You’ll be shocked to learn that David French has written a piece targeting white Evangelicals for voting for people of ‘bad character’. The new twist on this fresh French offering appears to be the article’s featured photo of the bad character black man the character-ignoring white Evangelicals are soon going to vote for.
Okay, you’re not surprised at all. This is what David French does. He casts voters, mostly Christian, as villains so the Left can cite his work and say ‘even conservative writer, David French, is opposed to’ whatever GOP politician they need to defeat on any given day.
David French serves as the ‘conservative’ mouthpiece of the Gutter Left.
Bad policy can be extraordinarily consequential, our current political dysfunctions are mainly due to bad character. And if you vote for bad character to stop bad policy, you’re making the sickness worse: https://t.co/f80A4EVn5d
— David French (@DavidAFrench) November 4, 2022
Evangelicals often have two choices in an election: Refuse to vote for morally flawed candidates or vote for a morally flawed candidate in support of desired policy.
They are both, in the opinion of this editor, morally acceptable positions. If you choose the latter, however, David French will embroider a target on your back faster than Joe Biden can sniff out a waffle cone in a Baskin Robbins.
https://twitter.com/Mellecon/status/1588658613249531904?s=20&t=3Kei1QknDAGBaOo3sf9zcw
This is the fundamental problem many have with French’s never-ending drumbeat against Evangelicals. Those of us who weigh the moral decision presented above and choose the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach surely view it as the more moral choice, or we wouldn’t have chosen it.
The David French approach from this position would be to pen eleventy hundred articles calling into question the Christian authenticity of those who refused to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is clearly no better than voting for the greater evil.
That would, of course, be a bad faith treatment of their position, and we should resist the temptation to do so – a grace that French never extends to those who view the dilemma differently than him.
No, policy has had a much worse effect on us than character. And it’s not even close.
— Pudge (@pudgenet) November 4, 2022
According to French, ‘our current political dysfunctions are mainly due to bad character’. He rightly describes the problem but fails to identify its cause.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as racists.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as bitter clingers.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as Nazis.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as deplorables.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as grandma killers.
People of bad character describe their political opponents as fascists.
This problem predates Trump by decades, and yes, it’s driven much of the dysfunction we have today in our politics.
So, yes, for many of us, voting for a flawed candidate in support of good policy, against a flawed candidate who supports bad policy, is a perfectly moral choice.
"We have to let Democrats codify Roe v Wade into federal law because of unproven allegations Democrats have made against Republican candidates!"
– David French, the only true Christian conservative in the country
— InTheRightColumn (@TheRightColumn) November 4, 2022
Those policy positions also cannot be viewed as a secondary issue after the candidates characters are assessed. Character and policy are inseparable, even if the character that drove the policy does not match the candidate selected to represent it.
Pro-abortion policy did not materialize out of the ether. It’s the result of great effort by low character people.
Policy that would force grade schoolers to learn about topics of sexuality or allow children to choose their gender, complete with permanent body alterations, are forged by people of bad character.
Policy that teaches a black child his success is contingent on white Democrats passing the right legislation comes from morally flawed individuals.
Max Boot already has a monopoly on writing the same article over and over again, David. Find a new niche.
— Chris (@chriswithans) November 4, 2022
So, no, David, voting for a candidate with character issues to serve a 2, 4, or 6 year term to support moral policy, corralled by a party system and electoral system that rewards politicians who stick to that policy, is hardly equivalent to surrendering one’s integrity – no matter how many times you say it.
Find me a candidate of character.
(HINT: Neither Joe Biden nor Hillary Clinton had it or have it.)
— Political Sock (@politicalsock) November 4, 2022
The final flaw in French’s argument is that there are no ‘good’ candidates.
Clearly, there is a spectrum, but French would have you believe that Evangelicals making these choices began with Trump.
Mitt Romney’s conversion to the pro-life movement occurred conspicuously about exactly the same time he decided to run for the GOP nomination. Evangelicals struggled with that. It was a character issue. Most chose to ignore it in pursuit of good policy (or against bad policy).
John McCain not only had character questions regarding his temperament but also widespread concern about his commitment to good conservative policy. Evangelicals voted for him, with hopes that he would be better for the policy they support than Barack Obama pushing policy they oppose. They were right to do so. McCain went on to ‘thumbs down’ the Obamacare repeal he campaigned on because his own character flaws in that moment found greater joy in spiting Trump than keeping his word.
Remember when you wrote about the people against lockdowns having bad character, then a year later you wrote about the mental health crisis in kids?
— Amphibious Rodent (@inthecitylimits) November 4, 2022
Yes, character matters, but bad policy from people of low character matters too. It’s not wrong to oppose that.
Republicans tried candidates based on their character, and they got sellouts who would compromise on their compromise after their compromise.
As for Democrats? They have politicians who call for violence, openly sell access, and even leave people to die.
It's a 50/50 country.
— ((DarkTechObserver)) (@DarkTechMonitor) November 5, 2022
One of the dangers of pretending that conservatives are suddenly, just now, voting for people of ‘bad character’ is that it excuses the poor character of the candidate choices GOP voters were offered in the past.
Why was Donald Trump, off all people, the most pro-life president, on paper (if not necessarily in his heart), of our lifetimes? Partly because he, bad character flaws and all, upheld and promoted the good policy of the pro-life position. But that is only part of the story. The reason Trump had the opportunity was because Republicans of ‘good character’ did not push the good and moral policy issue of life as fervently as Donald Trump. A once long-time favorite ‘pro-life’ president of this editor, George W. Bush, failed to utter a single word when Roe v. Wade fell.
Some would call that bad character.
Policy is character. If you favor abortion without legal limits, or the legal right to chemically and later physically castrate minors, that’s reflective of an odious character, and it vastly exceeds in odiousness questioning election results or firing off salvos on social media. https://t.co/MfdXxwy41o
— D.E. (@tkdylan) November 4, 2022
Inevitably, the GOP will eventually give us a candidate that David approves of again. Questions will be raised about their character. Conservatives and even white Evangelicals will line up to vote for them anyway because ‘they’re better than the Democrat’, and David French will write about the ‘Evangelical return to morality’ – until the next time we disappoint him.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member