I read both the original article, French's commentary, and his subsequent article. The problem is that his article was written specifically to be provocative from an academic perspective, and therefore doesn't include the kind of bet-hedging that someone concerned about blowback might include. In essence, he rather broadly condemns a large group of people without every really noting that those folks have any legitimate complaints at all. A hard-working coal miner in West Virginia out of work because of Obama's regulations, and facing Hillary's threat to destroy their jobs permanently, is not going to take too kindly to being called a meth-head, who beats his kids and cheats on his wife. Essentially, French bought into the stereotype. The only thing missing was that he didn't make fun of people who shop at Walmart and watch NASCAR.
I suppose the original author and French both though it was funny to be over the top, and frankly, probably could have cared less if they offended white, working class people anyway. They're not part of their target subscribers.
It's the kind of article you might write to start a discussion at National Review or the Weekly Standard. But it's not the type of article you'd like to have on your resume if you're going to be asking for the votes of white, working class Republicans.
