In his response to , criticizes Trump as “A man who proudly hangs a Playboy cover on the wall of his office.” It’s strange to hear this criticism coming from French, who proudly watches an explicit TV series, Game of Thrones.
There are radicals who would like to stamp out Christian liberty. But the Valyrian steel that stops the cultural white walker is pluralism buttressed by classical liberalism, not Christian statism. (Analogy makes sense in the piece)
I’m still catching up on this debate, but I’ll note how depressing it is that ’s last two paragraphs would have been viewed as boilerplate twenty years ago and must now be viewed as mildly heroic.
When he took on "David Frenchism," concocted a fictional me and a fictional Trump -- as part of what is essentially a Christian statist attack on small-L liberalism. Here's my response in full
My heavens, this is exceptional. It's as convincing, charitable, and ably written an argument as I've read in some time. is an invaluable asset to conservatism, full stop.
What I appreciate most about 's response to the Ahmari attack is his explanation that Ahmari flipped out over Americans engaging in—GASP—free speech and association. Does Ahmari wish to repeal the First Amendment? What is the ask here?
What an article by . I disagree with almost every political position he holds, yet admire his writing and commitment to dialogue and freedom. If French-ism is indeed thing, I wish more people adhered to it.
I have been following this debate closely and this an excellent retort by ⁦
"There is no political “emergency” that justifies abandoning classical liberalism, and there will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth."
A fine piece by that goes far beyond the particulars of the recent silly criticism of him. Read the whole thing.
"The government [should be] primarily responsible for safeguarding liberty, and the people primarily responsible for exercising that liberty for virtuous purposes." FWIW, I used to like the formulation "the politics of liberty and the sociology of virtue."
Re-upping this today. I want more people to read this piece. It’s not just a wonderful self-defense; it’s a wonderful manifesto.
In which comes out swinging for conservative liberalism. If Domenech and Ahmari see the illiberal left as White Walkers, their place in that metaphor isn’t exactly flattering to their position.
If one rejects kindness because the stakes are so high and our opponents allegedly so terrible, he’s apt to find that there is no inherent power in cruelty.
Did not think it possible for my admiration of to grow but here we are.
It’s rare to see a debate in which one side completely crushes the other but it happened here. Why somebody as smart as Ahmari took the Paul Weyrich side in the right’s oldest, stupidest debate is beyond me.
At least read the last three paragraphs here from ⁦⁩. We’d all be better citizens that contribute to a stronger country if we took that to heart.
I’m confident I disagree with on many issues, but this is a great essay. And the closer is a strong retort to armchair Carl Schmitts who like to talk about politics as war with little regard for what that really entails.
I’ve made a point of saying that I admire much that does, so I hope he’ll forgive me for noting something that grates: the suggestion here that is a bad Christian who does not love his enemies.
God bless David French: “But I also won’t turn my back on the truths of scripture. I won’t stop seeking justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly. There... will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth.”
This essay is as thoughtful, cogent, compelling, and above all charitable as I’ve come to always expect from . His response to
If I had a podcast or a debate series (; ; ) I'd be putting together a longer form conversation between and . Here is David's powerful response to Sohrab
I am routinely, even dismissively, critical of the“fusionist” idea of welding together conservatism & classical liberalism. I want to acknowledge that this very honorable essay, while about other things, makes a powerful pro-fusionist case.
delivers a "blunt truth" in this piece that makes it more than just a self-defense to the attacks on him that he so ably dismantles. It contains an impt lesson for our democracy
Here, responds thoughtfully and confidently to the bizarre attack on him from various quarters of the right, and provides a reminder of what a better conservatism once looked like. I was heartened by reading this.
This, by , is quite honestly one of the best things I’ve ever read.
Here’s the actual me. Here’s the real “Frenchism”
Beautifully stated without arrogance or pique. What Sohrab Ahmari Gets Wrong
I’m Pro-Frenchism. An excellent and important essay by
This response from is excellent. I study the psychology of meaning and I think individualism creates challenges to meaning but I agree with David and I reject authoritarian solutions on both the left and right. Plus, they won't work.
Immensely important debate ---> What Sohrab Ahmari Gets Wrong
In the recently declared war by #Ahmarists against #Frenchists, I’m fully and unreservedly on the side of the attacked party.