In my latest column, out this morning, I argue that Mr. Trump “is morally unfit to be our head of state.” But I have trouble harshly condemning Speaker Ryan for his endorsement.
It seems [Speaker Ryan] is motivated in large part by the belief that his support for Trump will increase the probability that good public policy is implemented over the next four years. In my view, some conservatives have been too dismissive of this rationale. Yes, conservatism does — and conservatives should — put character, virtue and culture at the top of the hierarchy. But that ranking shouldn’t obscure the importance of good public policy.
Policy matters. And the ability to influence policy is important.
So I don’t judge Ryan too harshly for being motivated by concern about public policy. He’s the Republican leader of the House, and he wants to position himself to influence Trump’s policies if Trump becomes the Republican president — and he knows that he is in a position to exercise more influence over a President Trump’s policies than nearly anyone in the country. It’s not what I would have done if I had Ryan’s job. But I don’t.
The speaker’s choice is a very public version of the basic choice that many conservatives face in 2016: How do you tell the difference between bad and worse?
I wish those weren’t the only options.
You can read the entire column here. Your thoughts, as always, are very welcome.
ryan trump endorsement