While David French does right by choosing not to run, he continues to act as if Donald Trump is the same as Hillary Clinton.
When someone like David French does right, I want to congratulate him. But the man goes and spoils it by continuing to generate confusion with his mouth.
He wrote in the National Review:
Here is a sentence I never thought I’d type: After days of prayer, reflection, and serious study of the possibilities, I am not going to run as an independent candidate for president of the United States.
I gave it serious thought — as a pretty darn obscure lawyer, writer, and veteran — only because we live in historic times. Never before have both parties failed so spectacularly, producing two dishonest, deceitful candidates who should be disqualified from running for town council, much less leader of the free world.
He goes on from there deliberately picking a few characteristics to make Trump and Hillary more or less equally evil. He says nothing about Trump’s promises for the Supreme Court next to Hillary’s. He says nothing about Trump’s promises on the abortion issue. Yes, there is the question of whether he will fulfill these promises, but there’s no question that Hillary means to do all she can to fulfill hers.
French still acts as if we are in the Primary and have a chance to pick who we want. No, the primary voters have spoken and Hillary’s only major opponent is Donald Trump. Is he not worth a shot, at least, to ward off Barack Obama’s third term?
French never answers that question because he never acknowledges the legitimacy of that concern. We shouldn’t care, it seems, about how Clinton will transform the country for generations through the Supreme Court. Instead, we should only care about if they are morally pure enough to hold office and refuse to vote for either of them.
Is this rational? I’m sure Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has many moral failings, but are Christians in Syria wrong to prefer him over the terrorists that the U.S. has supported? Of course not. Christians and conservatives have to make the best choice they can based on reality.
Vote for who, of the likely alternatives, will be best for the country. The very fact that French avoids the question is evidence that he knows that Donald Trump is the only option.
David French also acts as if the Republican Party is morally obligated to ignore the winner of its own primary. Despite the fact that Donald Trump received record-breaking number of votes, the RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is supposed to refuse to support him.
In other words, what majorities decide should be overturned by a few elites.
We all know that, if someone else had won, and Donald Trump had refused to endorse him, David French would have condemned him for it.