Common Good Conservatism Has a Trump Problem

It’s hard to sell arguments on family stability and social cohesion when you support a thrice-married adulterer who seeks only to “own the libs.”

By
38

Today’s newsletter combines the serious with the silly. Or, perhaps better stated, it’s going to relieve the seriousness with a bit of fun.. I’m going to begin by talking about a question that’s been bothering me a great deal in the debates about “common good conservatism”: Do statist conservatives who seek to foster public morals through force of law not realize the message they send with their simultaneous support of Donald Trump? Also, I think it’s finally time to (briefly) explain why DC is better than Marvel. Today’s French Press:

  1. A porn president is a poor vehicle for an anti-porn crusade.

  1. “The gods walk among us,” or why DC movies are just better (most of them anyway).

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
38
By
Comments (38)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Hudson Barton

    I don't have a problem with voting for Trump as the "lesser of evils". I will do so myself in all probability, but not without first making sure that my neighbor fully understands that I am not voting with a blind eye to his moral deficiencies.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Isaac P

    David, I respect your opinion regarding DC movies, but you have to admit they left a lot to be desired in rolling things out.

    My friend Justin wrote a great piece analyzing the way DC could have rolled things out to create a more compelling universe. And still had great movies along the way.

    http://www.justinkownacki.com/how-dc-should-have-built-their-movie-universe/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      Interesting! I'll read. I think they've kind of stumbled into the proper formula -- don't try to imitate Marvel, but double-down on the compelling individual characters (Marvel just doesn't have a villain like Joker or a hero like Batman).

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    WKDawson

    Yes, as a fellow Christian, I see that it is leaving a very ill impression about Jesus when the non-believers see believers defending the indefensible of Trump's actions. They reject Jesus and everything about church outright. "No thank you!" For those of us who struggle to bring the Gospel by prayer, by our actions, and most of all by His Grace, this has been a disaster. It has always been a very difficult task, one soul at a time and only rarely. Yet by His Grace, sometimes it does happen. Their hearts turn. Now, the offensiveness makes this only far more impossible. They may see God working in us, but they reject the message because of the ugliness and hypocricy of the right.

    As Paul write in Romans 2:24 'For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”' The world sees. They see and they know right from wrong too. Not only does such action send many onto the highway to hell, it even offers them a ride!

    Collapse
  4. Collin Saunders

    I also appreciate your brave attempt at defending DC movies, but you’re wrong. Marvel movies DO lean in with an emotional impact. You’re telling me Killmonger’s past in Black Panther didn’t move you??? Also, I remember all of the marvel villains and forget the DC villains (except General Zod and Lex Luther).

    I understand you might have legal problems with schools not playing student athletes, but NCAA basketball is FAR superior to the NBA.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      The better Marvel movies lean in more. That's why the Captain America arc is so compelling. That's why Black Panther stood out from the crowd. But they still don't have anything quite like the best of DC. The Dark Knight trilogy? Joker? They're a breed apart.

      Collapse
      1. Collin Saunders

        Okay, that makes sense. And yeah, there’s no question the Dark Knight Trilogy is more compelling than any of the marvel movies. I haven’t seen the Joker movie yet.

        Collapse
    2. Collin Saunders

      *paying

      Collapse
  5. Collin Saunders

    Mr. French, you give a voice to small-town social conservatives like me who still doesn’t understand why my pastors vote for Trump. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      Thanks for the kind words. Interestingly, I hear from a number of pastors -- they sympathize with me but feel they can't say so publicly without igniting a firestorm in their congregations.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    While I am in no way denying that there are problems with how people behave on the left, it absolutely boggles my mind how social conservatives can embrace this president. I'm sorry, but it just comes off like the right is trading values for power, which isn't a good look if you want moderates like me to vote for you. It's hard to seriously consider a conservative point of view when it won't challenge such an obviously morally corrupt person.

    A common rationale I hear people on the right make to defend President Trump is that everyone makes mistakes and God asks us to forgive those who sin. I'm a Christian and am all for forgiving people like Jesus tells us to, but he doesn't tell us we have to vote for them after we forgive them.

    Thank you for being a dissenting voice, Mr French. I enjoyed half of this letter. You're just wrong about D.C. being better than Marvel.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      td12212

      Also people who sin are supposed to learn from their sons once the error of their ways is pointed out. Not so with Trump. He just keeps on sinning. That makes me want to run away from all things Trump which now is the GOP.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Richard Dinkins

    You and Jonah Goldberg have written often about why support of Donald Trump is incongruent with Judeo-Christian values. I am waiting for a thoughtful essay that describes the positive side of your argument, i.e., what is the positive political behavior of someone (a non-politician) who holds such values and yet refuses to support Trump. I as a person with those values cannot support any of the Democrat politicians (I believe they AND their policies are highly immoral, though their immorality typically takes a different form). I do, however, support many, though not all, of Trump’s policies. So positive action and behavior: What does one do in the voting booth November, 2020? What does one do with one’s political donations? What other positive political behaviors would such a person engage in during a Presidential election? What does one who regularly attends primary caucuses advocate during the discussion of presidential candidates in 2020? If you and/or Jonah have already written such an essay, then a link to it would be sufficient. Thanks!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      Hi Richard, when the election gets closer, I'm going to write a piece that more fully describes the way I approach the voting booth. But the short answer is that I believe one of the best ways to clean up politics is stop voting for corrupt people, even when we're afraid of the alternative. I impose a two-part test for candidates, and they have to pass both parts. With the understanding that no one is perfect, do they 1) generally share my political values? and 2) maintain a level of personal character that the office should demand? I have higher character tests the more prominent the office. Flunk either prong of the test, and I write in someone who passes the test or I just leave that ballot line blank. Going on strike in any given race is a perfectly acceptable alternative!

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Jenny

      I have a question for you, Richard. Is there anything that the Democrats stand for that you can agree with? I'm not suggesting you give up your values and start voting for Democrats, but isn't there something they believe that isn't horrible?

      Part of the reason I started reading The Dispatch is because I want to find conservative ideas that I can support--or at least understand better. I don't want to continuously vote for Democrats because I'm voting against Republicans. Voting exclusively for one party makes me feel like I've been had.

      Pardon me if this is too direct, but part of what intrigues me about this site is being able to exchange ideas with people who likely see the world differently.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Richard Dinkins

        To answer your question first, there is very little Democrats stand for that I can agree with. Abortion? No. Medicare for all (or some variation thereof)? No. But Mr. French’s essay is about values, not policies. He’s questioning whether people with traditional Judeo-Christian can support Trump and do so with integrity. So this is about Democrat’s values. They are willing to destroy a man’s life and family (Kavanaugh) to win. Nancy Pelosi says she can’t hate anyone because she’s a Catholic. But as a Catholic, she has no hesitation to actively advocate killing unborn babies. And abortion has become a litmus test for running for president on the Democratic ticket. Nearly all of their policies in my opinion are destructive for people and the country. The problem is the leadership of both parties are greatly flawed in terms of their moral principles and behavior. So we our presidential values are between Flawed and More Flawed. Or there’s the third choice: don’t vote. And not voting seems to me a cop out.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          WKDawson

          David French pointed out nearly a week ago that abortion is now well below what it was at the time of Roe, even without legislation to ban it. Surely, at least some of that was because there were some good people who set real examples. When people really see Jesus in the character of pious believers, when they see the fruit of the spirit really come out, perhaps they still mock and disparage believers in public, but they will also note and respect it. That is moral capital that pays manifold when they have to find someone to turn to. This is that way you get people to turn away from sin; not coercion, but showing the real character of a Godly person. For Christians, that is the character of Jesus.

          On the other hand, when Christians are hypocritical and inflict their views on others coercively rather than persuasively, and now, even worse yet, when they support a leader who the unbelievers see as rather amoral or maybe even immoral, do you really think that will come without serious repercussions? Perhaps you now have your desired antiabortionist, but you also have many leaving the church and unbelievers who will never even consider the church again. The aftershocks will rattle for many generations to come. Is it right to gain the whole world and lose most of the souls in it?

          On candidates, even if say Warren or Sanders ends up being the presidential candidate, and even if he or she by chance wins, there is simply no way that they will get Medicare for all or free college or almost anything else they claim. How would they? Moreover, it lessens the damage done by Trump on the witness of the religious right, though now it will be a far stiffer uphill climb. I think without the moral capital, you will lose everything in the end. With the moral capital, David’s observation on abortion numbers will continue to slide in the same direction of less and less whether there are written laws or not. Look at it this way, I live in Japan. If you drop your valuables around here, there is a fair likelihood that you will get it back. Don’t expect that will happen, but a lot of times, it’s true. When you build a culture that respects property, people get better. Sure, there are laws, but the shame of being a thief is so shocking that most Japanese stay away from it. It’s not like there are no problems, but I think you can get what I mean. Behave right, and others will also begin to behave right. Behave nasty and others will also become nasty. Be a greedy liar, and others will become greedy liars. It begins with each of us setting the good example and not tiring of doing good.

          On your other point (Kavanaugh) … Consider that there was a potential justice who was denied any consideration by Mitch McConnell. It can be called a mere slight, but a slight is still wrong by the Good Book. Christians don't play dirty. Therefore, it's not like any of this should have been unexpected. The asymmetry of any response aside, we both know that two wrongs do not make a right. Like Jenny, I still have some ambivalence on the issue of Justice Kavanaugh but I guess I'll never really know the answer until I see Jesus at the Pearly Gates.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Jenny

          Thanks for writing back. While I can see where your values rub against the examples you use as you see them, I think it's important to consider that people make choices based on what they think is moral. It might be Polyanna, but I do think most of us are trying to do what we think is right. I believe Dr. Ford. I wasn't convinced that Justice Kavanaugh didn't do what she claims he did. I don't want to see him destroyed because I hate Republicans, but I sure didn't think he was fit for the bench.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jenny

            I just wanted to add one more thing here. Something that really bothers me about our political culture is how deciding what you think about anything becomes a political act. The Kavanaugh hearing is a good example of this.

            Democrats definitely exploited Dr. Ford coming forward in the worst possible way. I was so disgusted by all of the grandstanding I saw from the left during the hearings. To be honest, that was the moment I became convinced Trump would win a second term. However, the right was just as bad with the exception of Jeff Flake and (I think) one other senator. While I'm not saying Ford's testimony was airtight, I do think you couldn't walk away from what you heard completely convinced for either Ford of Kavanagh.

            Am I saying Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the court? No, but I wish there was someone else. I don't know for sure if he did it or not, but I wasn't convinced he didn't and it's not the Democrats' fault. They exploited Dr. Ford, but she didn't seem to be acting up there. What is saddest about this whole mess is it forced the whole nation to take a side on something where a whole bunch of gray area existed. I don't think it's healthy for us to be forced to extremes because the parties drive us there.

            Collapse
      2. Collin Saunders

        Hi Jenny, I know this question is meant for Richard, but I’m in his camp here in terms of not knowing who to vote for beside Trump. Even though I’m a social conservative, Elizabeth Warren’s plan for extended paid family leave is appealing and the idea of reparations for African Americans. As a devoted pro-lifer, I also am concerned with how we can improve life once people are out of the womb. I’m not sure fiscal conservatives have a better plan except tell people to “work harder” or donate to charity more.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jenny

          By the way, I share your pain about not knowing who to vote for. It's incredibly sad that the Dems couldn't pull together a good candidate to run against President Trump (except Klobuchar, who won't get the nomination). I can't imagine not voting against him by picking the Democratic candidate, but I don't anticipate voting for someone because I like him or her

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            td12212

            Mayor Pete is a worthwhile candidate. I think he has the intellectual and emotional heft necessary for the job. His views are also not anywhere near as extreme as Warren or Sanders, in fact more akin to Klobuchar. The fact that he's gay will probably turn off a few swing state voters but I seriously think he has the intestinal fortitude to handle the rigours of the job.

            Collapse
          2. Collin Saunders

            Yes, Klobuchar is a good candidate. It’s a shame she’s doing so poorly in the polls.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Jenny

          Nice! Thanks for writing back!

          I agree with you about trying to find a way to improve life once kids are born. I have kids and can't imagine having an abortion myself, but I do think women should have that option. That said, I completely agree with you that we should discourage abortions by making having the baby seem easier. Don't you sometimes wish both sides would jump aboard this train for just a while instead of only digging into the extreemest part of their positions? Again, I get why both sides feel the way they do, but I agree with you that you can hold a position and focus on a different angle to support it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            Can I interest anyone in federalism? That way California gets to do their thing and so does Alabama. That way we can stop fighting. Why isn’t everybody in favor of this plan? Is universal healthcare no good if you only have it in 15 states? California is the 6th largest economy in the world. No good if you can’t make Idaho join in?

            Trump tried to stop CA from imposing stricter emissions. Totally wrong. Let them do their thing. Let people have a choice. What is wrong with this simple plan that I stole from the founders?

            A great man once said the key to a good marriage is square footage and two TVs. We’ve got the square footage. The problem is we’re all trying to agree on one show to watch when we’ve got 50 different TVs

            Collapse
          2. Collin Saunders

            Yeah, I agree. I don’t understand how it’s productive in pointing out the most extreme sides of the debate. I mean, we can acknowledge it, but there’s no need to say it’s the mainstream position of that particular side of the debate. I don’t think all pro-choicers are in favor of late term abortion.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Jenny

        I'll sweeten the deal and share a conservative idea I kind of agree with.

        I fiercly support LGBT equality, but I get why a cake baker with sincerly held religious views doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Even though I don't like that they can turn a couple down because of sexual orientation, to force someone to do something that is against their religious values doesn't seem right. I feel icky admitting this.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          WKDawson

          Probably what really has to be decided is whether making a wedding cake constitues "art". In the role of an artist, I don't (in principle) have to accept any work I don't want or don't agree with. I don't even have to give a reason. Surely, if I don't agree with something, the only "artistic" thing I can do with it is something the person probably doesn't want to hear.

          On the other hand, if a wedding cake is considered "manufactured goods", then there is no saying much of anything I suspect. David French did discuss this matter some time ago when he was at National Review.

          Maybe a grey zone is that there is a "manufactured part" and an "artistic part". There is a lot of routine in making a cake, for sure. But there is something about the "attitude" when you are an artist. I know when I am being an artist and when I am not. I may do exactly the same things and produce the same thing in appearance, but I know what is in my heart.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    Here’s a test—let me write two declarative sentences, and you tell me if you see any contradiction. Sentence one: “I support a politics of the common good, where the levers of state power are used to defeat the sexual libertinism of the porn industry, foster and support the stable, two-parent nuclear family, build social cohesion and social solidarity, and protect against exploitive capitalists who enrich themselves at the working man’s expense.”

    Sentence two: “I support Donald Trump.”
    —————————————
    If sentence two is:

    “I support Donald Trump over Ted Cruz in the primary” then the statements are contradictory

    If sentence two is:

    “I support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton” then the statements are coherent

    My personal view is
    Sentence one: I support any politics that does not grant immense power to narcissists and busybodies
    Sentence two: I support any non-Hillary

    Trump aside, the rise of ‘common good capitalism’ is exactly what you would expect from conservatives weary of being beaten over the head with the cheap fraudulent emotional appeal of collectivism

    “Don’t you care about the poor???”

    “Yes but your plan is horrible and....”

    *THWACK*

    Anyways, I look forward to the near future where my binary choice is between communism and conservunism

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    td12212

    On the contrary Mr. French, I don't think most Trump's base care that he's immoral. They support him precisely because he's immoral. I've heard plenty of comments that sound like "we didn't vote for a boy scout, we voted for someone who'll shake things up". And I suspect "shaking things up" is just a polite way of saying "owning the libs".

    The Republican power brokers (this includes the Evangelical right) have made a deal that they could use a guy like Trump to gin up their base, win elections and and accomplish their social objectives via the courts. His immorality helps in this regard and they believe they could control his worst instincts. That's what the Kaiser though about Hitler as well, and that didn't work out so well.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Dinkins

      To say they vote for him because he is immoral is overly simplistic. They (and I) voted for him because on the one hand he advocated policies I support, and at the same time he has the willingness and fortitude not to compromise on policies where there should be no compromise. In the Colorado causes in 2016, I advocated for Marco Rubio at the time. His policies were acceptable to me, and at the time, I thought he would have the fortitude to stand up to fierce opposition from Democrats and the media. And generally speaking he seems to exemplify traditional Judeo-Christian values. The same can be said for most of the other candidates who ran - except for Trump. Since then, it has become obvious he won’t. Same goes for every other one of those who ran as candidates for president on the Republican side. I’m worried about losing the country, and while Trump has not lived the kind of life I think a moral person should, at least he doesn’t block the ability for the rest of us to live such a life. I think most of the viable Democratic candidates this time would given half a chance.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        td12212

        I don't think Trump stands for Judeo-Christian values at all. And it was obvious back then that he didn't. He is the antithesis of such values. A man who cons poor people in to paying him for fake courses, cheats on his 3rd wife while she's delivering their baby, has no issues lying (13.5k and counting), has no issues with asking foreign countries to get involved with domestic politics is a danger to this country. Any of the other Republican candidates who ran in 2016 would've been better than this guy.

        All of this was obvious to the casual observer except of course to his base who still think he's a patriot and a god fearing man because he surrounds him self with Evangelical prosperity gospel money grubbers.

        Collapse