
A shorter version that should suffice in many situations:
In 2016, Trump didn’t need to be morally above reproach. He only needed to be morally better – especially for the country – than Hillary Clinton. Which he clearly was.
In 2020, Trump doesn’t need to be morally above reproach. He only needs to be morally better – especially for the country – than Jose Biden. Or whoever the Dems slip in to replace him. Which he clearly is.
For those who believe in God and needing justification for their actions, I don’t see how anyone could believe it would be acceptable to say “I knew Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and the others would (have) greatly increase(d) abortions, etc, etc, but I couldn’t ‘lower myself’ to vote for someone who was unfaithful to his wife.”
Good luck with that.
I don’t think “doing in the future what you condemned in the past” is a good definition of hypocrisy. For reasons Ed and others have explained: the situations, and the risks, changed. Changed drastically, in some ways. Hypocrisy would be more like “doing NOW what you condemn (in others) NOW.” Which is not what they are doing.
Are you saying that 1) it’s more than a good possibility that the obvious and reasonable explanations for the perceived differences aren’t really applicable to these Evangelical leaders, and that 2) the real reasons for the perceived differences could actually amount to Trump worship, and 3) these Evangelicals leaders would admit that even if that were true?
How is that holding anyone to account? What is the expectation, especially considering the many obvious and rational answers to hysterical charges like French’s? Sounds to me like French has made up his mind that the outlandish and least likely
Indeed, French isn’t just questioning Evangelical leaders, he’s questioning “millions of white Evangelicals” who, it’s clear (at least to French), “no longer care about character”. Do you, Jean, really think that’s a reasonable statement?
How else do you think they’d answer? I don’t understand what you think might be drawn out of them under French’s cross examination other than the above, and therefore I don’t understand the aggressive questioning and accusations.
Maybe that’s the problem. Lawyer French is “cross-examining” and believes that he is Perry Mason who will thereby get the “guilty party” to admit it.
That’s possible. My guess is that French is so committed to his NT that he can’t turn back now. Better for his identity/ego to glibly toss “millions of white Evangelicals” under the bus as immoral hypocrites. What kind of person would do that instead of simply admitting that those millions might have made a rational and maybe even a good decision?
I was about to say . . .
I don’t even know who these “Evangelical leaders” are. Every time I see someone on the news who is tagged as an “evangelical leader” (usually in the context of “this crazy thing he said or did!”) have to stop and figure out who it is? And who elected him? There is no evangelical pope.
No, if French was targeting specific individuals, I don’t think I’d be so angry about it. I’d question his purpose and his arguments, but I wouldn’t take it personally. Instead, he’s slandering millions of Christians, personally. That’s something we commonly hear from the other side. “Bitter clingers, deplorables, irredeemables.” And now someone allegedly on our side is adopting the same slander.
Evening Painter Jean,
I am and Evangelical and have been for 30 + years. Calling out folks is not part of the Evangelical world. We went to a church that over time got large 5,000 and one day the pastor Mark Vroegop said that, he was the biggest sinner he knew. You can go see him at, yourchurch.com and see what a verse by verse Evangelical church is like. This Evangelical view than the sinner one most work on most is yourself, it is so common that it is almost universal. Paul Tripp one of the more well know Evangelicals says that every day he prays, “Lord I am a man blind to my faults, send me helpers to help me see more clearly.” Politics are not topics on the agenda in the Evangelical church, abortion is, marriage is, but the sin of others is not. If you want to see what the most respected Evangelicals think see Tim Keller, Paul Tripp, John Piper and others or even Charles Stanley, although a Baptist is very similar to many Evangelicals, these men do not make an issue of politics. It is true some do as Billy Graham did from the time Nixon, but if you check, groups like InterVarsity, politics and candidate support are not part their program, so when French claims to be calling out Evangelicals, he is calling out an group that he does not appear to know or understand. If he did, he would not be making a public spectacle of his denunciation as if he were an Old Testament prophet, he is not, he would privately call up the men who he feels have lost their way. He would counsel them and offer grace, and confess his own problems to them, that is how it works. One does not parade someone else’s failings to shame them, that is not how an Evangelical would rebuke another believer. For an example see Nathan and David.