By David French 2020, St. Martin’s Press, New York
David French is a lawyer and conservative columnist, formerly for the National Review, and now senior editor of The Dispatch. Before becoming a political commentator, he worked as a religious rights attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. He also served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defended freedom of speech and conscience of students and professors at mostly liberal universities. He served in the U.S. Army in Iraq in 2007 and was awarded the Bronze Star. Unlike most other evangelical Christians, he has consistently opposed Donald Trump.
Two scenarios
Imagine the United States in the near future under a Republican president. Reacting to a mass shooting at a school, the California legislature bans private ownership of most guns. Gun owners appeal through the courts, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court declares the California law unconsitutional. The state government, with strong support of its citizens, defies the ruling and continues to confiscate semi-automatic weapons. The federal government tries to enforce the ruling, and the situation escalates. Finally, California declares its independence. Oregon and Washington quickly join their West Coast neighbor. Northeastern states follow suit and likewise secede, joining together into their own new country. What was once the United States of America is now three separate countries.
Or another scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and the abortion issue is returned to the states. Many Republican-dominated states already have laws on their books banning abortion, and these become effective. Democrats take control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Democratic Senators end the filibuster, pass a strong gun control bill, and expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices. Democrats then pass single-payer health care and a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while eliminating all religious freedom objections. Finally, they pass a law that makes abortion legal throughout the country, from conception to birth. Republican-dominated states object vehemently, and the situation quickly spirals out of control. After a series of escalations, Texas declares its independence. It is quickly joined by other southern and western states.
In both cases, the result is the same. The United States falls into a deep economic depression as economic ties are sundered. And the U.S. pulls back from the world stage, which emboldens Russia, China, and other actors to pursue their goals through force. Russia takes over the Baltic states and eastern Ukraine. China threatens Taiwan, which allies itself with Japan. War in the Pacific follows. The era of relative peace and stability, established since World War II and upheld by American military power, is over.
These scenarios, described with a novelist’s skill, were published in this book before the election. If they might have seemed farfetched then, they certainly don’t now, especially after January 6.
The problem
French argues that America is in danger of dissolution. We are politically and culturally divided, and this division follows geography. Most states are solidly Republican or Democrat. Moreover, the solidly Republican states are geographically contiguous, dominating the south and much of the west and extending into the upper midwest. The solidly Democratic states are clustered on the west coast and in the northeast. These regions are large enough and prosperous enough that they could be viable and economically powerful countries. Red states (Republican) differ from blue states (Democrat) not only by politics, but also by culture. In blue states, religion is still especially important and dominated by conservative or evangelical churches. In red states, religion is widely considered a personal matter that should not intrude on public life. Fewer people go to church, and those who do often join more liberal, mainstream churches. Guns are another difference: People in red states value the “right to bear arms”, so they can protect themselves and their families. People in blue states want gun control to prevent further mass shootings.
Geographically based political and cultural division aren’t enough to tear the country apart, according to French: two more elements are needed. A third element is the belief that one’s culture and essential liberties are under threat by those who “hate us”. Conservatives point to progressive corporations’ decisions to “sanction states that protect religious liberty or pass pro-life laws”. French argues, quite correctly, that conservatives see these as “expressions of hatred”. Progressives, on the other hand, see conservatives’ opposition to any restrictions on gun ownership as a threat to their safety and view religious liberty laws as permitting unjustified discrimination against LGBTQ citizens.
Finally, a fourth element is the conviction that the other side threatens our lives and property. We’ve always had politically motivated violence in America, but it seems to have spiked in the Trump years. White nationalists have recently attacked and murdered Jewish worshippers in synagogues and African American churchgoers in Bible studies. On the left, a Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican members of Congress practicing for a baseball game. This past summer, after the book was published, widespread protests against police brutality often degenerated into riots. In French’s words, both the left and the right conclude about their opponents that “they” are violent, “they” are dangerous, and “we” are innocent.
In other words, the four elements that made the American Civil War possible in 1860 are with us again. The extreme polarization of recent years, promoted by social media and both right-wing and left-wing media, but also by homogeneous churches, universities, and housing patterns, has broken the emotional bonds that held us together as a country. My group against your group. We are good, they are evil. And now the polarization is also geographical. Secession and disintegration are possible.
Pluralism, tolerance, federalism
David French argues that we need three related practices to avoid a break-up: pluralism, tolerance, and federalism.
Pluralism means more than just diversity, which we already have. French defines it as defending the rights of others to do what you would like to do yourself – even when they are your opponents. You should also defend the rights of communities to govern themselves according to their values and beliefs as long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of dissenting members. For example, progressives should defend the right of conservatives to speak on college campuses, which has often not been the case. Conservatives, on the other hand, should defend the right of football players to take a knee in protest during the national anthem.
Tolerance is like pluralism but goes beyond it. It means showing respect and kindness toward people who are out of your group. An example of tolerance is the friendship between Ellen DeGeneris, a politically progressive lesbian, and George W. Bush, a conservative evangelical who opposed gay marriage.
Finally, French argues for federalism – less federal government influence and more local control, so communities can live as they wish. This would make Washington less important in people’s lives and move many of our current political battles to the state level, where cultures and values are more uniform. For example, most conservatives oppose single-payer health care, while most progressives support it. If California could use its share of federal health care funding to introduce single-payer health care in the state, this would not hurt conservatives living elsewhere and would, presumably, make most Californians happier. On the other hand, America’s shoddy history with civil rights for African-Americans shows that federalism must have limits. French argues that essential civil liberties, written into the Bill of Rights, must be guaranteed throughout the country.
This would require politicians and judges to refrain voluntarily from using the power of the federal government to impose their preferred solution on the entire country. It would require pluralism and tolerance.
But problems remain
But a problem remains: We don’t agree on what constitutes fundamental civil rights, especially on the three major issues of abortion, religious freedom, and guns.
For pro-choice progressives, the right of a woman to choose what goes on inside her body, including the right to have an abortion, is a fundamental human right that should not be infringed. Hence, any laws restricting abortion violate this fundamental human right. Pro-life conservatives, in contrast, argue that the unborn child’s human right to live must take precedence over the mother’s right to choose, except to preserve the life and health of the mother.
Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it can conflict with the rights of minorities, especially LGBTQ Americans, to be free from discrimination. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case illustrates the conflict. The evangelical owner of the bakery believes that gay marriage is sinful, even though legal, and so did not want to participate in it by baking a cake for a wedding. For him, it was a matter of conscience. The gay couple argued that they were being discriminated against. For them, it was a matter of fundamental civil rights. Progressives come down on the side of the gay couple, while conservatives supported the baker.
Finally, we have guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but can be interpreted differently. Conservatives argue that this right is essentially absolute. Hence, people have a right to own assault weapons with large magazines. Progressives, on the other hand, disagree, and point out the cases of mass casualty shootings in which semi-automatic weapons with large magazines were used. For conservatives, the right to own guns without restriction is a fundamental human right. For progressives, the right to live without fear of dying in a mass casualty event is the true human right.
So, federalism alone won’t save us. We must return to pluralism and tolerance. If we truly accept the rights of people to think differently, perhaps we can find a way forward.
Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project published Getting to Yes in 1981. It quickly became a classic. They argue that negotiators should follow four principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; insist on using objective criteria.
If we separate people from the problem, we accept that our opponents are people with legitimate concerns, and we should build a good relationship with them. This is the essence of pluralism and tolerance. Focusing on interests, not positions, means understanding what’s most important for the other side as well as for yours. If you do that, you might be able to options for mutual gain, finding a solution in which both sides get what they fundamentally need, even if it’s not everything they want. Using objective criteria may be difficult, but at a minimum it means taking reality into account. The purpose is to have both sides follow agreed-on principles and accept objective facts rather than use power to force the other side to accede. When these four principles are followed – if they can be followed – no side loses.
French ends his book by citing Micah 6:8, which he calls humankind’s purpose: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Progressives and conservatives both want to do justice, but they differ on what this means. If they love mercy, they will have tolerance for their opponents, even if they believe they are wrong. Finally, walking humbly with God means being humble enough to understand that our side might be wrong, and the other side might be right. If we follow these principles, perhaps we can hold our country together.