Former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal – “I’m Voting Trump, Warts and All” isn’t as disheartening as it could have been to those of us who oppose Trump and once considered Jindal a sterling example of conservative governance in a once-troubled state.
Jindal thankfully avoids insisting that there’s some sort of good potential in Trump that’s been hidden so far, and he says he stands by his previous comprehensive and scathing assessment of Trump. The only argument he can muster for Trump is that he’s not Hillary Clinton:
I think electing Donald Trump would be the second-worst thing we could do this November, better only than electing Hillary Clinton to serve as the third term for the Obama administration’s radical policies. I am not pretending that Mr. Trump has suddenly become a conservative champion or even a reliable Republican: He is completely unpredictable. The problem is that Hillary is predictably liberal.
He concludes, “I do not pretend Donald Trump is the Reaganesque leader we so desperately need, but he is certainly the better of two bad choices. Hardly an inspiring slogan, I know.”
Then again, that bad choice of Trump looks pretty darn bad. To quote Jindal back on September 10:
But to point to Many people think he’s dangerous, they say, “Well, you wouldn’t want somebody like that with such a hot head with his fingers on the nuclear codes.” And yeah, that’s certainly true. That’s not the real danger. The real danger is that ironically Donald Trump could destroy America’s chance to be great again.
Jindal is asking us to accept a nominee and potential president who has a greater-than-zero chance of Making Nuclear Armageddon Great Again. A mushrooming federal bureaucracy is pretty bad, but is it really worse than mushroom clouds? We have to accept the politically radioactive nominee who might bring about some literally radioactive results in a few years? Really?
Jindal is at least respectful to the #NeverTrump crowd and Trump-skeptics, and doesn’t insist Trump is conservative or will be particularly good for conservatives in office. The rest of the folks jumping on the Trump bandwagon seem to be insisting that black is white, up is down, and everything is now reversed, such as Rick Perry’s claim Trump “will surround himself with capable, experienced people and he will listen to them” – what on earth supports this assessment? – or my debating partner Kayleigh McEnany’s claim, “you are not a conservative if you don’t support Donald Trump.” That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works! Falling in line in blind obedience to authority is the opposite of a movement based upon individual liberty!