TOKENS PODCAST: S5E5
David French discusses the culture of animosity in which he finds himself as a conservative political commentator: and what it’s like to critique conservatism as a conservative. It’s precisely his critiques of the far-right, including Donald Trump, that have made him a target of scorn for his own party. David and Lee also discuss why David thinks America’s classical liberalism may yet be salvageable, and the role of Christian faith and human flourishing in that mix.
ABOUT TOKENS SHOW & LEE C. CAMP
Tokens began in 2008. Our philosophical and theological variety shows and events hosted throughout the Nashville area imagine a world governed by hospitality, graciousness and joy; life marked by beauty, wonder and truthfulness; and social conditions ordered by justice, mercy and peace-making. We exhibit tokens of such a world in music-making, song-singing, and conversations about things that matter. We have fun, and we make fun: of religion, politics, and marketing. And ourselves. You might think of us as something like musicians without borders; or as poets, philosophers, theologians and humorists transgressing borders.
Lee is an Alabamian by birth, a Tennessean by choice, and has sojourned joyfully in Indiana, Texas, and Nairobi. He likes to think of himself as a radical conservative, or an orthodox liberal; loves teaching college and seminary students at Lipscomb University; delights in flying sailplanes; finds dark chocolate covered almonds with turbinado sea salt to be one of the finest confections of the human species; and gives great thanks for his lovely wife Laura, his three sons, and an abundance of family and friends, here in Music City and beyond. Besides teaching full-time, he hosts Nashville’s Tokens Show, and has authored three books. Lee has an Undergrad Degree in computer science (Lipscomb University, 1989); M.A. in theology and M.Div. (Abilene Christian University, 1993); M.A. and Ph.D. both in Christian Ethics (University of Notre Dame, 1999).
JOIN TOKENS ON SOCIALS:
YOUTUBE
FACEBOOK
INSTAGRAM
JOIN LEE C. CAMP ON SOCIALS:
FACEBOOK
INSTAGRAM
LEE C. CAMP WEBSITE
TRANSCRIPT
Lee: This is Tokens. I'm Lee C. Camp.
David: Now with the dark magic of negative partisanship, the primary focus of the right and also many folks on the left is just opposing the other.
Lee: That's David French, conservative political commentator and senior editor for The Dispatch and contributing writer for The Atlantic.
As a conservative he's been through some hell and high water. Because he's been willing to critique the alt-right, Donald Trump, and white Christian nationalism.
David: I mean, I would say within minutes I saw the first image of my youngest daughter. Photo-shopped into a gas chamber with a photo-shopped picture of Donald Trump and in an SS uniform, pressing the gas button.
Lee: And yet in the midst of that, he keeps insisting on certain political values.
David: Kindness and decency. Love your enemies. Bless those who persecute you.
Lee: All this, coming right up.
INTERVIEW
Lee: David French is an American political commentator previously, a fellow at the National Review Institute where he was also at that time, a staff writer for the National Review. He currently serves as senior editor of The Dispatch and a contributing writer for The Atlantic, completed his undergraduate degree at Lipscomb University, where we overlapped for several years.
David: We did indeed.
Lee: When we were young, young whipper-snappers way back then. Then, onto Harvard Law School, served in the U.S. army, was deployed to Iraq, serving as a squadron judge advocate. And since that time has done a great deal of legal work in religious rights issues. Welcome David French.
David: Thanks so much for having me.
I appreciate it.
Lee: It's great to have you here. So yeah, it was a long time ago that we were running around campus together or at least, yeah.
David: It doesn't feel that, especially when I drive down Granny White and I see High Rise. And it all comes flooding back.
Lee: Yes, yes, that's right. That's right. They do go by, they go by very, very quickly. And, um, but those were very good days.
I want to start with a label, Wikipedia has you down as a theologically conservative, traditional Christian. And of course, you're known as a conservative American political commentator. So, let's talk about those two labels, conservative and traditional. Um, to what degree are you comfortable applying those labels to yourself and what does such labels you think mean to you at their best?
David: Yeah, that's a really good question. I am decreasingly comfortable, um, applying the label conservative in one sense yet fight for it in another. Okay. So let me unpack that a little bit. Um, there is a sort of a broader, um, idea of what people, when people hear the word conservative, how they define it themselves and what they think of as conservative.
I'm less comfortable with that. I'm wanting to fight for the idea of conservatism that I sort of grew up with and have adopted over the years. So, for example, you will hear somebody say, now I am a very staunch conservative, and that is a code for saying, I am a very strong supporter of Donald Trump, for example, or I'm a very strong Republican. And those two things are not the same.
They're just not the same. And so, if you say to somebody well, I'm conservative, there, that's going to communicate a meaning to you, to them that you may not intend.
Lee: Yeah.
David: So, you know, I grew up in a conservatism that, you know, the old cliche is it sort of had three main elements of political conservatism that had three main elements.
And then we can talk about the theological part.
Lee: Yeah.
David: The three main elements were sort of a more modest view of the role of government. More limited government, not no government, but more limited, more modest view of what government could accomplish. Um, a social conservatism. In other words, pro-life supported religious liberty, um, strongly believed in the need for character and leadership and, and political leaders, church leaders, business leaders, homes. And then, also, was a very strong believer that in sort of what you might call the post-World War II international order, the network of alliances that maintain great power, peace, and, uh, the network of international relationships that the United States had that maintain great power, peace, and, and helped facilitate an enormous amount of increasing global prosperity.
That's what I meant when I said conservative. And if you said conservative for years and years and years, that's generally, there's a lot of room for disagreement in there. But now what we have is something entirely different that's arising. Conservatism is becoming less of a coherent ideology and much more of a particular attitude.
Um, so the role of the government is up for grabs. The role of the United States in the world is up for grabs. Uh, social conservatism is still there, but it's being subsumed within a larger sort of cultural war struggle. So, for example, two of the biggest culture war items of the last 18 months have been cultural wars over masks and vaccines. That would be unrecognizable to a social conservative in years past.
And the better way to describe it is, what is sort of this new conservatism, which I just call right-wing or populist is that its primary animating force is animosity. It's, it's better described as anti-left. It's not necessarily coming to the public square with here's our specific platform of ideas that will lead to human flourishing and greater you know, peace and prosperity here at home and abroad.
Although there are ideas along those lines, but it's a much more I am against you. I am not you. And which is one of the roots of, for example, the vaccine and mask wars is well, where did the sort of, you know, the masks were seen as a condensed symbol of sort of this elitist public health establishment. Um, similarly, a lot of the move towards pushing people to take the vaccine.
And so, it triggered an oppositionalism, and that's not what I grew up with. That's not what I believe.
Lee: How do you see the alliance or straining of that alliance with so-called traditional Christianity with conservatism that you grew up with and the conservatism that is quickly developing?
David: Yeah. So, you know, when I looked at the interplay between my sort of my Christian faith and my political ideology, the way I looked at it is that my political ideology was downstream of and contingent.
In other words, I didn't believe that my political ideology flowed naturally from pull, my religious beliefs, it was disputable, but I believe that my political ideology was certainly informed by my religious beliefs. I believe that the beliefs that I held ideologically were consistent with, um, and perhaps in some instances, arguably more consistent with my Christian faiths and some of the competing alternatives, but that was arguable.
That was debatable. So, you know, for example, you know, any particular view of the American economic system, let's talk about that. Here's why I believe it. Here's why you might disagree. We'll have that discussion. Any particular view of American foreign policy. Here's what you think. Here's what I think, let's talk about it.
But, um, what I've found about a lot of the modern new right, it is in its fundamental moral posture, what I would say is sometimes, you might call it post-Christian. Sometimes I might call it just flat out unchristian uh, for this reason, that, when I said earlier an enormous amount of it is based on animosity.
Okay. It's based on animosity. And that is, you know, that's a big shift from where, conservatism might've, you might've thought of conservatism 10 or 15 years ago, which was based on a set of ideas that you thought would be better for the country. And now with the dark magic of negative partisanship, the primary focus of the right and also many folks on the left is just opposing the other.
Lee: I think the way that you put that, that early on you presumed that your political stance was downstream of your faith and that the connection from your faith to the political stance was arguable? Um, that seems crucial to me because it's increasingly seems that neither, that there, well, not neither, but there are many on the right, many on the left that can't see these as arguable, but as unnecessarily, uh, you must stand here, if you're going to claim this kind of faith.
David: Yeah. Well, they, you know, they would say that, they would also say my politics is downstream from my faith, but my politics is dig. It is, there is but one channel.
Lee: Yeah. Yeah. One way, one way you can go one way you can claim this. So, talk a little bit about at its best then, as you kind of, presumably you continue to hold a stance where you think that your political stance, American political stances are arguable conclusions are arguable postures from your faith. Um, but at its best, what do you feel like, um, are some pertinent goods that come from your Christian faith that you've argued into different political policies or practices that you think are really important right now?
David: Yeah. So, if you get, if you, if we want to just get nerdy instead of using like more sweeping labels, like conservative, I would say the most precise label to describe me as classical liberal.
Lee: Yeah.
David: Um, that would be the most precise, but you say classical liberal, unless somebody is like up on these debates, their eyes glaze over and then all they hear is like liberal.
Lee: I do hope that people, by the time they've listened to you and on this podcast, they know at least generally what that, right.
David: Your, your listeners, are up, your listeners are ready for this. So.
Lee: They’ve at least heard Patrick Deneen talk about this at great length. Yeah. So.
David: I'm classical liberal. Um, and so, you know, my view on America's classical liberal structure is that the, there is some, although I don't think that there's, I'm not going to sit here and say that there's one particularly divinely inspired mode of government.
I think classical liberalism has some Christian, as a structure and approach, has some Christian virtues to it and, and, and really, they're twofold.
One is classical liberal liberalism at its best recognizes the inherent dignity of man. Okay, so, you know, this is the great sort of mission statement of the United States.
We're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the fundamental social compact of the United States articulated in the Bill of Rights and then expanded and made enforceable through the Civil War amendments that really breathed life to our Constitution in a way that it didn't have life before.
So, these are the things that recognize sort of there's something, there is a fundamental obligation of the government to recognize your basic human dignity, your right to speak freely, your right to exercise your religion, your freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, your entitlement to due process before your liberty is taken away.
All of these things that we, these are fundamental recognitions of the dignity of man and, and I think, uh, echo and sort of the recognition of human beings as image bearers. So that's point one. And then point two is our classical liberal structure also recognizes the fallenness of man and it's not accessibly idealistic about man's nature.
So here you have the checks and balances, the limits of the power of the state. There's no, you know, this is when you get to the Federalist Papers, well, you know, when, when the founders explicitly recognize that no man is an angel and men are not angels. And so, we try as much as possible to control for and limit the ability of the tyrant or the dominating individual to, to strip us of our dignity.
So, I think of the classical liberal system as having those two great virtues that attach to it. Now here's the interesting thing about it. I think that though for classical liberalism, classical liberals, um, structured to survive. I think it also has to rely on other institutions, um, such as a thriving family, such as a healthy church, such as civic associations.
And those are the things that give us that day-to-day meaning and purpose. Classical liberalism doesn't. I mean, it did for me because I was a religious liberties lawyer. So, I'm getting up in the morning defending liberty. I was first. But for most of us, you're not sitting around thinking, you know, what's making my day happy? Due process.
You know, that's not how we are. But what classical liberalism does is it creates a space for human flourishing for not just individuals, but institutions to thrive. So that's when I talk about my, my philosophy at its best that's how I see it.
Lee: Yeah. So, um, a cynical sort of critique, and I've used this kind of language, even myself when talking about classical political liberalism.
But before I use that language, I want to say that I think too, the two things that you point to. The dignity of humankind of all people and a sober-minded recognition of the fallen. So, to use the like scriptural language, theological language, the fallenness of humankind. I agree. Those are two terribly helpful commitments, uh, that we get to at least in analogically through, you know, Christian practice.
But your notion there that, uh, this can't thrive apart from flourishing in other institutions, negatively put some would suggest that what that ultimately means is that democracy and or classical political liberalism is almost parasitic on these institutions in the sense that it doesn't have at its heart, a capacity to do moral formation.
David: I dispute that on a couple grounds.
Lee: Okay.
David: I think it's symbiotic with not, parasitic on, um, in the true sense of symbiosis where both benefit from each other. So, for example, when you're talking about, um, moral formation, let's just take this. In many ways, the Bill of Rights itself and the Civil War amendments are moral teachers, they are not morally neutral documents.
Lee: Yeah.
David: So, when you're talking about the dignity of man with due process or the right of the person to be secure in their body in that protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Or, the right to free exercise of religion. Or, free speech which Frederick Douglas called the great moral renovator of society, and government. These things are positive goods.
So, any, one of the ways I kind of immediately am less impressed with the critique of classical liberalism as they, if they just say it's all about neutral principles. No, there are neutral principles that are in there. In other words, providing neutral access to the public squares and aspiration of classical liberalism. But due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment that the, you know, the right secured in the First Amendment.
These are positive goods, the statements and the great moral and legal declarations of the 14th amendment that grant us equal protection under the law, for example. These are positive, moral goods. So, there is a moral formation that comes along with learning the principles of classical, American classical liberalism.
At the same time, the, the freedom secured by classical liberalism facilitates, facilitates institution building. And so, it's not parasitic.
Lee: Or, makes space for it.
David: It certainly makes space for it and then provides formal legal protection for it. So, one of the great virtues of the combination of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause is...
Lee: Quick clarification: the "establishment clause" is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the establishment of any national religion by the government. The “free exercise clause” leaves individuals free to practice "religion" as they choose, so long as it does not violate so-called compelling governmental interests or "public morals."
David: One of the great virtues of the combination of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause is it says, we're not going to create an overwhelming national church that's going to inhibit the growth of other perspectives.
And, in fact, not only are we not going to have that overwhelming national church, we're going to affirmatively protect your ability to form your own institution and protected against the power of the state.
And so, I think of that now where, but at the same time, classical liberalism depends on reciprocal responsibilities. And so, the, the way I put it, I like the phrase ordered liberty. Okay. So, the Declaration of Independence is an, is a declaration of liberty. You're endowed with unalienable rights.
There's a wonderful letter that John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts militia. Uh, the famous quote that he makes is really, to me, the less interesting quote, but he talks about, you know, the famous quote from that is our, our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It's wholly inadequate to the governance of any other. That's the famous, but the whole letter is worth reading because he talks about how a detour away from sort of fundamental character, you know, character and virtue will cause vice.
And he listed vice as like avarice and ambition. And all of these to cut, go through the cords of our constitution, like a whale through a net. And so essentially, you know, a functioning constitutional classical liberal republic says government has obligations to secure our liberty. And we have an obligation to exercise our liberty for a virtuous purpose.
And when we lose sight of that reciprocity, the system strains.
Lee: Recently we had Patrick Deneen on the show. He's a political philosopher and author of the book Why Liberalism Failed.
You know, he's, he's basically making the argument that classical political liberalism at root defined freedom as liberty from constraint, as opposed to ancient Greek and or Christian notions of liberty, which define liberty as the capacity to do what is good.
And then he argues that what's happened is that both conservative liberals and liberal liberals have, um, had their particular area where they're especially interested in freedom from constraint. So conservative liberals have wanted freedom from constraint with regard to, uh, commerce business interest and so forth.
Liberal liberals have wanted especially with regard to the bodies or social mores or whatever. And he says, uh, then they both wanted to limit the other. But what they've been, he says they've been both particularly successful in maximizing liberty in the area they're interested in, and both unsuccessful in limiting the other side.
Yeah. Um, do you think that's a fair description of what's happened with classical political liberalism?
David: I read book and part of it, it felt like he was taking aim at French Revolution liberalism more so than American Revolution liberalism, um, which was very much a casting of restraint.
Um, you know, at the height of the French Revolution, remember they, you know, they were ransacking churches. They were renaming the months of the year. Every week was just a total break from any respect for the past. And, you know, Edmund Burke famously was a, despised the FrenchRevolution and had respect for the American Revolution because they were different in, in nature and kind.
But I would say this, I would say that while I don't agree with all of the aims of progressive liberalism. Um, and progressive, certainly don't agree with all the aims of conservative liberalism, our inability to stop the other and the exercise of their liberty is a virtue of liberalism.
Um, because if you if one of the defects of each side of the political spectrum is an impulse, which is, again, this is controlling for what does liberalism do at its best? Control for our fallen nature.
We all have a temptation of freedom for me and not for the. And we often have a temptation that says I am interested only in the liberties that I like and completely disinterested in the liberties that I don't care about. And so, these are, uh, temptations, I think, of our, of our fallen nature. And what liberalism does is, again at its best, is it really limits our ability to carve out zones of freedom of action for ourselves and not others.
And, and I think that that's been a success of American liberalism and I don't buy the argument that the president American legal structure represents a degradation of our constitutional order. In fact, I think America right now is closer for when it comes to the relationship of the state, to the citizens, to what you might call a biblical model of justice, than it's been arguably in its entire history.
Now do, are the citizens of the United States as virtuous as we would like? Well, a lot of the animosity, for example, that that marks our political temperament would indicate no. A lot of the destructive behaviors, um, that have degraded the family for example, would indicate no. Other things would indicate no, but you know, one of the things, if you want to look back at America's past, ask yourself this question. Aside from being a white male Protestant, okay, when is another time in American history, when you'd rather be alive?
Let's put aside for a moment technology and we all love our I-phones, but from the standpoint of equal treatment from the law and equal opportunity in society, what is the golden age?
Compared to now.
Lee: Is that in particular, what you just pointed to what you meant earlier when you said you think that this point in American history is closer to the biblical vision of justice than any other time in our history?
David: Right.
Lee: So your, um, critiques of conservatism began, I guess, coming really to the fore in what, 2015, 2016, right?
Uh, with a, um, poke at Ann Coulter, is this kind of what begins to originally make this so significant for you?
David: Well, you know, I would say my ordeal began with a poke at Ann Coulter. Um, you know, I would always critique this, this or that thing. I remember I wrote a very, a really extended piece for Commentary Magazine back at the height of the controversy over Trayvon Martin, where I basically said, wait, hold on a second.
This, this side taking where you seem to be, you know, having no, uh, sympathy for the plight that Trayvon Martin faced and, treating the entire prosecution and investigation as if it was a hoax. That was one of my first times where I really publicly sort of saying to um, a popular trend in conservatism, you might want to pump the brakes a little bit. And I was always a very, um, I was always a consistent civil libertarian, and that I would protect the rights of people, of all faiths, and all points of view. But in 2015, when Trump began to rise, I was pretty appalled at what I was seeing. And it wasn't just sort of Trump's lack of character. It was sort of, it was the open flirtation, really open flirtation with a lot of themes and ideas that I knew to be lurking in the white nationalist underbelly of America.
And so, what happened is I believe is August 2015, Ann Coulter was tweeting some things out during a Republican presidential debate, primary debate, that were echoing the exact themes that you'd read in alt-right um, rhetoric. And, oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Was there a backlash when I did that. And that's when it sort of ripped open and I saw that dark, dark underside.
Lee: So, before you go on, what did, in particular, did you, uh, tweet or say in response to Ann Coulter?
David: It was a very short post in a, the group blog on National Review called “The Corner.” And it was essentially saying Ann Coulter tweeted this. And I can't even remember exactly what it was, something about how Israel can have a wall, but we can't, what? You know, or something along those lines. And I said, these, you may not know this, but these are themes advanced by the alt-right. What is the alt-right? Well, the alt-right is white nationalist racists. And, and that was that. And I, I posted it. Didn't think a thing about it I mean, when you, you're in my kind of world, you're always critiquing something and receiving criticism. I mean, it's just part of it all. And, um, I mean, I would say within minutes I saw the first image of my youngest daughter photo-shopped into a gas chamber with a photo-shopped picture of Donald Trump in an SS uniform, pressing the gas button.
My wife's blog at Patheos was filled. The comment section was suddenly filled with images of dead and dying African-Americans I mean, gruesome stuff.
Um, pictures of my daughter photo-shopped into slave fields, um, it was horrible. It was horrible. And that was the beginning of an unbelievable ordeal that sort of continued off and on ever since then.
With threats with acts of cyber harassment, attempted intimidation, doxing, um.
Lee: Doxing?
David: Doxing is when somebody finds your personal information and posts it online. So white nationalists have doxed us, posted our personal information, which has then been used for cyber harassment campaigns.
And, um, so that really launched, I saw all of that happen and it was stunning. I mean, it was stunning. One of my responses to, it really was to feel shame because I had heard, you know, I had sat and I had listened to, you know, black friends describe acts of racism, directed against them.
And it all felt distant. You know, it felt distant. That's a shame. I'm sorry that happened. Um, and then all of a sudden, it's directed at your own daughter in this just brutal gruesome way. And then it just is, it just, it makes it all so personal. I said this, I was on a TV hit some time ago.
And I, I basically said, hey, look, don't be like me. Don't be like me where it takes it coming into your own the, the hatred directed at your own family before you wake up.
Listen to the testimony of others and respond to the testimony of others. I mean, evangelicals should be, we grew up listening to testimonies. Hear the testimony of others and believe the testimony of others and, and react and respond accordingly.
And, and I had heard the testimony of others, but it hadn't hit in the heart. And, in the same way, of course, that, that kind of you know, avalanche of hate directed. And, you know, my youngest at the time was seven years old.
What had she ever done to anybody? And, and then the other thing that might've been, in some ways, even more disturbing, you know, that's a kind of a big thing to say, but in some ways, quite a very disturbing for other reasons was the reaction of people to this.
So close friends of mine were stricken. We can't believe this is happening. What do you need? Do you need to, you know, stay at our house for a while, while things cool down? You know, but you get one step removed and immediately the concern was don't let that hurt your support for Trump. The immediate concern was not what was my family experiencing, but would it change or influence the way I thought about Donald Trump?
And so, on the one hand, you can say, sure, those, that little nest of vipers that we stirred up is small, but on the other hand, where really are your priorities? If you hear this has happened and you're immediately defaulting to, well, don't make a big deal about it, don't make a big stink about it.
Lee: Yeah. What, what did, what was that like for you just in learning to process that kind of public attack?
David: Uh, when I, when I learn how to process it, we'll have to do another podcast.
You know, I think it just to be transparent about it, it's a work in progress. Um, because just when you think that, okay, I've got like this thick skin, another round of it will break out and you're calling the police again and they're coming by your house again. And, and you you'll reach this point. Like, I, I just can't believe this is the way things are.
And, um, and then there's another dynamic. And then there's also, aside from the really dramatic stuff. There's just waves of hatred online, just huge waves of hatred. And there's this really interesting challenge that you have, which is this. If you're somebody who's talking on in a public platform about difficult, complicated issues, you have to be open to criticism,
Lee: Right.
David: You gotta be. I mean, do I have all the answers for, you know, when I write about race issues and civil rights? Do I have all the answers there? No, I have ideas. The ideas should be exposed to scrutiny and critiqued. You have to be open to critique. I mean, this is Micah 6:8 the last of the three-pronged admonition. Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly.
Yeah. So, if you open yourself up for critique it, it can wound.
Lee: Yeah.
David: So, the temptation becomes to close yourself off.
Lee: Yeah.
David: Well, that's no good. So, the best kind of compromise that I've tried to figure out is how do you have a fixed skin to ward off the bad faith and nonsense, but an open heart to recognize legitimate critique that's a very difficult thing to achieve.
Lee: Any particular, specifics of how you've figured out, how to at least experiment with that, how to, how to ward off the, bad faith, critiques, bad faith criticism, but hear people who are trying to make a legit critique?
David: Yeah. Well, you know, a lot of it is, uh, uh, you learn, you learn who is good faith and thoughtful, and you learn who is bad faith and nasty.
And, and sometimes that the identity of the, you know, somebody you thought was good faith and thoughtful turns out to be, you know, things change they radicalize whatever. Um, but a lot of it is just sort of this trial and error.
And, uh, so for example, um, I wrote uh, I wrote a piece about that was titled was something along the lines of “A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation.”
And Ross Douthat wrote from the New York Times wrote on his own sub stack, a pretty lengthy critique. Ross is a good guy. Ross is a smart guy. Um, Ross is a kind man. If Ross has a problem with what I wrote, I want to read it and listen to it and respond to it. Yeah.
There are a lot of other people who don't meet…
And I also have to realize that there are people who can be nasty and correct at the same time. So, I'll read a critique, even if it's nasty, but as I, if I know it's vicious and personal, you kind of disengage a little bit of yourself as you read it.
Lee: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Um, how have you handled this with your, with your family and or with your daughter?
David: Well, you know, um, with the oldest kids, they knew what was going on as soon as it started. And so, you know, sadly they've had to become aware of some of their own surroundings and they, we kind of walked through it all with them. Um, cause they were definitely old enough, you know. My youngest, it's the best way to put it is you just introduced the reality kind of step by painful step because, um, you don't just tell somebody all of this started in 2015 when she’s seven. You don't call in a seven-year old, and say, you know?
So, it's again, that's a work in progress as well.
Lee: You're listening to Tokens: public theology, human flourishing, and the good life. We’re most grateful to have you joining us.
Please go over to tokensshow.com, and sign up for our email list, or get info about how to join us for a live event. Again, that's tokensshow.com.
Or you can contact us by emailing podcast@tokensshow.com.
This is our interview with David French. Coming up, we'll hear about the admixing of Christian nationalism and the political Right, as well as what it might look like to approach politics with kindness, openminded-ness, and humility.
Part two in just a moment.
HALFWAY POINT
Lee: Welcome back to Tokens and our interview with David French.
Let's talk a little bit more about some of the things that you're especially pointing to as dangerous trends. So, a little bit more about white Christian nationalism and what you're seeing develop and how you're trying to respond to that.
David: Yeah. So, when you talk about Christian nationalism, often people will say things like I've never heard a Christian nationalist sermon in my life. And from an intellectual standpoint that, that might be correct. I don't know. But in some ways, we kind of have to define our terms in, and you know, when I think of Christian nationalism, I think of a set of sort of intellectual and theological propositions.
But more than that, I think of him in a set of emotional propositions.
And Thomas Kidd has written about this very effectively, I think. And he has talked about defining Christian nationalism is sort of a, sort of an intellectual or theological proposition that puts the American nation right smack in the middle of God's plan.
That puts the American nation as in the health of the American nation, as important to the health of the church in a very special way. A transcendent purpose for the American nation, that transcends the purpose of other nations, any other nation, all other nation, most other. So, in other words, it's an intertwining of the nation and God's plan in a profound way.
And a lot of people kind of adopt this without even realizing that that they're adopting it. Then the other one is more of the emotional, um, connection, which essentially says America is a Christian nation rooted in faith. It often rests on a kind of a fictionalized history, one that, that speaks sort of you have a, a history that sort of, imagine a nation of devout founders and devout citizens.
And, any attacks on either the idea of that history, any changes that seem to adjust the nation from the trajectory, the imagined trajectory of that, of that history, strike people in a deep, in a deep emotional place. So, when you're talking about the, say the people who storm the Capitol in January 6th. They're not reading a sort of a Christian nationalism textbook. You know, they have a very felt emotional urge, sense of emotional urgency, that ties the church and the American nation and Donald Trump, believe it or not, all together in this sort of mixed stew, that's often represented, you know, with this t-shirt that with the American flag, Jesus is my savior. Trump is my president. And you're not quite sure which one is more deeply felt.
Um, so that, and when you really drill down into a lot of the data, you know, a lot of the church right now is all about anti-woke-ism right? It's all about anti-woke-ism. But if you drill down into sort of the evangelical church, the percentage of, uh, of evangelicals who hold to some of fundamental quote unquote woke ideas only around 5%. But if you talk about the percentage of evangelicals who hold to a significant um, chunk of outright Christian nationalist ideas, it's closer to around 50%.
And so, a lot of the anti-woke-ism really is in an interesting way, feeding the real temptation because they're not tempted by woke-ism. It's feeding the real temptation, which is this Christian nationalism.
Lee: Because again, if you can be, set in a posture of antagonism towards that, then you can much more immediately be comfortable with the white Christian nationalism.
David: Completely. And you rationalize the existence of the white Christian nationalism and the solidarity and comradery of it as a necessary response, to this overwhelmingly powerful enemy force.
Lee: How do you narrate the historical currents that made that amalgamation possible at this point in history?
David: Yeah, that's a really good question. Um, I'm sure you've read Jesus and John Wayne.
Lee: Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a book written by yet another Tokens guest Kristin Du Mez. It's described as a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism.
David: I find that narrative, overall narrative, to be quite directionally, you know, I have my quibbles on here, this person that she might critique or this example that she might use, but I think it's a directional matter.
I think it's quite true. And I think she would even say that she didn't discuss the role of race, maybe as much as you could also discuss in that context.
Um, but I think when you're talking about sort of the emergence of the, the Christian conservative. White Christian evangelical political project.
A lot of it is. Uh, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna say that, for example, the pro-life movement isn't there, aren't just a giant ton of really heartfelt folks and the pro-life movement. I've been a part of the pro-life movement, my whole adult life. And I just know it's true that there are a ton of people who are just heartfelt, dedicated to a life.
But a lot of the other things that have animated, um, the political engagement of white evangelicals, you can trace much more to history and culture and sociology than you can to theology.
The greater predictor of evangelical support for Trump was the desire to limit immigration more than the desire to protect the unborn. Uh, and this is data from Ryan Burge, from Eastern Illinois University, who took a look at the intensity with which evangelicals approach issues. You know, the disproportionally Southern character of, uh, American white evangelicalism means that American white evangelicalism is disproportionately affected by the culture and history of the south, which has theological implications. Um, the grievance based mode of communication that exists within American conservative right-wing circles now, where everything is about who slighted us, who attacked us, has real echoes. And the way that it connects with Republicans has will real echoes with the shame, honor, culture that has long been the dominant culture down here in the South.
So, you can begin to sort of pull on different threads of highly, needing deeply emotional issues.
And when you pull on the thread, you don't see theology, you see sociology, or you don't see theology, you see history.
Lee: In your writing about white Christian nationalism, what do you think are the most plausible or potentially fruitful ways forward in helping debunk some of that?
David: Yeah, so, that's a very, very good question. And it's a very difficult to answer because when I went back to was the emotion of it.
Lee: Right.
David: Um, and the sense of, and it's emotion, that's not just a connection to nation. It's also a connection to community.
Lee: Right.
David: This is where your, this is where your small group is.
Lee: Yeah.
David: This is where the guys you've been going to church with for 25 years are.
Lee: That sense of loyalty.
David: So, we often think of this as an, as an intellectual project. And it's not that the intellectual arguments don't matter. They often matter a great deal once somebody is ready to be disentangled.
Um, have you heard the Jonathan Haidt, “The Elephant and the Rider” persuasion analogy?
Lee: No.
David: This is fantastic. Haidt says that essentially imagine yourself as a combination of rider and elephant. The rider is your rational mind, the rider is the one that recognizes two plus two is four, you know. The elephant is everything else.
It is your ethnicity, your family history, your geographic location, your everything, your friendships, everything. And the way he says it is…
Lee: And probably even your brainstem as well.
David: Yeah. And the way he says it is the rider can want to move. But if the elephant doesn't want to move, it's not moving.
But conversely, if the elephant wants to move the rider is coming and this kind of makes instinctual sense. I mean, in my trial lawyer days, one of the things, first things I would want to do when I was communicating to a jury or communicating to a judge, make them want to rule for my client.
And make them want it. And then they'll find the reason, you know, and that sounds kind of weird, but this really is so much of what persuasion is about. And in a weird sense, though, here's what ends up happening to us as political animals.
We often say, well, I know I'm right. And once I expose you to my facts, then you'll see the error of your ways. And if you don't, it's your problem.
Lee: Yeah.
David: We don't even understand the science of sort of polarization and partisanship and the science of it. Some of the science says that, for example, if I'm a deeply committed partisan, if you expose me to a fact that is counter to my deep commitments, I'll experience that as an attack.
And so, my, what I have told people is look, yeah, we fact check, we do fact checks at The Dispatch, but a fact check is for an open heart and mind. Um, if you've got some folks who are deeply embedded in some of these really toxic ideas, that's a relational issue far more than an it's an intellectual issue.
Lee: I guess was it, University of Michigan that did a study showing that if you expose a deeply committed partisan to competing facts, it just further entrenches them in their partisanship.
Yeah. It's a very, it's a very troubling reality, you know?
David: Well, I get emails all the time from folks who say, you know, my aunt is all into queue now, or my uncle is all into stop the steal or my whatever. And they'll say, what do we do about this? And one of the first things I respond with is how much time do you spend with them? Because what you have to understand for a lot of folks is their conspiracy is also their community. And their friendships are often contingent on their continued adherence in belief in the conspiracy or continued loyalty to the politician.
Lee: Yeah.
David: There's this really great piece that my colleague Andrew Edgar did about what are called these “Front Row Joes.”
That they're the people who were at the front row of all the Trump rallies. And it was really poignant how he described how they form these friendships and these deep, these relationships. I would say deep, but they probably weren't deep enough to survive if any, one of them stopped supporting Trump. And there's some really interesting research that shows that American men especially have a diminishing number of close friendships. And so, what we're doing is we're finding alternatives to these close friendships and factional friendships online.
And all of those are fragile. They're very contingent on us continuing to stay in the faction.
Lee: Sohrab Ahmari, op editor for the New York Post had a, uh, which I take was fairly widely read article in First Things entitled “Against David French-ism.”
It's impressive when you're, you know, your, your name becomes a, uh, yeah.
David: It’s a double-edged sword I would have to say.
Lee: Well, and it was fascinating because he, you know, he, he starts out talking about how nice you are, but then, um.
David: My wife was, like, we now know he doesn’t actually know you very well.
Lee: But he, but he, then he goes on into use that as a way of saying, but this is my problem I have with him.
So that, as I understand what he's getting at, I've got a quote here. He says, “French prefers a different Christian strategy. One with which I take issue, such talk that met his, his talk of politics as war and enmity is thoroughly alien to French, I think because he believes that the institutions of a technocratic market society or neutral zones that should in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the Libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side.” So, so he goes on, I think, to kind of picture you as arguing for a sort of naive pluralism, perhaps. Um, so is that, that what you hear him saying and what, what do you do with that?
David: There was two, there were two components, or a couple of components of this. One is, first politics is war and enmity, as you just said. Since it is worn enmity, um, for traditional virtues, like kindness or decency our second order values at best, or sometimes actual impediments. And that part of the problem, or much of the problem is American classical liberalism itself.
So, you had kind of a, a mixture of a tactical critique with a giant substantive critique of liberalism. Ifyou’re going to, what is David French-ism in his mind? David French-ism is the defense of American classical liberalism through decency. And, and as much as, you know, fallen people can do it kindness as well.
And, and so I'll take that. I'll, I'll take that. And, and, so, you know, you know, part of my problem, as I explained in a lengthy rebuttal to this is we can't view politics as war and enmity. I remember, you know, there was a time and I've written about this extensively where I had an embarrassing degree of partisanship in hindsight, and it was this bad, Lee.
I was giving a speech to a red meat, conservative, crowd. And somebody was saying, you know, you're doing great work at home here defending free speech. Why would you go to Iraq? This is before I, right before I deployed to Iraq and I was a reserve officer and then deployed, uh, when in active duty and deployed. And I said this with just you know, crowd-pleasing.
I believe the two great threats to America are radical leftists at home and Jihadists abroad.
And I feel called to fight them both. And I, yay, everybody cheers.
And so, then I go to Iraq and I see what war actually is. And I felt profoundly embarrassed that those words escaped my mouth. Profoundly embarrassed. So here I am.
I'm a guy who went to law school in Cambridge, Massachusetts at a far left institution, had three of the best years of my life.
Now, I had lots of conflicts, ideological conflicts with classmates, but also made friendships that have lasted, including with folks on the left, that have lasted a lifetime. My Son was born in Ithaca, New York when I was teaching at Cornell Law School. I think at that time was the only city in America with a socialist mayor.
We had a good life. You went to church every Sunday and yeah, I disagreed with a lot of the policies there. And I disagreed with a lot of aspects of the culture in Ithaca, but by golly, we had a good life. I could have zero life at all in the villages south of Balad, Iraq. I would have had my head separated from my shoulders almost instantly if I was trying to just go down there and live. And I saw atrocities, like you can't even imagine. And I had actually said those words. So, I came back from Iraq, zigging away from partisanship while it seems like the rest of the country was zagging towards it in an ever escalating manner.
So, I've seen, uh, you know, I'm not, I I've seen what war is. And it ain't a tweet battle, you know, it isn't competing op-eds, it's not winning or losing an election or winning or losing a court case, even though those things are all important. So, the war and enmity point, I just think is, is dangerously wrong.
The more you tell some people, something's war, the more they're apt to act like something's war. Then the other thing about the kindness and decency.
I don’t know where a Christian makes that argument, that that's their second order of contingent values.
Uh, love your enemies. Bless those who persecute you. What are the fruits of the spirit? Um, you know, and we have to remember that those commands were issued at a time where if, if you want to argue evangelicals that are embattled now, try making that argument to a first century Christian.
Lee: Hmm, yeah.
David: They would look at you and say, wait a minute.
You're the most powerful faction of one of the two political parties, white evangelicals. The most powerful faction of one of the two most powerful political parties in the world in the most powerful nation in the world, possessing untold sums of wealth. And you think that world's about to end, what are you talking about?
My cousin was fed to a lion last week, you know.
And so, so in, even in that environment, you know, and you hear things like Paul saying, um, you do not have a spirit of fear in that environment, but of power and love and of sound mind. And so, these are not contingent or second order. They're primary commands. We're violating commands of scripture if we're not abiding by them.
And they're hard and I don't, I don't do it perfectly. And then the last thing is, I mean, we've already talked a lot about classical liberalism, so we don't need to rehash all of that, but I think, you know, what you're talking about is a movement that rejects classical liberalism embraces pugilism and, and often in quite concrete ways is, is extraordinarily nasty and vicious towards those who disagree.
Lee: So, as we kind of come to a close here, a two-part question. One, what are ways in which you keep feeding yourself? How do you not fall prey yourself to the sort of reactionary fight back?
And then second, who are people, and it might be nice if you, if you point to people both on the American left and the American right, that you feel are good, moral exemplars of people who are doing this well?
David: Yeah, that's a really good question. Um, so how do I not fall prey to it? One is, um, just super practical. I don't marinade all day in, in politics in these fights. My best, best friends, you know, a bunch of them from Lipscomb. Um, they're not political guys, you know, so when I'm interacting with my, my closest friends, we're not interacting about politics.
I mean, rarely at all. Um, my entertainment is not politics focused. I, I really, um, you know, one of the things that I think is a real problem is that politics is sort of taken the place of religion in people's lives.
And, so, I'm very cognizant of that as a challenge. And I don't want politics and political and cultural or engagement to become an idol. And in one of the ways it becomes an idol is when it just sort of de facto by consuming your life. So, I really, I really don't want that to be everything that I do in am.
Um, so that’s very important to me. Uh, the other thing is, you know, I'm surrounded by cautionary tales. Because all around me, uh, you see people who are, who are giving in to that spirit of fear and rage and anger and hatred, and it leads nowhere good. So, I, on the one hand, I have people who love me, no matter if I was Republican or Democrat. On the other hand, I'm surrounded by sort of these cautionary tales of people who are really indulging in that spirit of contention.
And it just doesn't lead anywhere good. So that's just kind of super practical.
Um, and then I'm, you know, I'm also grounded by some of the folks that I read. There's a lot of folks on the, the left and the right that I appreciate the way they engage. So, a guy I always read is Ezra Klein. I've been on his podcast a couple times. I disagree with him a ton, but he approaches many issues in good faith with a really sharp mind, and an openness to engage. Um, a person I read everything she writes as Elizabeth Bruenig, um, was at The New York Times, now at The Atlantic. We disagree on a lot. I mean, she's a heck of a lot more socialist than I am.
Um, but this is a person who is putting Christ front and center in her life in a, an incredibly thoughtfulway.
And what that looks like is similar and different from me in really interesting and challenging ways.
And then, you know, just free-thinking people, like, one who's just writes beautifully and leans left of center, Katelyn Flanagan, uh, also at The Atlantic, just a brilliant writer. Always provocative and challenging.
Lee: Yeah, we've been talking to David French, American political commentator senior editor of The Dispatch contributing writer for The Atlantic.
David. Thanks so much for your time.
David: Well, thanks for having me. It's been a treat.
Lee: It's great to have you. Thanks so much.
Lee Camp: You've been listening to Tokens: public theology, human flourishing, the good life.
If you'd like to hear more on issues related to this episode, you can get a competing account of classical political liberalism in our episode with Patrick Deneen, entitled The Failure of Liberalism. And if you'd like to hear an account of the ways in which white supremacy played a role in the rise of the religious right in the U.S., check out our episode with Randall Balmer. David also mentioned Kristi DuMez's book Jesus and John Wayne, and if you haven't heard the Tokens episode with Kristin, you might check it out--one of our most listened to and discussed episodes.
Remember you can subscribe to our podcast on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.
Got feedback? We'd love to hear from you. Email us text or attach a voice memo, and send to the address podcast@tokensshow.com.
Our thanks to all the stellar team that makes this podcast possible. Executive producer and manager, Christie Bragg, Jakob Lewis, Ashley Bayne, Tom Anderson. Cariad Harmon. Music beds by Zach and Maggie White, and Blue Dot Sessions. Special thanks to Jeremy Bayne for studio engineering for this episode.
Thanks for listening, and peace be unto thee.
The Tokens podcast is a production of Tokens Media, LLC and Great Feeling Studios.