Latest news with #DavidFrench
New York Times
17 hours ago
- General
- New York Times
Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the Times Opinion politics correspondent Michelle Cottle speaks to the columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French about the rise of 'toxic empathy' and how the right has turned compassion into weakness. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity. Michelle Cottle: Today I want us to talk about something of a vibe shift that's happening right now in politics. I feel like we're seeing a prime example in what might darkly be characterized as the 'death of empathy.' So hear me out on this. When people are feeling sour or anxious, I think they don't want to be lectured that other people have it worse than they do. Instead, they want to be told they are justified in being upset and aggrieved and that their leaders, as Bill Clinton liked to tell us, 'feel their pain.' And it's even better if they are given a convenient group to blame for their troubles. For years now, progressives have been engaged in a competition of sorts, which is like, 'In the hierarchy of intersectionality, who has the most right to be upset?' And that has put conservative white men in particular on the defensive at a time when they're already freaked out about shifting social and economic hierarchies. So a lot of people are tired of feeling guilty, and they have been very open to the idea that empathy or compassion is a weakness. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Harvard's bogus ‘free speech' claim — 1st Amendment doesn't make taxpayers cough up cash
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard University? On MSNBC, David French argued that President Trump's defunding of Harvard is little more than 'political retaliation.' In the United States, we don't sentence people before hearing the verdict, the New York Times columnist said. Ignoring due process is 'directly contrary to our constitutional principles.' Advertisement David might not be aware that in addition to the joint-government task force's claim that Harvard leadership failed to meaningfully confront pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation of Jewish students, there's also a blistering internal university taskforce report that maintains that Harvard allowed antisemitism to permeate 'coursework, social life, the hiring of some faculty members and the worldview of certain academic programs.' Harvard concedes, 'members of the Jewish and Israeli communities at Harvard reported treatment that was vicious and reprehensible.' Advertisement The verdict is in. But, I suppose, I'd pose the situation in another way. If a government investigation and internal review both found that white supremacists on Harvard's campus were terrorizing black students and engaging in racist marches, and that their violent beliefs had found favor in the school's curriculums and in social life, would anyone on MSNBC argue that the government had an obligation to keep funding this school until a civil lawsuit worked its way through the courts? One suspects not. Advertisement Now, I'm not accusing David French of being blind to the struggles of Jewish students. I am accusing him of being blinded by the presence of Donald Trump. Are the president's motivations political? Probably. Advertisement So what? So are those of Harvard's defenders. Harvard, a private institution, can do as it likes. There's nothing illegal about coddling extremists or pumping out credentialed pseudointellectuals. If the Trump administration failed to follow a bureaucratic process before freezing funds to the university, fine. Get it done. But what 'constitutional principle' dictates that the federal government must provide this specific institution with $3 billion in federal contracts and grants? Giving it to them was a policy decision made by the executive branch. Advertisement Withdrawing the funding is the same. French reasons that the administration should, at very least, 'target the entity and individuals responsible' for the bad behavior. Defund the Middle Eastern studies department, rather than, say, the pediatric cancer research department. I'm sympathetic to this idea. Advertisement But funding, as we all understand, is fungible. Targeting one department will do nothing to change the culture. Moreover, leadership is responsible for the culture. It allowed, nay nurtured, a Middle East Studies department staffed by a slew of nutjobs. Advertisement It's not the only department. Think about it this way: There is a far higher likelihood of finding an apologist of Islamic terrorism than a Christian conservative on the Harvard faculty. Less than 3% of the Harvard faculty identify as conservative. Advertisement There are real-world consequences for Harvard's radicalism, as their grads are staffing newsrooms, influential law firms, and government agencies without ever hearing a dissenting view. Anyway, if the school values its pediatric cancer research efforts so highly, why does it sacrifice grants and prestige by allowing bigoted bullies to run around campus targeting Jews? That's a choice. As far as I can tell, not one student was expelled, much less suspended, for antisemitism in the two years since Oct. 7, 2023. If your answer is that the school feels a profound obligation to defend free expression, I suggest you speak to some pro-Israeli or pro-capitalist or pro-American or social conservative student on campus and see how comfortable they feel about airing opinions. Harvard finished last for the second year running in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's 'College Free Speech Rankings' in 2024, along with Columbia University and New York University. The only speech Harvard values is the extremist variety. We should feel no patriotic imperative to fund speech we dislike, which is very different from the imperative of protecting speech we dislike. This distinction seems to be lost on many. Harvard, along with many left-wingers, argues that Trump's funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights. Who knows what the courts will say? If they force the funding to continue, something is seriously wrong. Anyway, perhaps Harvard should dip into the $53 billion hedge fund it runs to backfill some of the funding. Or maybe it can hit up the Islamic sheiks of Qatar for some more cash. How about those Chicom apparatchiks? Maybe they can chip in. But taxpayers shouldn't be compelled to subsidize an institution that almost exclusively teaches students to hate their values. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Analysis-US pipeline firms wrestle buy/build conundrum as Trump pushes energy expansion
By David French NEW YORK (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's pro-energy policies were meant to speed the construction of the United States' next generation of energy infrastructure, but many oil and gas pipeline operators would still rather buy than build their way to expansion due to a host of factors impeding large projects. Trump declared an energy emergency on his first day in office and has issued directives to support exports, reform permitting and roll back environmental standards. Since his November election, a number of large-scale projects have been greenlit, including a liquefied natural gas terminal and a handful of pipelines. But higher costs from a global trade war sparked by U.S. tariffs, labor shortages, low oil prices, and the risk of legal snags mean many companies are generally reluctant to commit to bold new construction. Instead, operators see mergers and acquisitions as a more efficient way to grow. In the first quarter of this year, 15 U.S. midstream deals were struck, the highest quarterly number since the final three months of 2021, according to energy tech company Enverus. "We have spent a lot of time thinking about the buy versus build question and, at this time, we're seeing more opportunities to buy assets," said Angelo Acconcia, a partner at ArcLight Capital Partners, which invests in energy infrastructure. Acconcia said factors including tariffs and high demand for supplies and labor made it challenging to calculate the economics of building a project. One of the most prevalent trends in dealmaking so far in 2025 has been pipeline companies buying back stakes in joint ventures, previously sold to help fund the initial development costs of prior-year builds. Targa Resources said in February it would acquire preferred equity in its Targa Badlands pipeline system from Blackstone for $1.8 billion, while MPLX said in the same month it would buy the 55% interest in the BANGL natural gas pipeline previously owned by WhiteWater Midstream and Diamondback Energy for $715 million. Private equity owners of energy infrastructure are keen sellers, having spent recent years developing systems that are now online. Northwind Midstream, a New Mexico-focused pipeline operator, is currently being marketed for sale by Five Point Infrastructure, for example. TARIFFS WEIGH In recent years, U.S. oil and gas pipeline projects have faced regulatory hurdles and robust environmental opposition, resulting in years of delay and substantial cost overruns. The Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas conduit owned by an EQT Corp-led group, started operating last June but took six years to build and cost more than double its initial $3.5 billion budget. While the industry has welcomed Trump's pro-fossil fuel sentiment, some of his other policies - including tariffs on products like steel - are pushing up the cost of new energy projects. Weak global crude prices have also prompted warnings from U.S. oil and gas producers that they could curtail output growth, making pipeline firms cautious about new spending. Some companies, including Kinder Morgan, said they believe there are better economics in smaller-scale projects that expand existing infrastructure than in big new ones. Others are wary of even those types of projects. DT Midstream CEO David Slater said last month that while some bite-size expansion may continue on the company's LEAP system in the Haynesville basin, he wanted to see how local producers react to commodity price movements before considering new plans. "I think we just need to let the clock run here a little bit, see how the basin responds," he told analysts on a call. OPTING TO BUILD Despite the hurdles, the math still favors new construction for some companies. Energy Transfer said it will build the $2.7 billion Hugh Brinson natural gas pipeline in Texas, and Tallgrass Energy plans to construct a pipeline to move natural gas from the Permian to its Rockies Express Pipeline running through Colorado and Wyoming. "Generally, on buy versus build, if you have the opportunity to build, you build because the returns are largely better," said Ali Akbar, managing director of energy investment banking at Greenhill, a Mizuho affiliate. He said buying an asset like a pipeline can sometimes cost two times more than building something similar. Williams Companies unveiled in March its $1.6 billion Socrates project to build natural gas infrastructure to support data center development in Ohio and has said Washington's newfound support for projects is a welcome change. "It's nice to see some people that actually think their job is to help get infrastructure built as opposed to being obstructive," outgoing CEO Alan Armstrong said on an earnings call this month.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Insurance broker Acrisure valued at $32 billion in funding round led by Bain Capital
By David French NEW YORK (Reuters) -Acrisure has raised $2.1 billion from Bain Capital and other investors, its CEO told Reuters on Tuesday, valuing the firm at $32 billion and allowing it to fund an expansion into products beyond its core insurance brokerage business. The Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Acrisure was founded in 2005 as an insurance broker, but has in recent years pursued a strategy that supplements its business with a range of other products and services for small and medium-sized companies, including payroll, cybersecurity and employee benefits. The focus on providing tech-enabled financial services has helped catapult Acrisure's own fortunes and its role as a "one-stop shop" for its customers, CEO and co-founder Greg Williams said in an interview. "This capital raise reflects how (the investors) are not investing in this business, at this point in time, and at this valuation, because we are just an insurance broker," he said. The valuation is roughly 40% above the level achieved at Acrisure's previous raise three years ago. The capital raise, structured as new convertible senior preferred stock, is being led by Bain's special situations arm. Other investors include merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners, which remains the largest minority shareholder, as well as Fidelity Management & Research Company, Apollo Funds and Gallatin Point Capital. The capital will be used to enhance Acrisure's products and services, including funding acquisitions to further its non-insurance capabilities. Williams said a portion of the cash will refinance an existing convertible preferred instrument, simplifying the company's capital structure. Acrisure remains majority-owned by its employees, of whom there are more than 19,000 in 23 countries. The company has previously toyed with pursuing a stock market listing. Williams said the latest capital raise keeps open Acrisure's options of remaining a private company or becoming a publicly-listed firm in future. The insurance brokerage industry, along with other non-discretionary services Acrisure offers, is generally resilient to economic uncertainty. This makes Acrisure confident of continued growth, Williams said, adding the company now generates revenue of around $5 billion annually. "This is a great time to invest in a business which produces consistent revenue such as Acrisure, in light of the heightened macro volatility," Cristian Jitianu, partner at Bain Capital, said in an interview. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
17-05-2025
- General
- Forbes
Living With And ON Purpose
Team purpose 'Virtuous purpose is worth more than any other person's conditional and unreliable respect. It is rooted in service and sacrifice, not entitlement.' So writes David French, the New York Times columnist and political commentator. This statement is from a recent op-ed that noted his service as a military reservist who has served overseas. Many veterans express such thoughts about purpose because the intensity of their experience was never sharper than when they were a cohesive unit going through an extreme situation such as combat. The virtue emerges from working for a greater goal beyond what an individual can achieve. The challenge becomes, what do we do next? Not long ago, I interviewed sociologist Erin Cech, author of The Trouble with Passion. She argues that purpose is often overemphasized, and as a result, it leaves people disillusioned at work. Cech and many others believe that work itself need not provide purpose. Instead, what you do with the output of work – income, for example – enables purpose, living your life, and taking care of others. Purpose can evolve. Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times, the author of Independence Day, a book about retirement, argues that when it comes to fulfillment, particularly later in life after work, simple things like walking your dog can offer purpose. It focuses on the day and gets one out of the house and into the fresh air. David French's coupling of the word purpose with 'virtuous' harkens back to our Founding Fathers. As historian Tom Ricks writes in First Principles, 'public virtue' was paramount. Living a life of virtue was a mark of integrity. So much so that some Founders said that if virtue prevailed, there would be no need for a constitutional government because people would do the right thing. Fortunately, more reasoned minds, notably George Washington realized that such aspirations were not feasible. The Constitution therefore created a system of governance rooted in principles of equality and justice. [Shamefully, Black enslaved people were ignored for the next century and more.] Virtuous purpose, as French writes, is rooted in sacrifice. It ennobles the individual because it serves the common good. Servicemen and women put their time, energy, and often personal safety into keeping the nation safe. Community volunteers at home devote their service to keeping disadvantaged populations, collectively and individually, from despair and disaster. The purpose is how you define it. For leaders, it becomes the why from which vision and mission spring. So it must be communicated relentlessly. For individuals, it shapes our values. So harkening to the notion of virtue is a good start. Virtue may be as simple as the Golden Rule – 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' A higher purpose is often used about faith, but that does not mean that serving fellow men is of 'lower purpose' or value—a higher purpose – whether based on religion or community — is living for the greater good. Reflecting on the nature of purpose is more than just an exercise in philosophy. Delving into the meaning of life for self and others is an exercise in shaping how you want to live. The challenge for each of us is to act purposefully. Now and in the future.
