May 8, 2007


The Louisiana Wunderkind: Beholding Rep. Bobby Jindal (JOHN J. MILLER, 5/06/07, National Review)

‘When my dad sat you down and said that you had ‘a lot of potential’ — that was not a good speech,” says Rep. Bobby Jindal, a Louisiana Republican. “It meant that you weren’t working hard enough.”

It’s difficult to imagine anybody accusing Jindal of not working hard enough. His life story so far — he’s 35 — is a tale of potential realized. The son of immigrant parents from India, Jindal went to Brown and earned a Rhodes scholarship. At the age of 24, he became the head of Louisiana’s Health and Hospitals Depart¬ment. At 26, he ran a national commission on Medicare. At 28, he became president of the University of Louisiana system. Jindal also served as an assistant secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration and, in 2004, was elected to Congress. He was reelected last year.

Is that good enough, Father Jindal?

The only blemish on this GOP whiz kid’s résumé came in 2003, when he ran for governor of his home state and lost by four points to Democrat Kathleen Blanco. Then came Hurricane Katrina, which laid waste not only to New Orleans but also to Blanco’s reputation as a leader. On March 20, she announced that she would not seek reelection.

Today, Jindal is the most popular politician in Louisiana — and he’s a strong favorite to win the votes for Blanco’s vacated seat from an electorate that’s experiencing a profound case of buyer’s remorse.

John Derbyshire wakes up screaming....

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 8, 2007 7:48 AM

I swear, accusations and implications of "racism" fly around here as often as on any wacky left blog. It's an annoying flaw in an otherwise well-mannered blog. Why would Derbyshire object to Jindal? Do you have any evidence that he has? From what I've read, Derbyshire wants immigrants to be legal, educated, assimilated, speak English, and be conservative. Is that "racism"? Jindal is all those things, so I doubt Derbyshire opposes him.

Posted by: PapayaSF at May 8, 2007 10:37 AM

Hes been reading Excitable Andy Sullivan again. Just wait for the white on dark blue and impossible to read style sheet to make its appearance.

As for Jindal, like many first generation Americans used to be, before the anti-anti-illegal immigrationist and supremacist LaRaza types got to them, he's far more patriotic and American (and in this case, Lousianan), than those who claim ancestors going back several centuries.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 8, 2007 10:48 AM

Derbyshire is openly racist and bigoted, so there's not point in trying to turn him around in search of some angle where he's acceptable.

Posted by: b at May 8, 2007 11:16 AM

Racism is no less real just because the Left believes in it. Derbyshire is a Darwinist because it justifies his racism. The concurrence of nativism and Darwinism is hardly coincidental,

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 11:20 AM

"Derbyshire is openly racist and bigoted"

Of course Derbyshire is married to an Asian lady. OJ (and apparently b) think that the recognition that races exist and might have different physical differences is "racist" in the derogatory sense.

Posted by: h-man at May 8, 2007 11:50 AM

h: Give it a rest. He has on many, many occasions expressed his unapologetic contempt and outright hatred for Catholics, Irish, Mexicans, Arabs, etc. He's vile, and cannot be spun otherwise.

Posted by: b at May 8, 2007 12:23 PM

On any sensible scale of moral turpitude snobbery falls far short of vileness.

Hatred of Arabs? Has Derbyshire expressed hatred of Christian Arabs because of their Arabness. Perhaps you mean a set of IDEAS such as Islam. Is it now verboten to value one culture/religion over another?

Which of these cultures do you feel is superior?


Or Christian, Western

Posted by: h-man at May 8, 2007 1:09 PM

Thereby fitting his ideal image of the subservient wife.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 1:53 PM


Your mistake lies in the belief that Derbyshire believes in Western/Christian culture. As a Darwinist, he doesn't. That, of course, is why opposes the immigration of Mexicans who are bearers of Western culture.

He's just a secular European and Arab-Islam is superior to secularism--indeed, the former is a culture while the latter is not.

But no one expects a racist to find another racist's ideas repellant. Racial snobbery is the essence of vileness.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 1:54 PM

Maybe he's a racialist, to use your term OJ....

Posted by: Chris at May 8, 2007 3:00 PM

No, he views and proposes treating people differently because of their race. Only their ideas matter.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 3:08 PM

Mexicans who are bearers of Western culture.

Such as? Besides the most superstitions forms of Catholicism, an acceptance of peonage and of tribalism, or are those now "Western culture"?

Only their ideas matter.

And what ideas are these that they are importing?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 8, 2007 3:21 PM


Sorry about the subservient wife thing, I know that can be a sore point for some people.

Certainly equal treatment under law, fair dealing, and fair playing field is what I assume Derbyshire supports, as do I. If not then he can defend himself.

Posted by: h-man at May 8, 2007 3:30 PM

Whether Derbyshire's a racist or a racialist or just a reprehensible goon is one of those how-many-angels-can-you-fit-on-a-pin-head sorts of questions--he was enthusiastically in favor of snuffing Terri Schiavo, he's become virulently antireligious, and he's gradually turning into an advocate of abortion. Another six months, and I swear there'll be no daylight between him and his supposed nemisis Andrew Sullivan on nearly everything.

To be fair, however, I don't know that he's yet expressed any particulart opinion of Bobby Jindal.

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 8, 2007 3:33 PM

Now, if the candidate's name were "Bobby Juarez," you'd be spot-on.

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 8, 2007 3:44 PM


Derbyshire abandoned Europe and freely chose to live in America. Apparently you are trying push the "tired and hungry..whatever" back to where they came from.


The Schiavo case is an interesting point you make. Christopher Hitchens who on occasion has been praised at this blog was certainly willing to "snuff out" the poor lady.

It's obvious to anyone Derbyshire will support Bobby Jindal, and if he doesn't it will be solely because of some lacking in Jindal's politics... and if his name is Pinochot Derbyshire will support him.

Posted by: h-man at May 8, 2007 3:52 PM


Those are, of course, all of a piece.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 4:04 PM

Derbyshire's ideas make him unAmerican, by contrast to the socially conservative Latinos he so hates.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 4:09 PM


Yes, the culture is Judeo-Christian. Derbyshire is an advocate of rationalism/nationalism instead.

Posted by: oj at May 8, 2007 4:12 PM

I wouldn't say that Derbyshire's snobbery is the "essence" of vileness; surely other things are far more vile. But he still retains his English condescension and provincialism (despite all his efforts to claim otherwise), which J-Pod, Stanley Kurtz, and even Jonah nail him for on almost a weekly basis. For a 'conservative', his attitude towards Terri Schiavo is indefensible - no matter what one thought of her 'viability', allowing the state to kill her, with all the judges standing around wringing their hands, was just evil.

Me, I sometimes don't like the way Derb writes about his kids - too professorial for my taste (a tad too close to Skinner as well).

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 8, 2007 11:02 PM

What's more vile than being snobbish towards others for their physical status? Different races, babies, and the infirm?

Posted by: oj at May 9, 2007 7:04 AM