Tuesday and the first full week of September. I hope you did something fun and relaxing on your day off yesterday. Some friends of ours hosted a small gathering at their home where we enjoyed a pool, the hot tub, some excellent food and good conversation.

I don’t know what to make of David French. He’s known mostly for his previous written commentary as a political writer for National Review. But he’s also the guy who considered mounting a third-party challenge to candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton in 2016. As one story puts it,

By the next day, French was thinking seriously about the notion of mounting a long-shot bid, compelled “by the terrible thought that Americans would be left with the choice of two of the most corrupt leaders in politics,” he says. “Without a credible and unifying third voice, we’re drifting towards the most poisonous presidential race in generations, with both major candidates walking impeachment risks.” His wife, he adds, was behind the effort “a thousand percent.”

French ultimately decided not to run. An excellent writer who is a military veteran and an attorney, he also claims to be a Christian conservative who has remained #NeverTrump since 2016. I used to be a big fan, but I’ve found that there’s a lot I disagree about with David French. Other believers have called him to account for accusations he’s made about evangelical support for Trump.

In his latest piece in The French Press, a newsletter he writes four times a week for The Dispatch, French writes about “Christians, Gun Rights, and the American Social Compact.” This topic is perfect for me, because it ties all three of my interests together: Faith, Culture and Politics.

But French’s conclusions and mine differ widely. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

After taking a couple of paragraphs to ably explain the “American social compact” with quotes from the Founding Fathers and the logic behind them, French posits his thesis: “By arming himself and wading into a riot, [Kyle] Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and recklessly” and thus broke the American social compact (which is built on virtue).

Kyle Rittenhouse, in case you’re Rip Van Winkle and just woke up, is the 17-year-old who shot two people dead and wounded a third, all of whom were attacking him during the riots in Kenosha a couple of weeks ago. He’s being charged as an adult with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, recklessly endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon.

Here’s French’s full paragraph:

But here are some things we do know. By arming himself and wading into a riot, Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and recklessly. I agree completely with Tim Carney’s assessment here:

“The 17-year-old charged with two homicides in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was not a hero vigilante, nor was he a predatory white supremacist. He was, the evidence suggests, a foolish boy whose foolish decisions have taken two lives and ruined his own.

“If you go armed with a rifle to police a violent protest, you are behaving recklessly. The bad consequences stemming from that decision are at least partly your fault.”

Context seems important here, doesn’t it? With all of the mostly peaceful violence we’ve seen at these “protests” in which the police stand down and the government fails in its obligations to protect the rights of all their citizens, it would seem “foolish” not to arm yourself if you’re going to “police” a “riot,” wouldn’t it?

French seems to be saying that Rittenhouse was “asking for trouble.”

Rittenhouse said in a video taken before the shootings that he’s there to offer medical assistance. “People are getting injured … our job is to protect this business. And part of my job is to help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I have to protect myself, obviously. But I’ve got my med kit.”

What is the standard French and Carney are measuring against? Their “foolish” and “irresponsible” and “reckless” is someone else’s caution, prudence and preparedness.

French takes it a step further and then says that his fellow Christians who “celebrate or even merely rationalize [Rittenhouse’s] actions … are also behaving irresponsibly and recklessly.” French cites as evidence the (now) $475,000 raised at a Christian crowdfunding site for Rittenhouse’s defense, and comments made by two authors who write at the conservative Christian news site The Stream.

One of those authors likened Rittenhouse to the Good Samaritan which shivered French’s timbers. But note: the author likened his willingness to help his neighbor when others didn’t by putting out fires and helping the injured; he did not include wielding a rifle in self-defense as being a Good Samaritan. But if you read French without that context it implies that the author includes the two killings as part of his “Good Samaritan” activities.

I take particular issue with French using the phrase “even merely rationalize” when he talks about how we view Rittenhouse’s actions. So it’s not okay for me to think logically about what Rittenhouse did and conclude that it was justifiable? There’s no way that’s possible and if I do, I’m “behaving irresponsibly and recklessly”? French seems to foreclose on a Christian coming to a different conclusion than he does.

+++

This post is already longer than I expected and that’s just one example from the newsletter. Let me close by saying that I have no doubt that David French is a conservative Christian and a conscientious one. I find that while French’s blend of politics and conservative Christianity has some similarities to mine, we also have some strong areas of disagreement.

I’m not a veteran, not an attorney and do not have the platform of a well-known commentator, so I’ve found that it can be intimidating to think that I might “know better” than someone like French.

But formulating a strong counter-viewpoint can be done. The lesson here is that you have to read carefully and think critically to understand the differences—and that’s part of what I try to do with this blog.

_______________________________
A Personal Note
I write five days a week on personal time because it’s one way I can contribute to strengthening the resolve of Christians, conservatives and other like-minded compatriots in the face of unprecedented division in our country. I would like to eventually do more. If you like what you’re reading and think others would benefit from it, please consider regularly sharing and commenting on my posts. Also invite your friends to subscribe. They can do that right on the home page. Thanks for reading! — Dave