Sure but that's one tiny bit of it. Plus, I'm not really taking some issue with your specific criticism of it, I might make a similar criticism of it but the essay is not really about that, and it's definitely not about both-sideism which I think one can miss if unfamiliar with the author, his recent writing and audience.
David French is a conservative (and very Catholic) American political commentator, one of the OG never-trumpers. Like many people like that - at least, the ones who aren't hopeless hacks - political developments (in the US) of the last few years have made him Work Through Some Stuff™. This article is, in his pundit-ish way, part of that process. I don't think his analysis and takes are beyond critique and there's been plenty of it. But I also don't think any of his serious critics believe his efforts are in bad faith, whether they agree with his analyses or not. It's still interesting stuff and I think it's a mistake to dismiss it because some reflexive tick of his stuck in your craw. To use your own example, in context, it's a lot less craw-sticky than dismissing rights issues as 'identity politics'!
That context you mention was actually immediately obvious since he mentioned the "new right", his opposition to it, and his faith several times throughout the article. And I personally think he qualifies very well for bad faith, given that he is obviously a conservative on the right and parrots very well trodden conservative ground - like I've stated above. For him to portray himself as even or balanced on this, to be rising above all the censorship is, amazing, given perhaps the context that he seems to be missing. The right certainly didn't learn censorship and moral outrage from the left in recent history.
Who knows, perhaps "serious critics" don't believe this article demonstrates bad faith. Is there an authority we can appeal to who can tell us for sure who the serious critics are?
I'm not trying to convince you to like or even give much of a hoot about David French. I'm saying is that there's more there than you can derive by mere keyword keyword matching, you asked my why I think that. I told you why and now you're telling me you can also derive that by keyword matching and additionally, I should provide citations. I think we've sucked what limited interestingness there was in this topic dry.
