Lowly cuck-boy David French is sure getting himself a most thorough reaming this week, ain’t he? Not that he’ll notice, natch. First up to take a swing of the Almighty Clue Bat, Julie Kelly:

French responded to his critic the next day in a piece for National Review Online titled, “What Sohrab Ahmari gets wrong.” Insisting he’s not a “milquetoast,” French proceeded to attempt to debunk Ahmari’s “misrepresentations” by citing his service as a U.S. Army judge advocate general in the Iraq War and his past court victories for maligned Christian college professors. (Commendable, of course, but hardly dispositive.)

But then French misrepresents himself in the piece. He portrays himself as “walking humbly,” careful “not [to] fan the flames” of political enmity—but French can be as vituperative, dishonest, and petty as anyone in the public square, especially if his target is Donald Trump, his family, or his supporters. The Mueller report, a political document based on an investigation into a fabricated crime, should “shock our conscience,” he wrote in April. “The lies are simply too much to bear. No Republican should tolerate such dishonesty.”

He often brags about his personal and professional achievements to both assert his moral authority and blunt any criticism of him. He occasionally injects his adopted black daughter into political battles, using anecdotal evidence to accuse Americans, particularly Trump supporters, of being racists. (As the mother of an adopted Asian daughter, I find this tactic offensive and out-of-bounds.)

French claimed that he did not promote the Russian election collusion hoax, as Ahmari stated in his piece. That is patently and provably false.

So, to briefly recap then: the Last True Principled CONservative is all in for the Mueller impeachment swindle; supported the whole Russia Collusion conspiracy from go; demanded that one of our vanishingly few Congressional stalwarts, Devin Nunes, step down even as he defended nefarious liar Adam Schitt; ridiculed those who saw right through the Klown Kar Koup attempt as the “Conspiracy Theory Right”; eagerly parrots the Left’s despicable accusations of racism, dishonesty, and corruption against the most successful Republican President since Reagan at least. All that and more, but still he arrogantly refuses to admit to either error or bad faith on his part. Apart from abortion, can anybody think of a way in which the PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE™ French differs even slightly from the Democrat-Socialists, pray tell? Bottom line on both French and every other faithless Cruiseship Cuck:

Let’s say “French-ist” Republicans take over the GOP after Trump is gone. Is there any doubt that they would compromise with Democrats on some form of a Green New Deal? Or an expansion of government-paid health care? Or college loan forgiveness? Or higher tax rates on the wealthy? Or laws that impose quotas on private industry to force the hiring of more women, minorities or LGBT workers? Or the continued deplatforming of controversial figures on the Right? Or the requirement to teach a variety of destructive, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist garbage in public schools?

Would “French-ist” Republicans have the stones to effectively challenge, and defeat, any of these proposals under a President Kamala Harris or a House Majority Leader Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Having already seen it demonstrated time after time from the Vichy GOPe over the course of several decades, we know the answer all too well. Next in the batter’s box is Ben Domenech:

When French asks, “what did politeness, respect, and dignity cost anyone?”, he sounds like a hockey coach planning to run an all-finesse team out onto the ice. Perhaps their politeness, respect, and dignity will be awarded with a honor in defeat medal. Ahmari is more interested in a form of victory, as he sees it – which could be defined as a restorationist aim, or perhaps “leave us alone, or else” – and he blames French’s mindset for much of the losing.

“What did politeness, respect, and dignity cost anyone?” Damned near everything, you blibbering fool. You weak-ass TrueCon pissants stood idly by, abhorring breaches of an etiquette observed only by yourselves, as the Left hijacked a nation from under us. And STILL you either can’t seem to see it, or you’re hoping nobody else notices. Which means that anybody who might be thinking you’ll ever be of the slightest use in taking it back is a blasted idiot. Thus:

I had the good fortune to grow up around a great many Christian people with Frenchian sentiments. They are very good and decent, but they also had a skewed perspective on politics and culture that assumed their foes in the public square would abide by certain rules and expectations that went out the window decades before.

There is a sweet naïveté and optimism to this belief, unburdened by awareness of the cultural Hindenburg we all currently inhabit. How could the ACLU, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders take stands against the active expression of religious belief when they all endorsed RFRA themselves two decades earlier? Bill Clinton signed it! Wouldn’t the hypocrisy shame them straight into the corner? Haha, you bigoted saps, watch and learn.

It is not particularly comforting to recognize we have reached a point in America where politeness and decency is no longer the best approach to politics.

Well, perhaps not. But honestly, now: was it ever? Look back at political cartoons and op-eds from all the way back to the Civil War, when Lincoln was lampooned as a semi-sentient ape, and not just in fringe newspapers either. Go back further yet, when a writer clandestinely hired by Thomas Jefferson outrageously smeared John Adams as “a repulsive pedant” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character.” Then try again to convince me that politics has ever been anything but a dirty, stinking cesspool in which the very worst of us happily bob and swim in their quest for power. Go ahead, try.

Most of the political class agrees with French. They would vastly prefer a world where everyone in politics has an approach like Paul Ryan. But even as the political elite, both leaders and staff, have insisted on that approach for years where culture and policy fights are concerned, something has come along which disrupts their chiding message about a cultural defense with the ease and give of a soft-boiled egg. It embraces the happy while forgetting the warrior part. Domesticated animals are always more welcome at the garden party atmosphere of the plexiglass roundtables shot through the airwaves, where people say “I think” about the news.

Consider the possibility that the people, honorable or dishonorable alike, who forever urged politeness and good behavior are wrong. Consider the possibility that the progressive movement has embraced views that will no longer tolerate even the presence of offensive views, as they are now practically the same as violence. Consider the possibility that a lifetime New York limousine liberal, mugged by the reality of abortion and convinced of the transactionalism of Christian voters, recognized a more brutal approach, an approach which actually spells out on national television what happens in a late term abortion, could be a better cultural defense than a thousand phone-ins to the March for Life.

It would be comforting to believe David French is correct about all of this. Many, even if they believe he is wrong, will continue to personally emulate his approach, unwilling to choose a more confrontational approach. The distaste with the Molotov is understandable. But the truth is the culture has long ago passed the point of consensus where it is possible for a peaceable navigation of the conflict.

True, with bells all over it a-ringing. Koup Kucks Klowns like French, bitterly clinging to a politesse that hasn’t existed since the 60s at least (if it ever did), should maybe ask the fella who brought a knife to a gunfight how things worked out for him. They’d get themselves a schoolin’, assuming any of them have any interest in learning something.

Lastly, Taylor Lewis steps to the plate for his innings:

Cross-dressing storytime is what set New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari off in a scathing attack on one right-wing writer. In First Things, which has latterly become a kind of authorial billet for non-traditional traditionalistic conservatives, Ahmari takes issue with what he calls “David French-ism,” which takes its name from National Review essayist David French.

Ahmari treats French like a synecdoche for all hail-fellow-well-met conservative types who think the Left will leave them be with their personal religious beliefs, even if they’re viewed as bigoted. Ahmari contends that French and other libertarian-friendly conservatives believe that “the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side.”

Ahmari is not so dewy-eyed. He knows the score, and it’s heavily weighed against the side of conservative Christians. A converted integralist and recent recruit of the “politics as war and enmity” vision, Ahmari thinks rapprochement with a cultural left that showers preteen strippers with dollar bills is unrealistic. Instead, he’d rather bring a sword, capturing the state to carve out a permanent place for the faithful. In his own words, Ahmari wants to fight the “culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

French, in Ahmari’s dichotomy, wishes for only a respectful counterpoise to liberalism’s ever encroaching reach into private and public life. Ahmari forthrightly wants to beat it back into submission.

Lewis goes on to offer a few ‘graphs in defense of French, saying “Ahmari chose the wrong figure to personify naïveté.” Sorry, but as long as French and his ilk prefer to caterwaul about Trump and his Deplorables without once condemning venomous Swamp snakes like Schitt, Mueller, Comey, et al ad nauseum, I can no way no how agree. French, well-meaning though he may be, is and will assuredly remain part of the problem. In the twilight struggle against creeping Leftist tyranny, he and his effete compadres are worse than naive, and worse than useless—they’re obstacles, an active hindrance. Thankfully, they’re already fading from view, whatever influence they may once have had speedily dwindling into nothingness, as the rest of us keep slogging on without them.