So the firebrand polemicist and the genial litigator met for a live debate. “There was near-universal consensus that French mopped the floor with Ahmari,” reports Rod Dreher from the scene. You can also read Zman for his take. A couple of PTT-made points were raised, although without our crisp clarity. Ahmari mumbled something about self-censorship a couple of times, while failing to mention the far more sinister non-self kind (as in: facebook, twitter, youtube). During the Q&A session, a lady wondered why Ahmari and French had to insist on a dichotomy rather figure out a way to collaborate (though she didn’t suggest, like we did, that French should stick to litigation while Ahmari’s burlier friends do the skull-cracking).
In the spirit of pointing out glaring, gaping logical holes that somehow go unnoticed, here is a doozy from David French, starting on minute 26 and transcribed here:
There is no circumstance under which any political movement in this country can create a superstructure where the people that you like always win, and the people you don’t like and you think that are bad are always going to lose, and you’re going to always like that outcome.
That’s a nice defense of proceduralism you’ve got there, David. So, you mean, a group of determined, like-minded people could not hatch a long-term plan to take over the various key social institutions, such as the academia, the press, and the intelligence agencies? A Gramscian march through the institutions is just right-wing hysteria, right? They couldn’t possibly conspire to rig the election — and certainly there’s no deep state trying to render the election results irrelevant. David French appears to be an intelligent man, yet he can’t seem to grasp the basic notion that proceduralism only works if both sides are committed to playing by the rules.