This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Fair enough. But it is significant that he came close to endorsing Hillary Clinton. I know what you mean, though.
I don't think Will in any way reaps Trumpism, which began with the Reform Party and ends in centrist, angry bluster.
Who lost his way? How? He's a paleoconservative who doesn't agree with Trump's politics. He opposed the second Iraq War, fearing instability in the region, and had that call right. Better than the neocons or the withdrawal seekers.
Trump has the temperament of a spoiled kindergartner. The only thing he knows to do when when questioned is attack.
His attacks breathe dumber by the minute. But I don't want to make this a Trump thread. I want to talk about the internecine battle within the Republican Party. It looms large. Their coalitions have totally broken lose. The Reform Party became part of them, despite the common wisdom of Clinton beating Bush because of Perot, and now they have to deal with it.
There have been others, mostly prominent conservative writers and bloggers.
But in the absence of Buckley, Will is the most prominent voice of the conservative movement. Nobody else comes close. I've never heard of the guy who burned his card.
I get that, that's true for all the others too. I agree it's significant, many thousands will read his op-ed announcing this too. Again, maybe he's been saving this to time with a drive to dump Trump at the convention.
I don't know if Will is a "paleoconservative." I think of Trump appealing to such people who are nationalists/isolationists and protectionists, a la the 1900s-30s.
I think he is. I'll have to check back in to have more cogent thoughts later, but Will, by both his isolationist/realpolitik tendencies and his desire for laissez-faire economics and religion in the public square would probably qualify.
I'm not worried about the horse race aspect so much as I'm commenting on how serious the sort of overarching (de facto) voice on the right of Will hurts Trump on the right.
Same old story: his supporters revel but it doesn't help him expand anything.
You might be in for a long wait. I think he is going to get pummeled in the general election. I just can't see him winning over many still-undecided independents, and enough Republican voters will not turn out to vote for him to where it will be bad.
It MIGHT help him because as the Brexit vote demonstrated, what we seem to have going on here is a rebellion against elitism. Will personifies elitism.
I agree it's coming to a head over Trump but it's been boiling for a while in the Tea Party movement. It'll be interesting to see how they move forward. The Tea Party/Trump crowd seem to be convinced that Republicans are losing because of half-measures and compromise with Democrats. I guess we'll see what happens when Trump loses by significantly more the McCain or Romney. The problem for Republicans is that there are already significantly fewer of them than self-identified Democrats. They can't really afford to split the conservative vote unless it's a big shift that picks up a bunch of independent voters.
This is probably one of the bigger fails in the political threads this election cycle. Congratulations!
Seems pretty widely acknowledged that Hillary is the weakest D candidate in some time.. ever?
Hillary is an adequate candidate.
I've always found that these guys generally think that the days of early '60s were the zenith. The '50s are too populated by beats. Goldwater was '64, don't forget. Buckley's NR didn't hit its zenith until that decade. The '50s were high income taxes (post-war) and Ike, IIRC.
Ok, early 60s, then. My point stands that for a large portion of the population that era ####### sucked.
Yes, and neither Buckley nor Goldwater were at the, um, forefront of federal civil rights. Point taken.
Of course Trump supporters don't know who George Will is. That would require a modicum of literacy and thoughtfulness that cannot characterize that voting bloc.
It's been a bad match of badminton for some time with them swatting this shuttlecock back and forth like a hot potato.Seems pretty widely acknowledged that Hillary is the weakest D candidate in some time.. ever?
Which only further demonstrates how much of a cluster ducking shiz show the Right is.
I hope this isn't a sign that sane, competent leaders (on any side) are scared off by the vocal minority fringes.
Reagan created this modern version of race-baiting and fear-mongering politics, so I find it amusing that "real" GOPers are scurrying for the shadows when this is a direct result of the garbage that dude put down in the 80s. Total disclosure: I voted for that guy twice for President, to my ever-growing shame.
I often wonder this, but I don't think it is. I think it's just another sign that the people who identify with the parties are about the parties and only the parties. They've bought hook, line, sinker into the establishment narrative. The parties are getting smaller in size. The next step is to realize that the incessant establishment
of "wasting your vote if you don't pick one of these two" or "taking your ball and going home" because you refuse to lower your standards to what these parties provide simply isn't true and that there ARE alternatives. Yeah, it would take hiking up hill both ways in 15 feet of snow to get there, but it's possible. Do WE want to work that hard? Seems like we are moving that way even if the pace is painfully slow. 
Actually I disagree with you and Max here. The Sanders campaign belied this, there was a good deal of anti-Hillary sentiment there.
And, yet--going back to my thesis--whatever flaws Reagan had, Trump and his supporters are infinitely worse and more dangerous.
She is hard to like or get excited for but seems well suited for today's brand of bull#### politics.
