Angry Anti-Trumpers Fueled The Rising Tide Of Mamdani Authoritarianism
This is where Democrats are. They're all-in on giant government. They've embraced state power like a jealous lover.Yesterday, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey debated New York Times columnist David French, who has long identified as an evangelical Christian and a conservative.
Despite their shared theological and political identities, Stuckey and French clash on a number of issues, including transgender pronouns and gender ideology, abortion, and Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, among others.
In their 95-minute debate, the duo respectfully went head-to-head on topics that have drawn strong criticism of French from many on the conservative right.
Here are three highlights from the debate:
Allie brought up French’s recent article in which he praised Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico as a Christian who sets a positive example of the faith in politics compared to “MAGA Christianity.”
In contrast, Allie has sharply criticized Talarico’s progressive theological views, accusing him of twisting Scripture to support abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and left-wing policies
But French doubled down: “I’m just really not willing to say James Talarico is not a Christian.”
He continued, “When I look at our political discourse around Christianity in this country and political Christianity, it’s so broken. ... We’re writing people out of Christianity based on policy positions.”
Allie pushed back, arguing that Talarico is pushing far more than policy positions.
“They’re not policy positions to say God is non-binary ... or to say our trans neighbors need abortion care too, or to say that, ‘I think all religions share the same central truth,’” she countered, insisting that these are primarily “theological” issues.
Given that Talarico refuses to “affirm Genesis 1,” Allie made it clear that it’s “going to be tough” to agree that he’s the Christian he identifies as.
In another part of the debate, Allie brought up French’s 2024 endorsement of Kamala Harris.
“I don’t understand voting for someone like Kamala Harris,” she said, referencing the Biden DOJ’s removal of SNAP benefits for public schools that refused to allow biological males to use girls’ facilities or compete on girls’ teams.
She also pointed to Harris’ pledge to restore the Roe v. Wade framework and her opposition to bills banning late-term abortions.
“I agree with you on so many of these issues. ... I just don’t think I could ever vote for Kamala Harris,” she reiterated.
French countered by arguing that for him, the Russia-Ukraine War took precedence over gender and abortion issues.
“I would place a war in which a million people are being killed and injured, which could potentially lead to a World War III that we may not survive as a species ... way above things like pronouns,” he said.
But Allie pushed back on what she saw as “diminishment” of her original argument.
“You know I’m not just talking about pronouns,” she resisted.
“I’m talking about medical guidance for hospitals to chemically castrate kids. I’m talking about in Democrat states ... taking kids out of the custody of their parents because the parents won’t affirm this newfound gender of the child,” she continued.
Allie also called out what she perceived to be conflicting statements regarding French’s position on “pronoun politeness.”
Last year during a podcast, French referred to his male colleague (Brian Riedl) who identifies as a woman using female pronouns — an act many, including Allie, perceived as a contradiction to his 2018 article, in which he wrote, “The use of a pronoun isn’t a matter of mere manners. It’s a declaration of a fact. I won’t call Chelsea Manning ‘she’ for a very simple reason. He’s a man.”
“Is your stance one of pronoun politeness that you believe that a man who identifies as a woman should be referred to as ‘she/her’?” Allie inquired.
French claimed he “didn’t remember” using female pronouns to refer to Riedl and partially reaffirmed his 2018 statement.
After praising Riedl as a “brilliant analyst,” French stated, “I’m going to be kind to [trans people], but I also don’t want to say things that I don’t believe are true, and so the way I deal with that is, I use people’s names.”
He caveated, however, by declaring that he’s “definitely not going to go out of [his] way” to call trans-identifying people by the pronouns matching their biological sex.
Allie replied, “I don’t see it as unkind calling someone, whether it’s to their face or not to their face, the gender that God made them.”
But French dissented. “Oh, I think if somebody is dealing with gender dysphoria, ... I don’t see the value in me saying something to them that I know and they know is going to be hurtful to them.”
“It’s just normal, complete politeness and manners,” he continued.
“I’m just not going to go out of my way to say something that I know is going to be hurtful just because I can justify it as being true. All true words are not kind by virtue of just simply being true.”
Allie conceded, “I agree that you don’t have to be rude to someone and say, ‘That shirt looks bad on you.’”
“But when it comes to [gender], when we know it’s a lie that damages someone, that hurts them spiritually and physically and emotionally, hurts their family, I just can’t get on board with assenting to the idea that 2+2=5.”
Overall, the debate offered a revealing look at the growing divide within evangelical Christianity over truth, compassion, and cultural engagement. Watch the full hour-and-a-half exchange below.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
BlazeTV's Allie Beth Stuckey sat down with New York Times columnist David French in a rare, candid debate about the concept of "toxic empathy," which Stuckey wrote about in her book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion."
'You are using the title of my book, and you called me the foremost architect of this concept of toxic empathy.'
Stuckey confronted French's mischaracterization of her views on empathy in his NYT op-eds, in which he argued that some Christians who align with President Donald Trump have waged a war on empathy.
"My issue is, really, we don't have enough empathy, that empathy needs to be more holistic," French said.
"In my view, one of our big problems is not enough empathy and, particularly amongst very partisan people, very selective empathy, so that 'only my ally's experience really matters,'" he continued.
French called it a "cultural phenomenon," particularly among parts of "MAGA Christianity," to dismiss empathy for human suffering as "toxic." He claimed instead that it is "incomplete" or "selective" empathy.
Stuckey contended that "selective empathy" that leads to "immoral decisions is a form of toxic empathy." She continued to press French on his articles.
"I tell both sides of the story. ... I'm actually doing what you say needs to be done, which is expanding compassion, but I don't end there. Because I think you would agree, we don't get anywhere if both sides are just saying, 'Well, my story's sadder. No, my story's sadder,'" Stuckey stated.
She argued that ending there "actually paralyzes you from making a good moral decision." She instead called for Christians to be thoughtful and consider both sides of the story, giving the example of illegal immigrants and victims like Laken Riley, a 22-year-old college student who was murdered by a foreign national who was in the U.S. illegally.
"We have to ask discerning questions: What is biblically true? What's morally true? What's politically true, logically true, historically true?" she added.
RELATED: David French catches flak for claiming Talarico, a pro-abortion Democrat, 'acts like a Christian'

During the exchange, Stuckey noted areas of apparent agreement, stating, "It doesn't really sound like you disagree with me here, but it did sound like you did in the articles."
"In 2025, you said, for example, 'If people respond to the foreign aid shutdown and the stop-work orders by talking about how children might suffer and die, then they're exhibiting toxic empathy,'" Stuckey said. "That's not what I say toxic empathy is."
"Well, it's absolutely what I see a lot in the public discussion," French responded.
"You are using the title of my book, and you called me the foremost architect of this concept of toxic empathy. But I don't say that toxic empathy is someone caring about children dying, and that's how you describe it in the article," Stuckey remarked.
"I'm not putting this all on you," French said. "One of the sad things that has occurred is this global, larger attack and talk about empathy has led to an immediate response when you talk about human suffering. I will see many Christians say, 'That's toxic empathy.'"
RELATED: Pro-life support plummets among churchgoers despite faith resurgence

During the interview, the two also discussed gender, abortion, French's defense of voting for Vice President Kamala Harris (D) in the 2024 presidential election, and his support for Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D) in the upcoming Texas Senate election against either incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R) or Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).
As part of his argument for voting for Harris over President Donald Trump, French cited the abortion rates under Trump's administration compared to those under former President Barack Obama.
French, who considers himself pro-life, told Stuckey, "The largest drop in abortions actually occurred during the eight years of the Obama administration." While he admitted that the rise in abortion rates under Trump is the result of multiple factors, he argued that the Republican president perpetuates a problematic culture of "libertinism" that "is incompatible with a pro-life ethic."
"Complex social phenomena typically don't have singular causes. ... We've been dealing with some culture changes that I think are really negative. ... America is a lot more libertine, and Donald Trump is a very libertine man. He does what he wants," French said.
Megan Basham, a journalist for the Daily Wire, reacted to Stuckey's interview with French, criticizing the columnist for his abortion-rate argument.
"Oh my gosh, that is such a ridiculous response. French had said something similar about Obama. He said that the abortion rate went down under Obama because Obama gave people hope. Absolutely idiotic. The truth was, red states enacted more restrictions under Obama and that what was what was bringing the abortion rate down. And French is too smart not to know that," Basham wrote. "So what does that make him?"
Kylee Griswold, the managing editor for the Federalist, added, "Additionally, abortion #s under Trump 2 can't be divorced from the Biden-Harris administration removing the in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone — which is how most abortions are performed. An egregious move that puts women at SERIOUS risk and also causes abortion in red states to SKYROCKET."
In a separate post, Mollie Hemingway, the editor in chief of the Federalist, wrote, "David French struggles and faceplants with his attempt to justify to @conservmillen why he endorsed Kamala Harris, given her lengthy track record of persecuting prolife Christians and journalists."
Not the Bee commended Stuckey for the debate.
"I love your way of confronting men like French. I'd say in this case, it would have made sense to bring up the fact that if you follow his logic, speaking to somebody about the Gospel could be equated to telling them an unkind truth. They are sinners. They are incapable of saving themselves, and they need Jesus. That's not 'kind.' But it's necessary. If you avoid unkind truths, you will never share the Gospel," Not the Bee wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
New York Times opinion writer David French, a self-described evangelical conservative, has made a habit out of supporting radical leftists over those Republican officials who have time and again delivered meaningful results for the causes of life and liberty.
French announced in 2024, for example, that he was supporting then-candidate Kamala Harris over President Donald Trump "to save conservatism."
'French always saves his most demonic takes for Sunday morning columns.'
The former National Review writer's rationale was that the GOP supposedly wouldn't survive another Trump term but could be rebuilt as a "force for genuine good" in the event that Harris — an advocate for abortion, child sex-rejection procedures, and infringements on the Second Amendment — won.
Although his propaganda didn't work in 2024, French clearly hasn't given up on promoting radical leftists and is now promoting James Talarico, the Democrat state representative hoping to succeed Republican John Cornyn in the U.S. Senate.
French — who has not only embraced homosexual "marriage" but also non-Christian speech codes about gender — claimed in an editorial on Sunday that "Talarico shines" as "one of the few openly Christian politicians in the United States who acts like a Christian, and by acting like a Christian he reveals a profound contrast with so many members of the MAGA Christian movement that’s dominated American political life for 10 years."
French proffered Talarico's Senate primary victory speech, during which he criticized competition, as an example of the Democrat's supposed Christianity in action, "right heart," and loving ways.
"I am tired of being pitted against my neighbor. I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor. It’s been more than 10 years of this kind of politics," said Talarico. "Politics as blood sport, politics as trolling and owning, politics as total war. It tears families apart. It ends friendships, and it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time."
RELATED: Democrats swapped Crockett’s preening for Talarico’s pulpit — and it worked

Though gushing about Talarico's supposed Christian decency and compassionate public face, French neglected to mention any of the Democrat's nastier remarks about those political opponents and fellow Christians with whom he fundamentally disagrees.
Talarico previously suggested, for example, that Trump is a "business cheat, a pathological liar, a serial adulterer, a twice-impeached insurrectionist, a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist," many of whose supporters "have forgotten all about Jesus."
Trump sued ABC News over host George Stephanopoulos' false on-air assertion that the president had been found civilly liable for rape. Per the terms of the late 2024 settlement, ABC News ultimately agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump's presidential library.
Despite the apparent narrowness of Talarico's love and understanding, French — making no secret of his soft spot for Cornyn and hard liking for Talarico — presented the Democrat challenger as the supposedly virtuous antithesis of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
French's case relies not only on selective outrage and his apparent ability to judge the hearts of men but on severing both candidates from their relevant activities, namely their work in office.
"For too long we've evaluated Christians in politics primarily through their policy positions," wrote French. "Yet this is exactly backward."
French expressed outrage over Paxton's failed marriage and portrayed him as an exemplar of vice while strategically ignoring Talarico's:
Critics blasted French over his commentary, suggesting that his understanding of "decency" is confused if not outright deceptive.
Radio host Erick Erickson noted, "It is not decent to twist scripture to lead others to hell. It is not decent to claim whiteness itself is like a virus. It is not decent to use Christ’s conception as a justification for abortion. It is not decent to reduce women to 'neighbors with uteruses.' Only if you have been radicalized by your critics can you land at this position."
'Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape.'
"David French is endorsing a guy who wants free abortion mills in every courthouse and who also claims God is trans," wrote Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist. "That French always saves his most demonic takes for Sunday morning columns is a pretty good indicator of who he actually worships now."
William Wolfe, executive director for the Center for Baptist Leadership, alluded to the conspiring demons in C.S Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters," writing, "Now tell them that pro-abortion, pro-child mutilation politician who preaches that God is non-binary is a 'shining' example of a Christian. Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape."
Weeks prior to French's opinion piece, BlazeTV host Steve Deace suggested that Talarico was an "object and a vessel of malevolence. All right? When he speaks, he's not deceived; he's the deceiver. ... He is who Paul would have said in Acts, 'You are a son of the devil.' He knows what he is doing."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!Only in the upside-down world of elite evangelicalism could repentance look like rebellion.
David French recently made a telling admission: He is "nervous" about "something" that is "stirring in Christian America." That "something," French insists, is that contrary to news that a Christian revival is under way in America, what is actually happening is not revival but "religious revolution."
Revival always looks like revolution to those who've made peace with decay.
The evidence? Jan. 6 (of course), a nuanced Christian debate about empathy, and Charlie Kirk's memorial service.
Authentic revival, according to French, would be focused on the self because true revival "begins with the people proclaiming, by word and deed, 'I have sinned.'"
But so-called MAGA Christianity, he claims, announces a different message: "It looks at American culture and declares, 'You have sinned.'" French continues:
And it doesn't stop there. It also says, "We will defeat you." In its most extreme forms, it also says, "We will rule over you." That's not revival; it's revolution, a religious revolution that seeks to overthrow one political order and replace it with another — one that has echoes of the religious kingdoms of ages past.
And don't be fooled when these revolutionaries call themselves "conservative." All too many conservative Christians are actually quite proudly radical. They want to demolish the existing order, including America's commitment to pluralism and individual liberty, and put their version of Christianity at the center of American political life.
It's clear that French sees the stirring of Christian faith across America — Christians re-engaging in politics, education, and culture — but instead of feeling encouraged or hopeful, he sees it as dangerous. He wants you to believe that ordinary Christians working to build communities shaped by biblical values are flirting with authoritarianism.
But what he can't seem to imagine is that maybe this is what authentic renewal looks like: Christians waking up to the world around them, tired of pretending their convictions don't belong in public life.
Revival, after all, always looks like revolution to those who've made peace with decay.
French's nervousness reveals something deeper than politics. It exposes a theology that's been domesticated, one that treats faith as a private matter rather than a public demonstration of allegiance to Jesus Christ.
In his view, repentance is safe only when it stays inside the confines of the individual heart. But Christian faith is not individualistic. Repentance — literally meaning "turning back" or "returning" to God — is not limited to what one person can do for themselves. The Bible does not recognize the division that French asserts.
Instead, when people repent and turn back to God, hearts are transformed and households are changed. And when households change, communities change. And when communities change, culture is transformed.
RELATED: The left's new anti-Christian smear backfires

Every true revival — from King Josiah's reforms (2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chronicles 34-35) to the Great Awakenings — has looked political to those invested in the old order. That's because repentance, by its nature of not being limited to the self, always has public consequences. You can't toss aside sin and put on the "new self," as the apostle Paul calls it, without eventually dethroning the idols of the city.
The gospel doesn't just save people. It literally institutes a new Kingdom, one in which all reality is reordered around the lordship of King Jesus.
So when French frets about Christians who are "quite proudly radical," he misses the point. He sees a problem with Christians who want to tear down the "existing order" — as if that order has borne good fruit — and assumes they're driven by a lust for power and control. That critique is worse than lazy. It's slanderous.
In truth, these Christians aren't seeking power and control. They're simply refusing to bow to the false gods of our age.
The "existing order" that French defends isn't morally neutral, working for the flourishing of all people. No. It's an anti-God order that calls confusion "compassion," celebrates sin, and treats moral clarity as a threat to democracy. It's an order where drag queens read to children, abortion is called "health care," and Christians are pushed to the margins of polite society.
Yet to French, the problem isn't the godlessness but the Christians who dare call it out, stand against it, and seek to reform it. This brand of "respectable" faith demands silence in the face of cultural collapse. It's the faith that turns a blind eye to societal sin over fear that conviction may be mistaken for cruelty or — gasp — power-grabbing.
But a Christianity that never offends the world will never change it. Jesus didn't die to make the world more comfortable. He died to make you and me new people, and new people — those whose allegiance to Jesus bears conformity to his Kingdom — inevitably shape the world around them.
Call it "Christian nationalism," call it whatever you want, but the truth is this: The existence of the Kingdom of Heaven, which Jesus inaugurated, means that Christians right now are living out obedience to Christ. Christ is reigning, and that means His people, wherever they live, make their communities and countries more Christian.
And a more Christian world requires confronting the idols of our time and tearing them down, not politely negotiating with them.
Perhaps French is right: A revolution is under way. But it's not happening in Washington. It's unfolding quietly in small-town homes and churches across America, where Christians are repenting, rebuilding, and reordering their lives around the Kingdom of God.
We're now back to where we began: Only in the upside-down world of elite evangelicalism could repentance look like rebellion.
But maybe that's exactly what real repentance is supposed to look like in a culture that is so drunk on self-worship that it has not only rejected God or tried to erase Him, but it has tried to become like God.
French sees danger where there's actually deliverance: A generation of Christians waking up, tired of compromise, refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. He mistakes courage for cruelty and conviction for control. But the truth is simple: You can't have revival without resistance, and every age that bows to godless idols sees repentance as subversion.
If repentance and revival is returning to God, then revolution is what happens when enough people finally do.