French with Benefits

It's alive!

By

After therapy and court ordered anger management training, Jonah is finally prepared to have David French—newly minted New York Times columnist and noted treacherous misanthrope—back on the Remnant. What follows is an especially freewheeling conversation that begins with a deep dive into the Dominion case against Fox News, then bounces back and forth between a range of topics so controversial you’d swear Jonah wants David to get canceled. From student loans to drag queens, he could be back at The Dispatch before you know it…

Show Notes:

-Jonah interviews NYT Columnist David French

– David’s page at the New York Times

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (34)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    David.M.Max

    Jonah, to connect two things that you've been discussing a lot recently -- the litigation over the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness action and the unrest over the proposed judicial reforms in Israel: David French's excellent explanation as to why standing requirements are absolutely key to maintaining the separation of powers and preventing the courts from having total control over the political branches. One thing that your guests (John Podhoretz, Oren Kessler and Tevi Troy) with whom you have discussed the proposed reforms to the Israeli judicial system haven't mentioned is that the Israeli Supreme Court discarded standing requirements a long time ago, resulting in a situation in which any citizen or NGO can bring legal action to stop or overrule any government action (such as a budget allocation, the appointment of an official, or even a military policy) without that person or NGO being directly affected by that action. The Supreme Court (acting as the High Court of Justice) then substitutes its own judgment for that of the government actor. That usurpation of the role of the elected branches is absolutely central to why the Israeli government (in a ham-handed and disastrous way) is trying to reform the judicial system.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Mr French made the statement that it is dangerous to change the definition of a term (“abuse” is question “). But humanity changes and invents new behavior.

    Collapse
  3. April

    Great podcast! So nice to have David make a brief return.

    Collapse
  4. Lori Meldrum

    Jonah, it's MARIA, not Mary, Bartiromo. Very important to get names correct.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rdbarris

    I was hoping that Jonah would ask David about the "actual malice" standard in the Dominion v Fox defamation lawsuit. Is this the standard that is being applied? Has this been decided? If it is, why is this the relevant standard? I would not have thought that Dominion - a company that no one heard of prior to the "stop the steal" lunacy - would not be a public figure for which the "actual malice" standard was relevant. Any insights?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    This whole argument about standing is the Man For All Seasons dilemma again. If only one side wants to abide the rules, the rules don’t matter. Thomas More stuck to his guns but died anyway. He should have thrown Richie Rich in jail when he had the chance. Liberalism was already lost.

    At least, that’s the more academic way to make the argument for Trumpism. They don’t follow the rules, why should we? And if we do, we lose anyway. Better take that hill before they do.

    David’s response is basically the defense of liberalism. If I protect Ted Bundy’s right to counsel, it will still be there if someone unjustly tries to throw the book at me. The issue is, you need a consensus of men to agree to follow the rules if you expect them to be effective.

    As I said over at my blog: many such men might form a republic. One can only be a martyr.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      If there is no consensus of men to follow societies rules, you have no society.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    William Miller

    I think you guys said you were moving to a new podcast platform. I suspect that is what was responsible for the opening of the podcast in my Spotify feed being an ad for the Cardi B and Offset McDonald's meal. I can't think of two more appropriate people to advertise that than Jonah Goldberg and the re-animated corpse of David French.

    Collapse
  8. The_graydog

    This is a very strong podcast. Both of you at your best. I don't get how the movie analysis matters as much as the world, but I live out west...

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      RobK

      I may be wrong, but the way I understood it was that a movie is about a protagonist and an antagonist both trying to get the McGuffin.

      This is fine for a movie - that's how they work.

      But when you superimpose that (tidy) narrative structure on real life, you may get a less nuanced view. I took that Jonah was suggesting that that is how a lot of news coverage looks these days.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kurt S

    No astute comment here: just absolutely relishing the fact that Jonah is living in "The Mother of All 'I told you so, m**f**rs' moments."

    Collapse
  10. Francislyo

    So good to have David back! He articulated well several important points, for example: when the judiciary awards your opponent more civil liberties, you gain them also (precedence). Also, on parental authority vs court authority: some new laws presume parental abuse, and this seems to be an escalation of the culture wars.

    Also, thanks for the point you both made: the talking points of some politicians on Ukraine and China could be summed as: “Don’t poke the bear, but poke the hell out of the dragon”.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      The Bell Tower

      Always very good to have David French around. That guy knows a whole lotta stuff. The New York Times better appreciate what they have.

      Collapse
Load More