David French

Review: Untrustworthy

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Untrustworthy, Bonnie Kristian, Foreword by David French. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2022.

Summary: A discussion of the epistemic crisis that has swept our society, riven our politics, and undermined our Christian community, and steps one may take to cultivate epistemic virtue and live discerningly.

We’ve all lived through it the last number of years. The “fake news” we encountered on social media and the resistance to fact-checkers, equally accused of being “fake” or biased or wrong. We’ve watched friends go down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, of the left or the right. We’ve watched or even participated in the arguments about who do you trust for pandemic information. We’ve watched a sizable part of the country believe in a “stolen election” even though no actionable evidence has met the standards of proof required by a court of law (and recently learned of admissions that even news outlets who promoted these ideas didn’t actually believe them). We’ve watched conflicts over matters like masking policies rip apart churches, places where we are taught to love and submit to one another.

In short, we are faced with what many have called an “epistemic crisis.” We are not longer sure how we know, and how we may know the truth and left in little tribal groups and echo chambers where all we can say is “you have your truth and I have mine” and agree to a world of “alternate facts” and “alternate truths.” Bonnie Kristian is a seasoned journalist who grew up in a conservative Christian, Late Great Planet Earth community. In Untrustworthy, she explores how we have gotten to this place, and what we may do, particularly in the Christian community, to live with epistemic virtue and discernment, even if we are unable to change the broader landscape.

She begins with looking at what’s wrong with the news from the bias of mainstream media to the profit and entertainment bias that has come to dominate many news outlets. She argues for the effort to do unbiased reporting along older models with a high commitment to admitting errors and publishing corrections. She also notes the deleterious effects of online media, underscored by Nicholas Carr’s Atlantic critique: that it encourages distraction rather than focus, it’s tailored to our taste my algorithms, it modifies our real-world interactions, and serves to solidify our views making us less likely to consider other evidence. From this, she moves to one of the most disturbing phenomena of the online world, the punishing of views that transgress by cancellation, threatening both the personal and job security of the cancelled, with no place for forgiveness or restoration. From “mobs” we move to “schemes” and how our online media feed conspiracy thinking. Addressing Christians she makes three modest proposals: “(1) don’t argue; (2) look at the fruit the mindset is bearing; and (3) don’t seek a false sense of security that doesn’t come from God.” Finally, she discusses skepticism and the death of expertise, where a Google search is as valid as years of training and research in a specific field. She’s candid about the ways experts undermine trust while recognizing how dependent we are on expertise in so many dimensions of our modern life. She notes that even experts are constantly learning and that revised expert advice can be a good thing because it reflects that learning.

She turns, then to how people change their views, and it is not through argument. She cites Jonathan Haidt’s analogy of the rider (reason) and the elephant (emotion), and that the rider is going to go where the elephant wants to go. The issue is redeemed emotion, where love supplants fear. She also discusses identitarian deference which means when discussing matters of race, class, disability, and gender and sexuality, we must defer to those with the particular status in question. This can lead to a highly Balkanized society and denies that we can understand another whose lived experience is different and forecloses discussion. She calls for a middle ground, still allowing for someone to “speak as an X” upholding the example of Esau McCaulley, among others, who does speak as a Black scholar, humbly and with integrity, but wishes to be taken seriously for good scholarship from a Black perspective, not just because he is Black.

Chapters 8 and 9 on developing epistemic virtue and making a plan are worth the price of the book. She asserts that truth is knowable, that we can know it, but not all of it, and that humility is a requisite virtue. She asserts that epistemic virtue requires one to be studious while limiting our focus (we can’t know everything), intellectually honest, wise in our use of that knowledge, cultivating an epistemology of love and a hermeneutic of obedience. Practically, she calls for a look at our habits: our devices and desires, our space and our subscriptions, our social media use, and our news consumption. She suggests how we may both strengthen the rider and become aware of the elephant. She concludes with inviting us to choose better things and holds up 1 Peter as an example of doing so.

While discussing the landscape of media in society and larger social trends, the book focuses not on finger-pointing but self-assessment, asking us how we have been affected by the ways we engage with various forms of news and online media, how we have allowed the epistemic crisis to corrode our own epistemic virtue. She recognizes that people are going to keep doing all the things that have led to this crisis but that the challenge for us, particularly in the Christian community, is the development of virtues that make us, if not immune, then certainly more discerning. Setting boundaries on media consumption and choosing real social engagements with our families and Christian community also acts as a check on the extremes.

Two things I would like to see her address in the future. One is steps toward restoring a commitment to reporting that is closer to the objective standard once set by journalism, perhaps more self-aware given our understandings of bias. The other is the steps one may take to address Carr’s analysis of how the internet has broken our minds, and in what ways we might grow in our capacity for extended discussions, focused inquiry, and long form journalism and reading. That’s for another book, perhaps, and her practical advice in this one points in those directions. This is a worthy book to consider for those engaged in adult education and Christian formation, where one would hope the virtues basic to epistemic virtue might be developed. Educators also might give attention to this in understanding more of the challenges they face in forming virtuous learners. Clearly, an important book.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

Review: Divided We Fall

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Divided We Fall, David French. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2020

Summary: An argument warning that the political divides in American life could lead to a dissolution of the nation through secession and may be averted by a tolerant federalism.

One of my enjoyments is reading the history of the American Civil War and the events leading up to it. In recent years, that history has increasingly disturbed me as I recognize the troubling parallel of the deep political divides and inflammatory rhetoric that led to armed conflict, and our present time. I’ve wondered where this could lead: authoritarian government, civil unrest and breakdown, or a war of red versus blue.

If there is any comfort in Divided We Fall, it is to learn that a thoughtful political commentator has similar concerns. David French believes we could well be headed toward another secession of states, one he does not believe will lead to military action, but to a greatly diminished America, both domestically, and in global affairs, a prospect perhaps as troubling as armed conflict within our border.

What leads him to moot this possibility is the character of our divides. For one thing, they may be charted along regional lines. His thesis is that geography plus culture plus fear may equal secession. One particular culture subject to the kindling of fear is the religious subculture. While some fear the intrusion of the state on religious freedom and decry court decisions contrary to religious morality, others fear the intrusion of one religion into a very plural public life, limiting the freedom of others.

Chapter 5 on “How an Academic Article Explains America” may be the most important in the book. It introduces us to an article titled “The Law of Group Polarization.” that proposes that when groups are formed with a “predeliberation tendency,” rather than making better judgments than on their own, they will move toward the extreme of their bias. In our present setting, even moderates put off by one side (left or right) will tend to move to the extreme version of what they favor, intensifying our divisions. Sadly, French observes in the following chapters, churches have followed this, largely following the cultural and geographical alignments within which they are embedded, and that political alignments have trumped other alignments, where political identities primary and ultimate.

French traces the breakdown in our capacity for discourse. No longer can friends agree to disagree–they become enemies. Free speech has become subject to “safetyism” and cancel culture. French, who has worked extensively as a lawyer on free speech issues, makes a passionate appeal for the critical role of the First Amendment as critical to giving marginal groups a voice. Instead, the effort of our contemporary discourse is to use power to silence the opposition, which only inflames opposition.

He sets out two fictional secession scenarios, one led by California, the other by Texas. California’s is over immigration and gun control. Texas secedes to protect from a blue backlash. He explores the resultant unraveling of the Pax Americana, the various security guarantees that prevented armed conflict in many parts of the world, including China, the Middle East, and eastern Europe.

French’s proposed remedy is Madisonian federalism that accepts faction but vigorously protects free speech. He believes that it is possible for competing communities to exist in different parts of the country. He argues that the First Amendment protects these. He contends that genuine tolerance protects difference–we only tolerate that with which we disagree. He longs for moments of grace leading to movements of grace, citing the example of the reconciliation between SNL’s Pete Davidson, and Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressional candidate. When mocked by Davidson for a war wound, Crenshaw accepted a later apology and then appeared on the show, talking about what “never forget” meant to both of them–speaking of Davidson’s father, a fireman who died on 9/11.

French argues this healthy federalism protects individual liberties while allowing public policy to be shaped more by state and local governments than a “one size fits all” approach that may work in a utopia, but not in America. He contrasts Arizona and California’s approach to use of state resources with regard to immigration enforcement and argues that each were responses to what they thought best and should have been equally upheld under healthy federalism. He similarly cites state-based universal health care proposals as opposed to a nationalized system.

In the end, what French calls for is courage to engage what he considers the more critical culture war of the age–not between left and right, but between decency and indecency. He believes there is a need for a better political class, one committed to Micah 6:8 virtues of justice, mercy, and humility before God.

I find myself both affirming much of this analysis and questioning parts. I agree with his analysis of our divides. I had not thought deeply about secession, but having seen more and more commentary from others, it seems possible. Yet I wonder. Many states are more purple than red or blue. My state of Ohio is like that. What happens to the element not in power, though demographically significant, in this scenario? Or what happens when a state like ours “flips.” All in all, I am more fearful of civil disorder within many of our states and growth of militia and vigilante actions. I think there is much in his proposals of a tolerant federalism in our pluralistic society, but how this works to protect individual liberties seems to be the challenge. While some states provide for universal health care, what about those who don’t, when access varies along economic, racial, or even partisan lines? Finally, I wonder from where we get a better political class committed to justice, mercy, and humility?

I agree with French that we need such a political class and recovery of the kind of federalist toleration and First Amendment-affirming political discourse for which he advocates. French has been courageous in using his own voice to advocate for a better America, resulting in vicious criticisms, and threats against his family. The critical question is whether enough others will join him and those of his like to make a difference.

____________________

Disclosure of Material (and Personal) Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the author, who served as a wise advisor during a campus religious freedom issue with which I was involved in 2005. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Is This The Religious Liberty We Need?

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

5-05_FINAL_POTUS-religious-leaders

President Donald J. Trump displaying Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)

Last Thursday, May 4, two significant government actions dominated the news. One was the narrow passage in the House of Representatives of the AHCA, legislation designed to roll back a number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The other was the signing by the President of an Executive Order on Religious Liberty, surrounded by religious people of various faiths.

As a religious person, I do care about religious liberty and think the First Amendment protections in our constitution important to uphold, and indeed strengthen, because of the long and global history of religious persecution. We do not do it perfectly but we have a system that allows an incredible diversity of religious expression in our country and works hard not to privilege any one over the others. This is a relatively singular occurrence in human history that is a mark of American greatness.

One thing that is important to note about the executive order, available to be read on the White House website [no longer available] is that it is a directive to federal agencies that does not repeal laws but only addresses the approach taken to enforce them. Only a new law can repeal a law. Only court decisions can overturn laws. What is significant, from what I can read in the executive order, is it suggests a disposition on the part of government to defend religious liberty rather than undermine it. Section One on policy says:

“It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.”

These are broad statements that amount to saying that the executive branch will uphold the Constitution, which is in fact what the President says he will do in taking the oath of office. But to go on record in this regard is heartening.

Much has been made of Section Two. Contrary to popular belief, it does not repeal the Johnson Amendment banning the endorsement or opposition to political candidates by churches or other 501 (c)(3) organizations. David French (a lawyer I had the chance to work with on a religious liberty issue), writes in The National Review:

“In fact, a lawyer will commit malpractice if he tells a pastor or director of a nonprofit that this order allows a church or nonprofit to use its resources to support or oppose a candidate. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.”

What may be the case is that this will presumably make some feel bolder in talking about political issues or even endorsing candidates because they need not fear enforcement. French’s warning is, “for now.” I certainly wouldn’t use this as a warrant to endorse candidates not supported by the current administration!

Section Three concerns conscience exemptions to the preventive care (read contraceptive) mandate. It says that several government agencies “shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.” In fact, this has already been mandated by the Supreme Court during the Obama administration.

French makes an important point in his article–executive orders are no substitute for law-making. At best they are only a start. John Inazu, in his book Confident Pluralism, articulates three areas where substantive law-making is needed to protect religious and speech freedoms in the public square (summary is quoted from my review of his book):

The Voluntary Groups Requirement:

“Government officials should not interfere with the membership, leadership, or internal practices of a voluntary group absent a clearly articulated and precisely defined compelling interest” (p. 48).

The Public Forum Requirement:

“Government should honor its commitment to ensure public forums for the voicing of dissent and discontent. Expressive restrictions in these forums should only be justified by compelling government interests. Private public forums that effectively supplant these government-sponsored forums should in some cases be held to similar standards” (p. 64-65).

The Public Funding Requirement:

“When the government offers generally available resources (financial and otherwise) to facilitate a diversity of viewpoints and ideas, it should not limit those resources based on its own orthodoxy” (p. 79).

French notes in his article the attacks on religious groups in universities that infringe on the first and third of these requirements and the attacks on dissenting views that would infringe on the second.

I would argue that the protections Inazu talks about include but are broader than just religious liberty. They protect the freedom of conscience and associative and speech freedoms of all citizens, not just religious citizens. I would argue that these are the liberties for which we need robust protections, not simply in executive orders but in law.

There is one other religious liberty I long for. I have written often about the way the American church has offered itself as a voluntary captive to the political process. Actually, one of the concerns I have about the relaxation of enforcement around political speech in pulpits is that in so doing, I think the government is helping the church dig its own grave. Perhaps it is anecdotal, but I am watching not only younger, but also older evangelicals angered by this political captivity, leaving evangelical churches, even churches not overtly engaged in this kind of behavior.

I long for the day when churches cast off the chains of partisan politics and repent for how they have alienated people from the gospel of Christ that unites people across all the divides of our contemporary politics. I long for a church that speaks prophetically to both left and right (currently it seems only late night television is doing that). This is the kind of speech for which you actually need religious liberty protection.

I have to admit to being troubled by the setting in which this order took place. Religious leaders are gathered around in the Rose Garden celebrating the protection of their own liberties while down the street the party of the President is passing legislation to make the protection of one’s health increasingly difficult for the most vulnerable in our society to obtain (“the Unaffordable Health Care Act”?). I’m torn. I’ve had to advocate against real attempts to undermine religious liberty. Yet I was telling a friend recently that religious liberty concerns me less than the attack on the liberties of the poor, children, the elderly, the most vulnerable in our society. Perhaps the only way to reconcile this is the idea that all liberties are important and that the attack upon the liberty of any of us is in fact an attack on the liberty of all of us. Might we agree upon that?