David French has long cast himself as the guardian of authentic conservatism, a lone voice of principle amid a populist storm. But a recent column seemingly intended to critique Vice President J.D. Vance has, according to his critics on the right, inadvertently exposed something more fundamental: French was never really conservative to begin with.
French, now a New York Times opinion writer and self-described Harris voter, has drawn fire for years from those who question his conservative credentials. Yet many on the right have been willing to grant that he was once one of them. That concession, some argue, is no longer necessary — and a closer look at his latest argument suggests why.
Defining Conservatism as Freedom
In his critique of Vance, French laid out what he believes conservatism ought to be — and it is, his detractors say, a distinctly libertarian-flavored secular liberalism. French himself acknowledges that he is “libertarianish,” even as he avoids the label. His rhetoric underscores the point: “There is no one innately better qualified than you to decide your own destiny,” and “Unless I harm someone else, it’s not the government’s job to determine whether I’m virtuous enough to enjoy liberty, including economic liberty.”
For French, conservatism is less about conserving than it is about expanding personal freedom. He reportedly claimed that before Trump, the “standard conservative understanding of the American experiment” held that the “role of conservatives was often to nudge (and sometimes try to shove) our nation in the direction of more freedom and more choice.”
In this vision, government must avoid adjudicating between competing visions of the good, true, and beautiful. It is not competent to do so, French argues, and certainly should not push citizens toward the “right” way to live. Instead, the state should remain neutral on such moral questions, confining itself to protecting individual rights and liberties.
But this is precisely where French’s critics say he departs from conservative tradition. “Unlike French, conservatives know that government will always impose some morality, because that is what law is,” one analysis from The Federalist argues. “Government always comes with at least a partial vision of the good, true, and beautiful; it is always choosing between good and evil, truth and lies.”
The Vance Disagreement
French’s column was triggered by Vance’s willingness to subordinate individual liberty to a broader communal good. French reportedly wrote: “If liberty conflicts with Vance’s view of the common good… Then, liberty must give way. We see this impulse everywhere on the New Right. Free speech is a vital American value, until it’s exercised by drag queens.”
That last jab is a reference to French’s earlier defense of Drag Queen Story Hour, a stance for which he was criticized. He had insisted that it was “one of the blessings of liberty” that “a person can get a room in a library and hold a Drag Queen Story Hour and get people to come.” French’s attempts to vindicate that position have, in the eyes of his critics, only deepened the divide between his philosophy and conservative tradition.
There is simply no evidence, they argue, that the founders conceived of rights as extending to drag performances in libraries. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, or when relevant amendments were added, no one thought such conduct was protected. For nearly all of American history, laws ranging from blue laws to sodomy bans reflected a willingness to legislate morality — and drag queen story hours would likely have been shut down as indecent.
Rights Are Not Neutral
At the heart of the disagreement is a fundamental assumption about rights. French treats rights as neutral instruments of personal autonomy. His critics contend that rights are historically and culturally conditioned — they come with embedded assumptions about what is good and true and beautiful. “French ought to know this,” The Federalist piece observes, pointing to his military service in Iraq. “One of the most important lessons of that occupation is that Americanism cannot be transplanted into an alien soil. It is not enough to kick the dictator out and declare a new pluralistic democracy that recognizes everyone’s rights.”
The American system, conservatives have long argued, presupposes a citizenry of a certain character. It depends on cultural prerequisites and on individuals who possess self-restraint, virtue, and a commitment to the commonweal. That is why, French’s critics say, a value-neutral liberalism cannot sustain itself. It consumes the very moral capital on which a free society depends.
French has frequently lamented the importance of character, particularly when assailing former President Donald Trump and his supporters. But he reportedly mocked anyone from the Trump administration who touted moral character and jeered at the supposed moral rectitude of earlier generations. He never substantively engaged with Vance’s claim that the American system cannot function without citizens possessed of the right culture and ethos — and that the government therefore has a legitimate interest in cultivating them.
Government and Morality
Vance’s argument is “obviously correct,” The Federalist contends. While government should exercise caution and restraint, that does not mean it must pretend neutrality on questions of what is good and true. Such neutrality is “utterly alien to the history of American culture and law.” The absence of a state church does not require government to ignore the difference between a man and a woman, a baptism and a drag show, or God and Satan.
Elected representatives and appointed officials, The Federalist argues, are not obligated to be morally neutral. And a pundit at a prominent outlet like The New York Times ought to understand that “value-neutral maximization of individual choice and autonomy” has nothing in common with conservatism.
A Career Built on Legal Pragmatism
Those who might be inclined to charitably interpret French’s position suggest he is simply out of his depth. French began his career as a litigator focusing on campus free speech and religious liberty. To secure wins for clients, he deployed libertarian readings of liberal precedents, trying to persuade liberals to grant Christian conservatives the same rights they were giving flag burners and pornographers.
That work was good and necessary, but it was tailored to specific cases and circumstances. It won court battles, but the reasoning was never conservative in its principles. It was, as one critic puts it, “a makeshift shield for a defensive-crouch Christian conservatism.” As French transitioned into punditry, he elevated those tactical arguments to the core of his ersatz conservatism.
Now, after a decade of upheaval on the right, French is “intellectually adrift and confused,” The Federalist argues. He insists he is the last true conservative — that he didn’t leave the right, but that the right left him. Yet the more he tries to serve as the arbiter of conservatism, the clearer it becomes that he never understood what American conservatism is trying to preserve.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/08/david-french-accidentally-admits-he-was-never-conservative/