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
Nice straw man.
This is so weak it’s a bit eyebrow-raising. Do you know what the phrase “target market” means? Hint – it doesn’t include everyone who might actually purchase a particular product. No, it’s going to be a market that is seen as making up the majority of buyers. Yes, you might enjoy Playboy, but the majority of its buyers are male because lovely centerfolds of nude or mostly-nude lovely women are its primary appeal. Great articles, too, I’m sure, but that’s not the primary reason men are buying it.
I agree, it was really over the top, and unnecessary to boot.
It was a great series, yes.
Face it, Jean, your a hypocrite.
But isn’t that the point here? You don’t want him in your party, do you? You make it clear that you despise him, as the comments here indicate. And so it is with anyone else on the Right who dares to criticize your hero.
Look, you don’t want me on your side? Hey, I’m happy to oblige. Good luck with your strategy to get Trump re-elected by turning off those who think differently than you do. Seems like a stupid strategy to me.
Jean Jean Jean! What you criticize in everyone here is the same thing David French is guilty of.
He tells lies about the President, he slanders good Christians, and somehow we’re the bad guys? That’s downright Orwellian.
Afternoon Painter Jean,
These divisions between conservatives have been with us forever, remember HW Bush implied that Reagan was a conservative without compassion, Tea Party folks were called Wacko Birds. One could find divides by class, by religion, and between Chamber of Commerce elites and cultural conservatives. After Trump was elected before there was a Trump train, folks were shunning VDH, like Boot and others but including our Jay Nordingler. I don’t think the issue is which side is to blame, I think the issue is who will be brave enough to do a post mortem on conservatism. What has conservatism conserved whether it is French’s version, Billy Graham’s, the elite’s (Rockefeller’s) version, Milton Friedman’s version, we could go on and on and try to get every different type of conservatism and the question still remains why did we fail? Only two groups did not fail as weakly and thoroughly, Second Amendment folks have gained ground since Reagan, and Right to Life, which at least has not lost ground. Our failure as conservatives is all the more troubling when we note the wonderful national character of Americans. After Katrina, churches, not just mine in Indy, rented semis and filled them up with clothes, and essentials, and later organized ‘vision/mission trips’ to rebuild houses, this same activity happen after hurricane Michael. The broken trees and under growth was collected by a church group at my son’s house at Southport 12 miles from the gulf. And during this virus, as geezers we have had seven different younger folks,not including our children, have offered to shop for our groceries or anything. America has great and generous people and yet conservatism has not been able to provide cultural or fiscal education or leadership or a stability for our institutions. It took a guy like Trump to make a stink about loving our country and make a big issue about it, like being an American was something to be proud of. It would be better to figure out why we lost and how we could win and not debate French and whether his criticisms are more off base than the other collections of criticisms. I am not a fan of French, if think every time I have seen him speak his self-righteousness overwhelms his content. He is not alone in preferring to fault find, we all do, but the hard work is to identify our mistakes, like being too in love with Friedman’s view of trade, rework ideas to save our communities and families and redefine what a winning conservatism might look like.
I agree to a certain extent, Drew – Both sides are criticizing the other, and often for what seems like the same faults. Here’s where I will give French a bit more of a pass, however: He is a committed Christian, and his objections come from his contention that moral character is of very high importance in a candidate, perhaps the primary one. Now, I accept what Jim Beck had to say, which is that French’s way of criticizing was not the Evangelical way. So I’m not so supportive of how he went about it, now that I have heard from an Evangelical. But I respect that he – and John Piper – are being consistent in their attitudes towards Clinton and Trump. (As for myself, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not especially put off by Trump’s moral failings. I’m much more put off by other aspects of his personality, and of the tone of his most ardent supporters.)
What motivates the other side? Not sincerely-held religious views (perhaps wrongly expressed), but rather a devotion to Trump that cannot accept criticism of him from the Right, and which appears to want to make the coalition to re-elect Trump smaller, but more pure in its devotion to him. I want us to always feel like legitimate criticism is A-OK (which leaves out most if not all of the criticism from the left, which is mostly hysteria). So no, I don’t respect the motivations of those who just want to kick French – and presumably me – out of the Right.
I don’t appreciate you telling me what my motivations are.
Legitimate criticism is. David French’s criticisms are not legitimate. Not when he has to lie and slander to do it.
Unlike French, I have no illusions about being able to control who is in my party. It’s why I don’t play that stupid disassociation game.
I’m not out to kick French out. I am out to decrease his influence by demonstrating what a disingenuous hypocrite he is.
If you don’t like the mischaracterization of Trump supporters as dumb hicks and rubes (I don’t like it), it helps to spell common words correctly. You might not know this, Stina, but it’s spelled “you’re”, not “your”. It’s what is called a “contraction”.
Wow. That’s pretty rude. I know you’re under a lot of stress, but . . .
I know you mentioned something about Charlottesville earlier, Drew, but what did French get wrong? Didn’t Trump praise some neo-Nazis as “fine people”? I’m not asking that in an inflammatory way, I am asking sincerely – I never paid much attention to the incident because I don’t pay attention to the media in general.
Considering I probably shouldn’t have posted that comment (I’ve deleted 3 responses to her so far in this thread today), I’ll take her pedantry if that’s all she’s got.
And what a fine job you are doing, too, Stina. I know you’ve convinced me by the power of your logic, your ability to point out the false premises, the objective and rational tone of your discourse.
I don’t appreciate you telling me what my motivations are.
Trump:
French has been shared this quote a dozen times and still persists in his version of it, making him a liar.
No, he didn’t. I can’t believe we’re still having to knock down this lie. He said there were “fine people” on both sides of the Confederate Monument issue, but he specifically called out the white nationalists marchers for criticism. Of course, we can’t expect the press to report the President’s words accurately. I expected someone allegedly on our side to do it. By now there is no excuse for someone like David French, who we’re supposed to believe is well-informed, to continue to tell this lie, unless he’s doing it deliberately. And I think he is.
Rudeness invites rudeness in return, no?
Then I guess you can’t criticize us for being rude to David French.
Gosh, I know you like that arrogant SOB for some reason. It must be because he shares your hatred of the President, but couldn’t you pick a better quality Trump-hater to rally behind?
Thanks for the info. I just looked it up, and you’re right – it looks like Trump was referring to those who were protesting taking down the monuments (which is likely the side I would be on, depending on the monument – not Nathan Bedford Forrest, mind you ). So I agree with you – French is not being honest here.
Finally! After nine pages! 😎
I know you’re being sarcastic, but I had some far more biting comments for you that I deleted, so I think I will settle that I argued well, if not perfectly.
Honestly, many of these conversations just go in circles. At some point, I feel like shaming is the only way to get to you or anyone else.
And no one here would be spending so much time arguing with you if we didn’t want to convince you, so our arguments should be a sign we don’t actually want you gone, just to change your mind.
And see what we see in French and Goldberg.
I read Reason a lot. It is amazing how frequently I will start to read something believing every word until I stumble on an outright lie. Why I like comments.
Never read anyone without reading the commentary. The writers are not always honest. French doesn’t deserve you’re[sic] benefit of the doubt.
Well, in fairness Drew, most of the nine pages haven’t been exactly about this!
For clarification, this statement seemed to indicate that Piper wrote the previous list of reasons why Trump is not fit to be President. He didn’t.
I like French because of the work he’s done for religious freedom, for his legal analysis, and because I’ve met him and found him to be a pleasant person to converse with. And I don’t hate Trump. I don’t like him, I’ll admit, but I don’t hate him.
French is so far from marching in lock step, it’s not even funny. He’s not criticising Trump. He’s calling in to question the Christian bona fides of anyone who doesn’t view Trump the same way he does. So he’s the one doing the “defenstration.”
You’re correct, he didn’t, though the snippet of the excerpt may have looked that way. Piper included that list in his article, which he titled “How to Live Under an Unqualified President”, and included Andy Naselli’s list under the subhead, “Why Trump is Unqualified”. We can presume that Piper agrees with Naselli’s list, since he included it in the body of his article.
He’s not criticizing “Their Man”. He’s criticizing Them.
This is nonsense.
Here is what motivates me: I don’t want Joe Biden to be the next President. And, honestly, despite his shortcomings, Trump has done all right as President. I don’t agree with everything, but I will gladly cast my ballot for Trump, as much as against Biden.
Now your just being petty.