Knox 4 Fritts

It's only 45 days until early voting starts! We need door knockers for Saturday and volunteers to post signs. Can you help?

Typical media tactics.

Phil Williams' Interview of Monty Fritts

In April, Monty Fritts was invited to interview on Nashville News 5's Inside Politics.

A month later, he was invited back by Nashville News 5 under the same pretense as before—another tough but fair interview.

The second time was different.

In my opinion, Monty was set up. It appears to me to have been an obvious political hit job. Instead of airing on Inside Politics, the interview aired as part of Phil Williams' Hate Comes to Main Street series.

Whether viewers agree with Monty Fritts or not, the interview was framed from the outset as an episode of Hate Comes to Main Street. Before Fritts answered a single question, Williams told viewers:
"Monty Fritts may not think this conversation belongs under the heading of hate, but after you see this, you may disagree."

That framing encouraged viewers to evaluate the interview through a predetermined lens before Fritts had spoken a single word.

It was not a neutral interview.

It was an adversarial interview built around a preexisting thesis.

Williams did not present the interview as "a conversation with gubernatorial candidate Monty Fritts." Instead, he presented it as an episode of Hate Comes to Main Street.

Notice that Williams did not ask:
"How do you define Christian nationalism?"

Instead, he first described a set of negative associations and then asked Fritts to respond. Those "broad characterizations" included associations with racism, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

That is an adversarial interviewing technique because the respondent is immediately placed in a defensive posture.

Williams opened the interview by asking:
"As someone who identifies as a Christian nationalist, what is your reaction to those broad characterizations?"

Monty replied:
"Soon after I was elected, someone asked me whether I was one [a Christian nationalist]. I simply broke the phrase into its two parts.

I am a Christian. I will not deny Christ.

And I am a nationalist. I am an American-first, Tennessee-first person.

I didn't view that as a detrimental term.

When I hear the phrase Christian nationalism, I think of Christ and Constitution."

Monty's response suggests that he understood the phrase literally rather than as a reference to the broader movement often associated with the label.

Fritts repeatedly explained that when he used the term, he meant:
• Christian
• Nationalist (America-first, Tennessee-first)

Monty Fritts repeatedly redefined the term on his own terms—Christ and Constitution.

THE HI**ER QUESTION

Of all the questions asked during the interview, this is probably the one most vulnerable to criticism.

Williams asked:
"I interviewed another Christian nationalist who actually argued that Adolf Hi**er was a good man. How do you distinguish yourself from that kind of thinking?"

Williams did not directly accuse Fritts of supporting Hi**er.

But many viewers will naturally connect the two.

The purpose of an interview question should be to illuminate a subject, not create guilt by association.

By introducing another self-described Christian nationalist who praised Adolf Hi**er, Williams placed Hi**er into a conversation where Fritts had never expressed any sympathy for Hi**er or National Socialism.

Fritts immediately and unequivocally rejected Hi**er, stating:
"You will never hear me say Adolf Hi**er was a good man. Never. I think he got what he deserved. I'm thankful there were American fighting men willing to confront and defeat that movement. You'll never hear me defend Adolf Hi**er."

As a result though, the question generated association more than understanding.

Had it been me, I would not have responded as calmly as Monty did. I would have been insulted and said:
"How dare you ask such a ridiculous question?"

You know the old adage: Don't judge a book by its cover.

Most voters will never watch a full one-hour interview. Many will only see the title, a short clip, or a social media post.

For that reason, the framing of an interview matters.

When a candidate is introduced under a banner associated with hate, many viewers may form an opinion before hearing the candidate explain his positions.

Ask yourself: Is Phil Williams' intent to influence people to agree with his premeditated conclusions?

I think so.

If you take the time to listen to Monty and his positions, you know where he stands.

Monty is not a typical politician.

He unabashedly tells you where he stands.

While Williams never directly accused Fritts of racism, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia, or Islamophobia, the structure of the interview repeatedly invited viewers to consider those associations.

Monty simply recognizes the need to preserve American culture, which is rooted in the belief that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

He believes that the American identity is not fundamentally ethnic; it is civic, constitutional, and philosophical.

What binds Americans together is not ancestry or the color of one's skin, but a common belief in freedom, individual rights, and the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Whether one agrees with Monty Fritts or disagrees with him is not the central issue.

Reasonable people can and do disagree about abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, religious liberty, and the proper role of faith in public life. Those debates are part of a free society.

The real question is whether candidates should be judged by labels or by their actual words.

Yet throughout the interview, Fritts openly explained his positions in his own words. He rejected racism. He rejected Adolf Hi**er. He stated plainly where he stands on abortion, immigration, religion, marriage, and public policy. He did not hide behind carefully crafted political talking points.

You may agree with Monty Fritts.

You may disagree with him.

But if we are going to make informed decisions as voters, we should listen to what candidates actually say rather than rely on labels assigned by political opponents or media commentators.

In the end, the most important question is not whether Phil Williams believes Monty Fritts is a "Christian nationalist."

The important question is whether Tennesseans are willing to listen to Monty Fritts for themselves and decide, based on his actual views, whether he deserves their support.

That is how self-government is supposed to work.

I have listened to Monty Fritts – three separate speaking events. I watched the full interview. My conclusion is that Monty deserves my support.

I for one will not be deceived by a framed interview perpetuating unjustified conclusions or derogatory labeling.

John Gentry
Republican Candidate
Tennessee House of Representatives – District 45
Serving parts of Sumner County, including Goodlettsville, Hendersonville, and Millersville

Hey, Knoxville!! Please share and attend!

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18B1oYyHVn/?mibextid=wwXIfr

We are excited to invite you to our Gubernatorial Forum hosted by East Tennessee Young Republicans! Anderson County, Blount County, Knox County, Loudon County, and Union County Young Republican chapters are partnering to put this event on. The event is completely FREE but please RSVP as seating is limited.

Friday, July 10th at 7 PM
JTV Theater
9600 Parkside Dr, Knoxville, TN 37922

*Monty Fritts has confirmed and the other candidates are still pending*

Like and share!

RSVP at https://luma.com/c9aaxnb1