Claims About Children Born Alive After Abortion Attempts in Minnesota Are True

This is pretty rich, coming from the same publication started by the man who now says to “save conservatism from itself,” he’s going to vote for Harris/Walz (the same Walz mentioned in the above article). French is now not just a never-Trumper, he’s “progressed” to voting as poorly as he claims Christians voting for Trump are doing. Knowing this, I would almost rather read Mother Jones knowing I’m going to get poison, than the Dispatch, where the ostensible truth is often just as poisonous, but presenting itself as something good.

I guess voting for more support for abortion in the short term will somehow help conservatism become better, and then we can get rid of abortion…

Edit: Upon further thought, I guess there’s an outside chance that the Dispatch is finally going to diverge from David French (he’s been at NYT for a while now), in which case this fact check would make more sense.

This is not much of a surprise to those who realized some time ago that French is no Conservative. Perhaps now some of his defenders will recognize reality.

French is pro-life.

He was a partner in the launch The Dispatch, along with Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg. I think in the early days it was just those three, though maybe I’m forgetting someone.

It is a much larger organization now and there is a range of views on a variety of issues. I don’t think there are any Trump fans, though I expect there are some Trump voters.

I used to read everything they put out, but there is no way to keep up with all that now!

As for French, I can’t support his decision to vote for Kamala—at the 30,000 foot level, for the same reasons I can’t vote for Trump: outcomes are not necessarily enough to justify actions, including voting. French is looking at different slice of outcomes than Trump voters do, so an interesting debate might be to evaluate the merits of the sought-for outcomes. He is correct that conservatism needs saving. I wouldn’t say ‘from itself,’ exactly, but from the new right… which is what he means, I’m pretty sure.

But I can’t justify a vote for a pro-abortion candidate on those grounds any more than I can justify a vote for a delusional narcissist on the grounds that he’s sorta pro-life.

So, everyone's favorite writer - the conscience of Christianity - is enthusiastically voting for someone who wants to legalize abortion up to and beyond the moment of birth...and he's pro-life. Right. If you blieve that, check out my Craigslist ad for a great deal on a bridge.

For all of French's protestations about a certain Orange Man and his authoritarian tendencies, he apparently has no qualms voting for - in his terms - a Queen - a Queen, in fact, who - his words - mimics Donald Trump. Are monarchies democratic in our brave new world?

In essence, David French self-righteously supports an authoritarian, pro-abortion, pro-child mutilation, pro-illegal alien, pro-"insurrection" (given her actions of aid and comfort to the terrorists that looted and burned during the 2020 Summer of Love riots) agenda. He has thoroughly discredited himself and those who defend him/equivocate for him.

I am scratching my head on the responses here. All 4 of them are attacking David French. The article was about abortion and it doesn't mention David French or was written by French.

It's really not that hard to understand why most of us responded as we did. While I don't claim to speak for everyone, I would be surprised if we didn't agree on the following:

1. The article is from the Dispatch, which - as Aaron mentioned - was started largely by David French. The Dispatch and French are inextricably linked.
2. Given Aaron's and thus Sharper Iron's fondness for all things French, there wasn't the slightest chance that his recent column announcing his full-throated support for the most radical leftist authoritarian presidential candidate would ever see the light of day on SI. This was the best opportunity to call him and his SI defense team out for their blatant hypocrisy.

I think it's really that simple.

>>The article was about abortion and it doesn’t mention David French or was written by French.<<

True enough. But as Kenneth said, French is inextricably linked to the Dispatch, even though he now works at NYT instead. I just had a moment of cognitive dissonance when the Dispatch, of all publications, was suddenly putting out a “fact check” that largely seemed to be pro life, when the founder most strongly associated with the Dispatch was making a case for evangelical Christians to be voting for pro-abortion candidates Harris/Walz to “save” conservatism.

For me, this isn’t about Aaron or about never-Trumper Christians. I know lots of the latter, and there are certainly some here on SI. I respect their reasoning (though I completely disagree with their take), but I have yet to meet one who would vote for Harris/Walz, though some of them have recommended the Dispatch in the past. I gave that publication a shot for a bit, and at the beginning, it wasn’t too bad. It didn’t take long, though, for it to wander off into TDS and wacky land. Some articles seemed like they might have been written by a lefty version of Alex Jones.

So for the Dispatch to put out an article about abortion in Minnesota, let’s just say it seemed to me that they were the wrong source for that message. However, as I mentioned in my edit, upon further thought, I decided there might be an outside chance they are trying to distance themselves from the new David French (who claims to be strongly pro-life, but clearly doesn’t put his vote where his mouth is on that topic). I guess the jury is still out.

The Dispatch was not started largely by David French. That label belongs to Jonah Goldberg (The Editor-in-Chief of The Dispatch), a former senior writer at The National Review. The Dispatch was actually started by Jonah Goldberg, Stephen F Hayes (Former Senior Editor of The Weekly Standard) and Tony Stock. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/sarah-isgur-conservative-media-startup-writer-071599

French was part of the first 8 full-time employees that they hired as a writer and one of the senior editors who was accountable to Goldberg. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/trump-media-dispatch-bulwark-041121 French might've been the most popular writer for The Dispatch because he drove lots of traffic to The Dispatch's site from the MAGA-Republicans and Social Conservatives who believed he was a traitor to conservatism and from Progressives who hate Trump but viewed French as the lone conservative "voice of reason" in their minds because of his very public NeverTrumper stance. While there is much that I've agreed with him in the past (and some issues that I disagree with), the sheer amount of social, political, and journalistic capital he's spent opposing Trump appears to be his Maslow's hammer for "saving conservatism."

French's NY Times article on why he is voting for Harris was weak. The facts that he brings to the table for why he's voting for Harris may be true, but it hardly the full picture. Harris is a really bad candidate with the most extreme positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights/agenda that has ever run for President as a Democrat in the General Election. Her record and policy positions as a prosecutor, attorney general, senator, vice-president and presidential candidate are all over the place with no consistency. Trump's flip-flopping on Abortion pales in comparison to all the flip-flops she's done throughout her career as a prosecutor, attorney general, and politician. To me, French commits the false dilemma fallacy. He makes it seem as if that the only way to save conservatism from itself is to vote for Harris as if voting 3rd party or abstaining from voting doesn't send the same message. Also, French has allowed himself to become a propaganda tool for the progressive left in the culture wars, which was on full display in the God & Country Documentary, adding to the already confusion about what Christian Nationalism really is.

Having said all this, I have to admit that the anger and frustration from Sharper Iron readers towards David French, The Dispatch, and even Aaron Blumer amuses me. I often wonder whether these SI critics would rather Sharper Iron be renamed "The Echo Chamber." Judging from the comments as well as the likes that people give each other (which I admit aren't accurate research tools), most of the commenters on Sharper Iron will vote for Trump, most defend Trump's record as President and will vote for him (although most seem to be nose-holder voters for Trump) and most get their news from sites that are even more conservative or right-wing sources than The Dispatch (which was also founded on Conservative Principles)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for those of you who complain that Sharper Iron isn't posting articles that represent your stripe of conservatism, aren't you getting all your news from those sources already? Wouldn't it just lead to more confirmation bias on your part? Do we want Sharper Iron to be more of an online "Amen Corner" for the vast majority of readers? Wouldn't less people comment, which would lessen Sharper Iron's online traffic?

As for David French no longer being a conservative, I will agree if we can also say that Donald Trump isn't one either. Trump has more in common with the Rockefeller Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s that controlled the Republican party than Ronald Reagan.

Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to say that when we someone mentions the Dispatch, two names come to mind - Jonah Goldberg and David French.

I agree with your sentiment, Joel, that SI could easily be renamed "The Echo Chamber," because as currently constituted, it is one, at least politically.

As far as your description of those of us who will vote for Trump, it is simply because the alternative is unthinkable.

I'm not looking for SI to become an echo chamber. I would like to see a modicum of balance. I would like to see an acknowledgement that the concerns and warnings some of us have expressed re: French and his ilk are justified. I would like to see criticism levied against all manner of "Christian nationalism." To this point, most filings have been one-sided at best and unhinged at worst.

The beauty of SI is that we are able to bring some balance rather than being an echo chamber. As Kenneth pointed out, many of the filings have been quite one sided. I do not understand the frustration over the fact that people are bringing a different perspective and many are agreeing with that perspective. Should those voices be silenced?

In defense of Aaron and the SI filings, we should expect that people would share filings from the sources they read and not from sources they do not read. We should also not be surprised that their positions would be influenced by the sources they read. I am confident that all of our positions are influenced in such a way.

What makes this site great is that we have people who read a number of different sources and who have a number of different biases. We are able to bounce those biases off of one another and sharpen each other's iron. Other SI members have shared links to sites that I had never heard of and whose influences I would not have been exposed to if not for them. In many ways this site is the opposite of an echo chamber and that has been good.

I'm not looking for SI to become an echo chamber. I would like to see a modicum of balance. I would like to see an acknowledgement that the concerns and warnings some of us have expressed re: French and his ilk are justified. I would like to see criticism levied against all manner of "Christian nationalism." To this point, most filings have been one-sided at best and unhinged at worst.

I'm just curious. I guess I don't know enough about this site. Is Aaron the only one who can post filings? Are other people trying to post them from their perspective and they are getting rejected? Are people trying to start threads, say in support of Trump, and seeing those threads getting erased?

>>I agree with your sentiment, Joel, that SI could easily be renamed “The Echo Chamber,” because as currently constituted, it is one, at least politically.<<

I already get plenty of news outside the Christian world. I, for one, don’t come to SI to get political takes on things, though since the Christian viewpoint should apply to all of life, there’s really no avoiding political topics either, especially since politics is a very large part of American life, and most posters here are from the U.S.A, or have lived here for a while. I guess my weakness is that I sometimes can’t resist commenting when I really should stay out of it.

However, I think it’s clear from the discussions that do happen that there is a fair amount of different thinking on the political issues, otherwise they wouldn’t get so charged. If it were really a true echo chamber, there wouldn’t be much to say on each post or comment other than “mega dittos.” The dissent that does show up here doesn’t mean that most posters don’t lean mostly in one direction, but it’s very clear that we’re not 100% unified either.

Personally, though, that’s one thing I like about SI. We can have discussions that generate some sparks (iron sharpening iron), but those discussions don’t really descend into the depths of darkness that discussions on X, FB, or even Usenet (for you oldies like me) can reach. There are a number of posters on SI that I don’t agree with on every single thing. Even if I don’t agree, getting challenged in my thinking (even if it doesn’t always change) by them is something I find valuable.

Even if I don’t agree, getting challenged in my thinking (even if it doesn’t always change) by them is something I find valuable.

EXACTLY! I am not surprised when people disagree with me. What bothers me is when they get all upset because I disagreed with them. What benefits me the most is when I disagree with someone and rather than getting upset, they clarify their position and defend their position in such a way that I cannot discount it.

For example, one of the posters here on SI once got so upset with my comments that he threatened to leave SI, but then he calmed down, clarified his position, and made a lot of sense. I then found myself agreeing with most of what he had said after he calmed down. I just wish we could have skipped the part where he got all upset because he had much valuable insight to offer to the discussion.

@JD, you asked aobut Filings…

I’m just curious. I guess I don’t know enough about this site. Is Aaron the only one who can post filings? Are other people trying to post them from their perspective and they are getting rejected?

There used to be an ‘About Filings’ page, but I think that one may not have been rebuilt when the site migrated to the new version in 2023. So that should go on the do list.

Currently I curate those, but anyone can submit tips/suggestions via the contact form: https://sharperiron.org/contact

Are people trying to start threads, say in support of Trump, and seeing those threads getting erased?

Though Filings are almost always open for comments, and so they are ‘threads,’ not all threads are Filings. Any registered user can start a thread in the Forum.

We hardly ever unpublish a whole thread. Sometimes it’s necessary to unpublish a comment or two.

I hope that helps fill in some gaps for you on how things work.

Over the years, interaction has always been messy at times—especially when topics arise that people feel strongly about. What we’ve tried to do is be relaxed enough to let some messiness happen but let views be heard, and only nudge things back toward calm and/or reign in comments that are inappropriate.

Humans being what they are, we tend to feel like we’re being unfairly quieted/corrected/etc., and other people are getting away with too much. “Incorrect” and “inappropriate” get conflated in our perceptions a lot when we strongly disagree.

So… yeah, it’s more art than science, and we do our best. We rely a lot on commenters’ self-regulation, and they do a lot of that.