Admirable Liberalism

So I'm a third of the way into the 90-minute David French-Sohrab Ahmari debate. It's my workout podcast for a bit. The sound is, as some observers noted, a bit wonky.

It's too early to say who is getting the better of whom for certain. Thus far, however, I side with those who see French as having the stronger point of view. He poses a question for Ahmari early on: What exactly would you do to stop Drag Queen Story Hour? Or, rather, French asks what Ahmari would do to stop DQSH that would pass Constitutional muster.

Ahmari has to be pressed several minutes on this. At first he gestures toward local community initiatives to stop the event. Not so fast, French responds. Local initiatives, too, must past Constitutional scrutiny. What exactly do you have in mind? Finally, Ahmari paints a vague scenario of a Senate hearing with representatives of the "modern library association" before a panel of conservative Senators (like Ted Cruz). French is skeptical. So your answer is, basically, a Congressional hearing? How is that not regular old liberal-ideal conservatism? (I paraphrase.)


French's point, which he makes eloquently several times in the first half-hour, is that the USA hosts a diverse mixture of viewpoints. Only a relatively viewpoint-neutral approach, the approach French sees as Constitutional, ensures that these neutral viewpoints play fair with each other. Any measure you adopt to disallow drag queens reading to children, he warns, could and would instantly be turned around and deployed against Christians. It is a solidly liberal (that is, in line with the liberal tradition of human rights and liberties) and quite refreshing to hear from a conservative. I found myself wishing his words would replay to Republicans in North Carolina, who used some technically legal but deeply dirty pool tricks to force through a veto override yesterday.

I assume Ahmari mounts a more plausible response later in the debate. We'll see.

I'll say that, aside from French's admirable liberalism--well, let me pause here. Admirable. What makes it so? Because it articulates a view I agree with? I can't deny that may be part of my admiration. But, on a deeper level, French's stance strikes me as admirably principled in that his loyalty to it forces him into positions that his gut morality (Ew, gross. Men in drag.) would have him reject. He's not in favor of Drag Queen Story Hour. But he recognizes the wisdom of a political structure that allows some events he doesn't like in order to make room for those he does. Such wisdom is pragmatic. The "us" in the us-versus-them struggle that is democratic governance isn't always in power. The wisest, happiest course for a stable society is to favor standards that protect "us" even when "they" are in power.

I appreciate greatly when those in the judicial system are asked questions along the lines of "what's a stance that you personally abhor that you recognize and would defend as legal?" That kind of counter-gut questioning is all too rare. I disagree hotly with French on a variety of issues (including on his gut-level reaction to drag queens). But he at least seems sincere and consistent in his commitment to a value neutral framework of law.

Of course, sincere and consistent commitment to principle is not in and of itself a guarantor of goodness. Supervillains like Thanos are sincere, consistent, committed--and nightmarish. Lawful evil isn't necessarily less terrifying than chaotic evil (I'm not framing French or Ahmari as such). But principles, especially those openly and transparently espoused, can be the basis for compromise and coexistence, especially when their intention is to found a viewpoint-diverse society. I feel like I could have a conversation with French about the meaning and application of shared principles in a way that I'm not sure I could with Ahmari.

The question remains, then, whether Ahmari and his followers can sustain such a conversation with French and his.

More tomorrow,

JF