Does David French know how elections work?
Elections are a binary choice. Realistically speaking, the only two people who have any chance of being elected are the Republican and Democratic nominees.
In his July 31 newsletter, David French complains that after Southern Baptists made a powerful statement about character in 1998, they "were a key part of the evangelical coalition that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump, one of the lowest-character men ever to run for president."
Here is the problem with French's argument: Elections are, for the most part, a binary choice. This does not mean you are required to vote for one of the major party candidates. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate in 2016. But realistically speaking, the only two people who have any chance of being elected are the Republican and Democratic nominees. After Trump won the Republican nomination with a plurality of votes in 2016, Christians had a choice: Vote for someone we know will be hostile to our interests or vote for someone who will at least listen to us. Christians also had the knowledge that Mike Pence was on the ticket and would be advocating for socially conservative policy. The policy wins from 2017 to 2020 have Pence's fingerprints on them.
The choice in 2020 was more limited than it was in 2016, when there was a chance of nominating someone else in the primary. There was no chance that someone could take the nomination from an incumbent President. So the Christians who French scolds for voting for Trump had another binary choice: Continue the policies of the Trump administration (which included protecting religious freedom, cutting taxes, reducing government regulations, appointing solid justices to the federal courts and advancing the anti-abortion agenda) or they could choose the very socially liberal agenda of Joe Biden.
Was Trump the ideal nominee? Certainly not. Many Christians would have preferred someone else represent the Republican Party, but "someone else" was not on the general election ballot in either 2016 or 2020. If you wanted to vote for someone who could win the general election and you opposed the Democratic Party's platform, Trump was the only available option. French knows this. But instead of showing grace to those who made a different choice than he did, French is censorious and judgmental, refusing to admit that other Christians can cast a vote for Trump in good conscience.
There is no reason it has to be "all or nothing" with Trump. French would be in a much stronger position if he focused his criticism on the excesses of the most devoted MAGA supporters, such as cheering Trump's needlessly cruel and vindictive behavior tormenting a widower by fraudulently mocking the man's dead wife as a slut. There is never any legitimate reason for any Christian to ever defend Trump's perverted smears of this woman. And again, you can still vote for the man while opposing this wicked speech. Voting for or against Trump is a matter of Christian liberty, and each man or woman should vote his conscience. Mindlessly defending everything he does is not a matter of conscience. That is just plain old idolatry.
The main problem with David French's argument against Trump is one of pride. Maybe French is a voice crying in the wilderness for God's people to repent, like a modern-day John the Baptist. But maybe, if tens of millions of devoted Christians who are good neighbors, devoted spouses and committed churchmen are also voting for Trump, they have a legitimate reason for doing that. Has French ever stopped to consider that maybe they are right? Has French ever wondered if he is wrong? If the answer is no, that is a very spiritually dangerous place to be. The sin of self-righteous pride is no less wicked than the sin of idolatry.
Despite my disagreements with David French, I do think he is a valuable voice for conservatism. That is why I continue to read him. It is important for conservatives to have critics on our own side to keep us honest, especially over the last nine years. You may plant your feet and refuse to budge when a political opponent criticizes you, but you are naturally more willing to listen when an ally tells you that you are wrong. This is why it is so disappointing that French is so uncompromising and unwilling to have any grace for Trump supporters. I wish he would have more tolerance for dissenting opinions, so that conservatives would be willing to listen to him.