The political world has gone absolutely crazy. America has seen event after event that broke every precedent and seemed to set a new standard that couldn’t be surpassed—until it quickly was. Perhaps it started with the 1992 presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton brazenly refused to quit in the face of sex scandals that would normally end a career. This was followed by his impeachment, the 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore,Jim Jeffords flipping parties and the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts changing his vote to secure a 5-4 ruling that saved ObamaCare, and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 5-4 opinion establishing same-sex marriage nationwide. All these were remarkable, once-in-a-generation events. Yet American politics descended into a new level of crazy during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Politics seem more chaotic, polarized and extreme than ever. There is seemingly no time to rest between the Kavanaugh hearings, the border crisis, multiple trade wars, efforts to repeal ObamaCare, debates around foreign interference in elections, and the ever-present threat of another government shutdown or debt-ceiling cliff. The people in charge often look nothing like responsible adults.

Liberals, including the mainstream media, still can’t believe that Donald Trump emerged victorious from a crowded Republican primary, much less beat Hillary Clinton, who personified the political establishment. Hers was the perfect résumé: Ivy League-educated attorney, first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. She was safe and predictable; boringness was a virtue in contrast with the bombastic New York developer who had never before mounted a serious run for office. She was a Democrat comfortable speaking to and being paid by Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. She offered to shatter the glass ceiling without threatening the profitable status quo of media, business and government elites.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and undisciplined tweets drives even some of his supporters crazy. They wonder if he is his own worst enemy and hope he doesn’t sabotage his success. Yet many more supporters wanted a disruptive force and view his unorthodox behavior as a positive feature rather than an unfortunate price to pay for conservative judges and lower taxes. Both groups agree the craziness on the Republican side lies in the president’s personality and ego and not in his policies, which are working well in many cases.

As president, Mr. Trump has taken fairly orthodox Republican positions on a variety of policy areas: supporting Israel, cutting corporate and individual taxes, reducing the burden of regulation, opposing federal funding for abortion, appointing originalists to the courts, increasing military spending, and trying to repeal ObamaCare. He has departed from his predecessors in these areas mainly by being more determined in implementing his policies. Democrats are angry that he hasn’t played the usual establishment game by betraying his voters after taking office.


When the president strays from the Republican playbook, such as in acting on his long-held isolationist and protectionist instincts, he often receives some support from across the aisle. His transactional approach to foreign policy, along with his emphasis on personal rapport with foreign leaders, is disconcerting to many traditionalists, but hardly the basis for most Democratic voters’ rage.

The craziness on the Democratic side lies in its leaders’ policies and the plan they want to impose on America. The party’s inability to condemn anti-Semitism with a unified voice and the current debate on whether America owes reparations to African-Americans and Native Americans are the tip of the iceberg. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren favor a steep wealth tax, even as Europe is largely abandoning such schemes. Others want to abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court.

Whereas President Obama realized fully government-run health-care was too radical for the American people, many in his party now believe the problem with ObamaCare was that it forced too few people off plans they liked. The misnamed Medicare for All would cost more than $30 trillion and force almost 200 million Americans off private health insurance. Howard Schultz and Michael Bloomberg, previously lauded as progressive billionaires, are now seen by Democratic activists as compromised for daring to question such fiscal insanity.

The Green New Deal dwarfs Medicare for All in potential cost and damage to the economy. Its supporters aim to do more than merely eliminate the use of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power—they aspire to rid the country of commercial airline travel and flatulent cows, retrofit every building, and provide a universal federal guarantee of economic security even to those “unwilling to work.” “Socialism” has gone from an epithet used by Republicans to discredit Democrats to a title some of them wear proudly. Beto O’Rourke has been labeled a centrist in the presidential primary and is unacceptable to many progressive activists in part due to his previously unremarkable claim to be a “capitalist.”


Most Americans aren’t eager to embrace either party’s craziness, but sensible swing voters should prefer the Republican version. The disruptive force of nature currently occupying the White House will eventually pass from the scene, and his unique mannerisms with him. The damage being done to the Democratic Party is much more substantial and will last longer. While Mrs. Clinton made the mistake of telling voters how she actually felt when she labeled Trump supporters “deplorables,” the Democratic Party is now embracing policies that vividly show how little they value these same blue-collar and rural workers, people of faith and gun owners. Now that’s crazy.

Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.