David French's Libertarian Conception of Conservatism Reveals He Was Never a True Conservative
Source: Nathanael Blake. "David French Accidentally Admits He Was Never Conservative." September 8, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that David French, despite claiming to be conservative, was never really one because his views are actually libertarian—he believes government should stay neutral on morality and just protect individual freedom. The author says real conservatism has always accepted that government promotes certain moral and cultural values, and French's philosophy of pure personal autonomy is fundamentally different from and incompatible with that tradition.
Conclusion
David French was never actually a conservative, because his defense of value-neutral individual liberty as the essence of conservatism reflects a libertarian/secular liberal philosophy rather than genuine American conservatism.
Premises
- French defines conservatism as fundamentally about expanding personal freedom and autonomy, claiming no one is better qualified than the individual to decide their own destiny.
- French argues government should be neutral on questions of virtue and the good life, focusing only on protecting individual rights and liberty.
- This value-neutral, autonomy-maximizing view is historically inaccurate: the Founders and Americans for most of history accepted government legislating morality (e.g., blue laws, sodomy bans) and would not have recognized things like Drag Queen Story Hour as protected rights.
- Government inherently cannot be morally neutral—law always embodies some vision of good and truth, and even areas like education necessarily form character and worldview rather than remaining neutral.
- Rights themselves are not neutral but are historically and culturally conditioned, carrying implicit assumptions about what is good and true.
- True conservatism recognizes that a democratic republic depends on citizens having the right culture, character, and ethos, and that government has a legitimate interest in cultivating this—a point French fails to substantively address when criticizing J.D. Vance.
- French's intellectual background as a free-speech/religious-liberty litigator relied on libertarian legal arguments tailored to specific cases, which he then mistakenly elevated into a general conservative philosophy, rather than holding authentic conservative principles.
Assumptions
- Authentic American conservatism is defined by historical continuity with founding-era and traditional moral/legal views rather than an evolving commitment to expanding liberty.
- Government legitimately has a role in shaping citizens' character and moral culture, and this role is central to what conservatism seeks to conserve.
- A person's current political positions and voting behavior (e.g., voting for Kamala Harris, leaving his church) are relevant evidence for retroactively assessing whether they were ever conservative.
- There is a single, correct definition of 'conservatism' that the author possesses and can use to adjudicate who qualifies as conservative.
- Support for same-sex marriage and value-neutral liberalism is incompatible with conservatism, rather than being a legitimate variant within conservative thought.