Last Tuesday, my wife and I watched the BYU TV broadcast of a devotional featuring Elder Patrick Kearon, an Apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and his wife, Jennifer. Both were inspiring, intelligent, and thoroughly interesting speakers who positively influenced the many thousands of students attending this event. These weekly Tuesday gatherings at the large Marriott Center, called “devotionals” when there is a Church-related speaker and “forums” when someone notable outside the Church is invited to speak, are an important part of BYU culture and were a vital part of my education there many years ago. To my surprise, however, BYU President Shane Reese announced that the speaker next Tuesday for the first forum of the semester (one of only three forums on BYU’s fall schedule) would be a rather controversial speaker from The New York Times, David French.
BYU students might wish to understand who David French is in order to properly digest and consider his message. Some students and especially some faculty members at BYU might have opportunities to interact with Mr. French and ask questions about his positions and whatever message he chooses to share. But some of you may also wish to ask the simplest question of all: why? Among the thousands of luminaries that could be invited to be a rare forum speaker, why has BYU invited David French, an outspoken political voice, to influence thousands of students in the weeks immediately before a presidential election?
Ah, but what’s the problem? Mr. French seems like a very nice man who describes himself as an “evangelical” and a “conservative,” and speaks out in favor or religious freedom and other good causes, so of course his values must be somewhat aligned with the values of the Church and BYU, right? Parents who have been concerned about woke indoctrination and liberal agendas being pushed upon their kids at BYU by some departments or professors may well be relieved to see a conservative outside speaker coming to campus to influence students. Bravo!
We don’t know what French is going to say in his remarks, but to be a prepared listener, as well as a prepared questioner and thinker, and even a prepared parent or grandparent, we do know what French has said, especially very recently. French has repeatedly expressed great concern about political violence — a concern all of us likely share — but to me it’s an odd kind of concern that only seems to fret about the violence of Trump supporters and the existential threat some of them and certainly Trump pose to our democracy. Not the kind of concern that wonders if we perhaps should be denouncing war and proclaiming peace a little more, or should also be worried about left-wing radicals trying to assassinate demonized political candidates, left-wing groups actually burning buildings down, or a weaponized Department of Justice going after political opponents.
Earlier this week on Sept. 15, just two days after a second assassination attempt on the life of Donald Trump — something that mainstream media outlets told us was his fault for his violent rhetoric — French wrote an article for the New York Times warning that Trump’s opposition to prolonging the bloody war in Ukraine (pro tip for students: war is actually a form of political violence) made him a danger — a danger that apparently needed to be stopped:
Trump’s reluctance to say the plain truth — that a Ukrainian victory is in America’s national interest — demonstrates that he is still a prisoner to his own grievances, and there is no one left who can stop him from doing his worst. (David French, “Why Trump Won’t Say He Wants Ukraine to Win,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 2024)
In my opinion, the extreme language of Trump haters talking about the need to punch him in the face, take him behind the barn, or doing whatever it takes to stop the “existential threat” to “our democracy” itself from a man often compared to Hitler, might be just the kind of thing that can drive some unstable or easily manipulated person into doing what we have seen twice now: attempting to assassinate a former president running again for office. French wrote about Trump shortly after the second assassination attempt, without mentioning the attempted violence, without condemning it, without calling for an end of the use violence to stop Trump. Instead, he worried that “there is no one left who can stop him.” He’s not calling for violence of course, and I believe he is a gentleman trying to be true to his own values who wants to stop Trump in a peaceful way. However, the word “stop” was used earlier in French’s piece to express his goal for the Ukraine war, the need to “stop Putin” to achieve peace. Is it possible that someone might read those words and somehow conclude that Trump needs to be stopped just like Putin needs to be stopped, with violent force?
Could French’s harsh words be viewed as another example of rhetoric that might unintentionally promote violent attitudes? Out of caution, perhaps Mr. French will apologize for any such misunderstanding and denounce left-wing violence as well. Perhaps, as part of his apology, he will call for respect and understanding for diverse views including those of Trump supporters.
French’s entire Sept. 15 article could be a valuable exercise in understanding media bias with many claims that don’t bear scrutiny. If you use a free-speech platform like Twitter, you may have seen part of a town council meeting in Springfield, Ohio and a police report that may undermine some of French’s lambasting of Trump. Whether the incidents involving pets actually happened or not is another question, but the actual reports made by citizens certainly count as evidence of trouble, contrary to what ABC’s “fact-checkers” reported. The concerns expressed were based on real reports, perhaps erroneous in the end, but certainly reflective of the genuine trouble that certainly can come when 20,000 newcomers are brought to a small town unprepared to handle such a flood of people. French and his peers in the media wish to paint concerns about such excesses as racist, but this overlooks the real challenges both for the newcomers and the residents of many towns. For his rather alarmist statements about a genuinely alarming problem with mass immigration, Trump and his remarks are denounced as “dreadful,” “inexcusable,” “dangerous,” “deranged,” suffering from “instability,” etc. No acknowledgement of the real-life problems that many Americans face due to our open borders. It’s just racism and unhinged anger that fuels the concerns of Trump and his bitter flock.
French also says Trump believes in a “fictional conspiracy” about the links between one of the world’s most corrupt nations, Ukraine, and the Biden family. Perhaps he is right, but there is room for reasonable people to be suspicious about the flow of money to and from Ukraine. There is room to question the alleged virtue of dumping over $100 billion into a receipts-free cesspool in the name of upholding “democracy” in a corrupt nation now being run without elections (pro tip: elections used to considered an essential indicator of “democracy”), without freedom of religion or of the press, and without transparency on where all that money goes. Students may wish to ask what exactly is the democracy part of this war that must be fought and funded at all costs? Must we really be determined to fight to the last Ukrainian? For those worried about the financial incentives for war, it may be obvious and concerning that huge profits are being made. Could there be corruption? Or rather, how could there not be? Why can’t we ask about that? (Pro tip: BYU students and professors, armed with the Book of Mormon’s core teachings on war, corruption, freedom, and secret combinations, might have the tools at their disposal to ask better questions, seek better answers, and track the money and the power at stake.) But to French, those doubting the virtue of our endless war in Ukraine are the threat to democracy.
There are a few more recent comments from French that might be good starting points for further conversation. After the Colorado Supreme Court improperly tried to take Trump off the ballot, on Jan. 15, 2024 French endorsed that decision and warned that such action was urgently needed to achieve “stability” and avoid political violence:
There’s no doubt that knocking Trump off the ballot would send shock waves through the American body politic, but why would anyone believe that it’s inherently less destabilizing if Trump runs?
We already know what he does when he loses. For him, counting the votes is only the beginning of the battle. If he loses, he’ll challenge the results, conspire to overturn the election and incite political violence.
And if he wins? Then you have an insurrectionist in command of the most powerful military in the world, who is hellbent on seeking vengeance on his political enemies. Does anything at all sound stabilizing about that? (David French, “Disqualify Trump (or Else),” New York Times, Jan. 15, 2024
His closing paragraph urges that “the court should not overthink its task” bur rather should just go ahead and quickly disqualify Trump. Another interesting topic for students to consider is whether the most momentous and contentious issues of our day should be given careful thought and analysis, or if quick cursory decisions should be made without the risk of “overthinking” (i.e., worrying too much about the legal correctness and consequences of the decision).
One of his most interesting recent publications is a podcast for The New York Times with the intriguing title, “David French on the Pro-Life Case for Kamala Harris,” presented Aug. 19, 2024. He attacks Trump on several issues — here I must admit he shares some of my own concerns — but then suggests that it’s somehow Trump’s fault that abortions increased during his term in office and that because of French’s pro-life views, he feels that he must vote for Kamala Harris. This will make for another valuable conversation that parents, professors and students can have as they discuss how the Senator with one of the most extreme voting records in modern times on social issues, supporting abortion with essentially ZERO restrictions (even voting against the Born Alive Infant Survivors Protection Act in 2019), might appear as a good way support the pro-life movement. Spoiler alert: he does offer an apparent explanation in the podcast. Here’s the reasoning:
Here’s the way I would put it. I think there are ample opportunities for the pro-life movement to work with a Harris administration to enact policies that will make abortion less appealing as an alternative for women. So, for example, I have long supported the Biden administration’s efforts to create an expanded child tax credit. I do think that there are policies that are aimed at improving the lives of young mothers that pro-life people can work with the Harris administration on.
Hmm. How many young, vulnerable lives are going to be saved by adding a tax credit? Maybe some added free baby seats and diapers will bring abortions way down at last? Just like food stamps and bail reforms are bringing down crime in California? That sounds naive to me, but French clears that up in his next line: “I’m not naive.” Sorry, that doesn’t resolve my concern. I’m grateful for past work he has done to defend religious freedom on campuses and to support some aspects of the pro-life cause, but if he is comfortable with Harris’s stance on abortion, I’m deeply puzzled.
Whether French is naive or not is beside the point, though. I hope BYU students and faculty will attend French’s talk and listen with an informed perspective and come away from it free from naive, irrational world views and not be quick to accept someone as trustworthy just because they have a degree from Harvard, the support of The New York Times, and claim to share some of your values.
I hope that French will not push his political views in any overt way in his speech. However, he has not exactly shied away from political messages at other universities, though he has been relatively civil about it. Consider his topic for a discussion at the University of South Carolina on April 20, 2023, as shown in the promotional image below. The discussion for the most part is not really about “Christian Nationalism,” as the title suggests, but he apparently agreed to this title. “Christian Nationalism” is a loaded term that seems to be used as a tool by opponents of Christianity to frighten people about the threat of Christians who oppose globalism (the opposite of nationalism). Though the definition of this pejorative term varies widely, one common aspect is that if you are Christian and patriotic about your own country, and don’t like globalism or the “international order” possibly threatened by Trump that David French mentioned in his Sept. 15 piece, then you are a danger. While I don’t think French even used that term in his discussion, he did speak of the dangers of Trump’s supporters allegedly wanting to blend their religion with that state. And he said, “I have never in my life encountered more vile cruelty than I have encountered from often-Christian Trumpists” (45:10-30 in the video, “David French on Christian Nationalism and the New Right: The 2023 Barnes Symposium,” Univ. of South Carolina, April 2023, YouTube.com). In a world flooded with cruelty, the most severe problem appears to be those deranged Trump supporters. On the other hand, the talk was far from vitriolic, in my view and relatively slow moving, though it still was politically loaded.
For another (evangelical) perspective on “Christian Nationalism,” see Trent hunter, “The Inception of Christian Nationalism,” Christ Over All, 2023.
David French is certainly a well-known writer, part of the many diverse voices in our society, and should be listened to with respect. But when it comes to diversity of thought, it’s fair to recognize that his fierce opposition of Trump and Trump supporters is part of what he stands for, and that the intense rhetoric from him and most of our firmly anti-Trump mainstream media is part of a collective, relatively unified voice that we have been hearing in abundance for the past several years. Will BYU students be exposed to a uniquely new, diverse voice on Tuesday? I hope so, but if he sticks with his recent themes, perhaps not. Consider the diversity of topics he has tackled in his latest columns for the Times, where from Sept. 8 to Sept. 19, five columns in a row involved Trump and the MAGA movement, and most of the rest of the listed columns are anti-Trump or pro-Harris.
The “conservative” and “pro-life” spin French offers may add a touch of diversity to the normal assaults on all things Trump, though these labels may be debatable (perhaps it depends on what your definition of “life” is). Students should be prepared to look past labels and spin, being ready to ask tough questions about what they may hear on Tuesday, especially the toughest question of all: why? Why another noted anti-Trump spokesman right before the elections?
