The past several months have been nothing short of amusing for those of us on the right side of the aisle. With each passing day, the fragmentation afflicting the Democrat party becomes more apparent, the sheer absurdity of their policy proposals becomes more impossible to ignore, and the apparent race to the left in which most remaining presidential candidates appear to be engaged amplifies the case for their un-electability. The Democrat party and progressive movement more broadly are suffering from severe disintegration, and with it, a growing ineffectiveness of their ambitions, uncertainty of their values, and crisis of their identity. As gratifying as the self-destructive ‘let’s decriminalize illegal border crossings’ and ‘partial birth abortion is a human right’ talk has become, conservatives ought not lose sight of their own movement and the frictions it faces.
Our movement faces one key contention that has yet to be fully reconciled and carries along with it significant implications for our future. This dispute can best be recapitulated by last spring’s quarrel between Sohrab Ahmari of the New York Post and David French, senior writer at the National Review.
In his conspicuously titled May 2019 First Things piece “Against David French-ism,” Sohrab Ahmari, op-ed editor of the New York Post, tirades against what he calls “David French-ism,” or the “earnest and insistently polite quality” that he finds “unsuitable to the depth of the present crisis facing religious conservatives.” Prompted into writing the piece by an online advertisement for a “children’s drag queen reading hour” at a public library in Sacramento, Ahamri contends that figures like French have resorted to excessive politeness and disproportionate civility when engaging in cultural and political battles – a strategy that has left the conservative movement weakened, frail, and subordinate to the ever-growing cultural prowess of the progressive left. Ahmari argues that such “politeness” is wholly insufficient in combatting the bully-like tactics of the modern left and in achieving his own ultimate political objective, which is to “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” ‘David French-ism’ purportedly prioritizes individual autonomy above all else, which Ahmari claims has led to a self-exacerbating cycle of powerlessness for conservatives. French’s so-called inclinations towards “sentimentalization” and his “idle wish that all men become moral” amount to what Ahmari describes as “an almost supernatural faith in something called ‘culture’—deemed to be neutral and apolitical and impervious to policy—to solve everything.”
Unrestricted faith in individual autonomy – something Ahmari implies to be a byproduct of French’s classical liberalism – will inevitably lead to libertinism, in which cultural values are gradually “depoliticized” and become engrained in the social fabric that is already dominated by progressive ideas. Ahmari goes as far as to imply that government intervention might be necessary to prevent the spread of this “depoliticized politics” and the demise of conservative values. “Progressives,” he concludes,
understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.
French punched back the following day with an adamant defense of his brand of conservatism and classical liberal values: the “two main components” of his worldview, he writes, are “zealous defense of the classical-liberal order” and “zealous advocacy of fundamentally Christian and Burkean conservative principles.” Conservatives’ defense of such values should “be conducted in accordance with scriptural admonitions to love your enemies, to bless those who persecute you,” and being “kind to everyone,” regardless of how hostile or otherwise antagonistic our adversaries may be. French maintains that “America will always be a nation of competing worldviews and competing, deeply held values” and defends “neutral spaces” as essential for American life. “There is no political ‘emergency,’” he concludes, “that justifies abandoning classical liberalism, and there will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth.”
This quarrel is representative of a growing intellectual gap that seems to be taking shape on the right, and presents a crucial set of questions we cannot simply set aside – even in spite of the minor rifts it has afflicted onto our movement. While both Ahmari and French present insightful, well-considered, and valuable ideas and approaches, the best solution lies, as with much else this world, somewhere in the middle.
French’s political objective is, plain and simple, the correct one. Should we ever opt to forsake our classical liberal tradition in favor of a centralized, quasi-theocratic government that aims to “weaken” and “destroy” any institutions and ideas that conservatives don’t like, we would be annihilating the very premises Ahmari defends and the very foundations upon which the conservative movement rests. If conservatives aren’t fighting tooth and nail for a pluralistic society that treasures liberty and cherishes each and every man’s right to speak freely, no matter how egregious their ideas might be, we may as well not be fighting for anything at all.
Moreover, “civility and decency” should never become “secondary values,” and Ahmari’s suggestion that they ought to be overtly contradicts his self-described objective of reaching the religiously affiliated “Highest Good.” As French correctly observes, our political opponents are our fellow citizens. We can’t preserve Christian values and bolster Christianity’s role in society by discarding fundamental Christian behavior; a God-centered culture cannot be cultivated through godless character and un-Christlike conduct.
What French fails to understand, however, is that the American moral consensus that once permitted truly “neutral” cultural zones has been utterly obliterated. It has collapsed on its head, and its remnants are, day by day, being eradicated in similar fashion. We no longer live in an America that recognizes the value of a pluralistic society concerned with the virtues of classical liberalism. That America has been discreetly but forcefully replaced by a progressive cultural tyranny that does, in fact, set out to “weaken” and “destroy” conservative ideas, institutions, and individuals. The ‘French-ian’ conception of America simply no longer exists, and it is naïve and counterproductive to pretend that we are operating within the same cultural framework as in decades past.
The American people no longer share the unity of purpose and commonality of vision they once did, which has bred the divisive, relativistic, and purposeless culture in which we are currently trapped. As John Adams famously wrote, the Constitution of the United States “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” An August 2019 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that values such as patriotism, religion, and belief in God – which were once prized as the most important ideals by the vast majority of Americans – have become not only secondary, but also growing sources of division. The United States, broadly speaking, is no longer a nation of “moral and religious people.” The ‘French-ian’ tactics of persistent politeness and anti-confrontational conduct were perfectly fitting for most of our nation’s history, to be sure, and up until recent years, they were the only truly acceptable ways of engaging in political dialogue. But the progressive left has fundamentally changed the terms of our debates; they have aggressively and uncompromisingly imposed their own cultural will onto the American social fabric with an unforeseen intensity. The left has already broken the rules. Coerciveness has already come into play.
One need not look further than Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process to comprehend just how far the progressive movement is willing to go to, as Ahmari accurately notes, to “destroy” anything or anyone that stands in its path. Cruelty and callousness cannot be responded to with an unwillingness to be combative and confrontational. Kindness, though always valuable, cannot suffice alone. Radical progressivism cannot be adequately fought with tameness and complicit agreeability, and if these are our only sources of ammunition, our failure is already imminent.
French is correct in his assessment that culture is the only proper medium through which conservatives should fight back against the ever-tightening clutches of progressivism, but in order to engage in the culture war, we have no choice but to acknowledge that a culture war exists – something French seems unable or unwilling to do. Nothing is “neutral” anymore, and if we intend to restore some sense of cultural neutrality and reestablish a faith in pluralism, we cannot merely stand on the sidelines preaching the virtues of “decency” while we idly watch our country and our values being violently dismantled and decimated.
Luckily for the conservative movement, no one in politics is better suited to take on the challenges we currently face than President Trump. The President is a perfect avatar of a brand of conservatism that is in-your-face yet far from repressive, bold yet not imprudent, and unafraid yet not unrestrained. He stands his ground, never backs down, and refuses to be silenced or intimidated by incessant (and typically outlandish) attacks from Democrats and those in the media. In fact, the President’s election can (and should) be understood as a direct consequence of the failures that the ‘French-ian’ approach has yielded over the last two decades.
No two politicians embody the tenets of ‘French-ism’ more impeccably than Senators John McCain and Mitt Romney. With unblemished characters, untarnished personal histories, calm and composed campaigns, and well-mannered demeanors, no one in good faith could question either man’s integrity, fitness for office, or ability to lead our nation. A case could be made, in fact, that McCain and Romney represented two of the most honorable and morally upright men in American politics. Nonetheless, Democrats jumped at the chance to disparage McCain as an unfit, war-mongering bigot and Romney as a vicious racist and sexist who sought to objectify women and, in the words of former Vice President Joe Biden, put African Americans “back in chains.” Each candidate held steadily true to the creed of ‘French-ism.’ Rather than hitting back and holding their own in Trumpian fashion, they continued their campaigns with their attacks uncontested, their demeanors unruffled, and unsurprisingly, their presidential bids unsuccessful. When we concede our cause to figures like John McCain and Mitt Romney in the current political environment – their respectability of character notwithstanding – we lose, and we lose soundly.
In the age of woke progressivism and search-and-destroy political techniques, ‘David French-ism’ is a recipe for failure, and in November 2016, the American people finally had enough. Ahmari writes the following of Trump’s election: “With a kind of animal instinct, Trump understood what was missing from mainstream (more or less French-ian) conservatism. His instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion.” In short, President Trump has become necessary because the left does not play fair, and no one else in politics possesses the sheer audacity to withstand the influx of unsubstantiated cries of ‘racism’ and the orthodoxy of contemporary left-wing politics. As Thomas D. Klingenstein wrote in a May 2019 Claremont Review piece, President Trump’s “unequivocal defense of America’s way of life is nothing less than extraordinary.” “Even on the Right,” he continues, “he is virtually alone in making the arguments.” Conservatives are blessed to have someone in office who fights for our cause without timidity, without remorse, and without backing down.
Conservatives must not be complacent and we must never waver. Though we should never lose sight of civility and graciousness when we interact with our political foes, proper engagement in the culture wars requires some semblance of a backbone and some willingness to stand up for what we know to be the most superior vision for America and all of its citizens. All of this is achievable without discounting civility, relying on government coercion, or adopting the left’s bad-faith strategies for ourselves. We are better than that, and we owe it to our movement, to our country, and to our fellow citizens to approach this important episode in our nation’s history with fearlessness and fortitude, but in a way that doesn’t nullify the values we preach and hold dear.
We must not underestimate the power of words or undervalue our capacity to change hearts and change minds. The art of persuasion and the free exchange of ideas are cornerstones of American democracy, and even in these politically turbulent times, they ought not be forsaken. Winning our neighbors over to our point of view is not within the threshold of the federal government. Rather, that charge lies with each and every one of us. That charge is our duty as human beings, as Americans, and even on this campus as Crusaders. That charge, in fact, is the very foundation of this publication, and it is my hope that we continue to advocate for our ideas and our worldview in a way that is combative but caring, fierce but friendly, and daring but diplomatic. The truth is on our side. Let’s do right by it.