Opus 313 If Barry Goldwater came back to life and saw how the GOP fell into line behind Trump he would be appalled. The same goes for Reagan. The GOP of yesteryear is dead - it is now a headless zombie led by a clown conman.
I've moved from more liberal parties to a more libertarian bent, based on the input from intellectuals like George Will, and upon observations about the fact that human well being over the past couple centuries have increased dramatically ... so it's pretty clear something about western civilization is worth 'conserving' in it's current form, and I place my bet on classical liberal philosophy. I've also come to realize it's not that conservatism is full of bad ideas. It's that activism and activists are full of bad ideas, and what happened on the right is the activists, who you need to win elections, took over from the intellectuals, who actually know what the hell they are talking about. Liberals I think should take this as a lesson. Liberal intellectuals and technocrats should be running the actual agenda on the left. I tend to find the Clinton/Obama wing of the party to be well informed, educated, respectful and data driven. There is room for an intellectual conservative, and an intellectual liberal to solve problems. But if you let the activists take over and start primary people for being insufficiently doctrinaire or failing to get worked up over a symbolic gesture, your going to get a whole lot of populist stupidity.
Bryan Winter - As one who has moved from a conservative to more libertarian/conservative position, I agree with you. I would like to point out that Clinton largely adopted the conservative (intellectual) agenda in the 90s.
Although I don't agree with Mr. Will on most issues, I admire his high-minded analysis of the subject matter which brings a healthy debate regarding the role of government and to our political division. I think that once we decide what kind of world we want to live in, our political philosophy follows how best to achieve that end. I don't believe purism of any kind works in a practical sense. Being a true intellectual, of course he believes Trump is a total derelict in his use of presidential powers.
My politics ebb and flow in many ways, but it's very hard for me to disagree with George F Will. We need more intellectual heavyweights like him in public life, not the shrieking clownhorns at Fox News.
George Will is a conservative . . . yes. . . But he is not a Trump supporter, or a Christian, (he is a quiet atheist). He has departed from the mainstream long ago. He is a dinosaur in the conservative movement and not at all a factor in their leadership, or direction. 94% of the conservatives in the US support Trump. Currently there are no DNC voices reflecting the democratic message so far out of step with progressiveness as George will is out of step with the Conservative majority. He is a man without a party.He wouldn't even fit as a Libertarian. He's about as politically useful as a pickup truck with out a bed to put a load on.
@buzzclick500 I'm trying to be as understanding and bridge building as possible. We were all lied to for so long and so both effectively and completely that I think we all have to be more understanding of other peoples position. Even if those positions are seemingly illogical or net harmful. Mind control was and is a weapon that rogue elements within the US Government has been using quite successfully since the early in 1950's. We shouldn't be surprised that by now it works so well.
@buzzclick500 I think in terms of Government AND Media there are at least two sides though. But your statement applies to both sides. Conservatives however are certainly less represented than Progressives in terms of media. There can be no about that.
@Kim Wallace I suppose I used to be a republican. But George Bush Sr. cured me of that illness. Now if anything I'm independent with a Libertarians love of Constitutional Law and an expectation that we can do better by pretty much everyone once we get ride of the deep state.
I greatly admire and respect George Will and agree with him often, but not here. While I haven’t read his book (but intend to) to me it seems the fundamental flaw with the conservative approach as he defines it here is that it assumes and depends on the public acting morally. This may have worked in James Madison’s day, but in today’s world where short-term shareholder returns are paramount, it’s unrealistic. If Benjamin Franklin screwed one of his printing shop customers it would quickly impact his reputation and his business which served as a check on his behavior (if needed.). We can no longer count on corporations and institutions to act ethically if it impacts short-term profits. So there must be a balance between laissez-faire management and interventionism.
Jordan Schooley - You make an excellent point. Pivot your viewpoint a bit and ask “What happens to the regulator and the politician... over time?” Does the regulator become “captured” by the industry it regulates? Do politicians develop “crony capitalistic” relationships with the regulated?
@@StrategicWealthLLC another flaw in the premise - it assumes politicians will serve as both a moral compass and a reflection of the public's desires. Compare the widespread support for gun control versus government action on the issue thanks to NRA lobbying to see how this assumption is false. If legislation is to replace regulation, then you can't NOT have a nimble government in order to counter a public and a business community that can pivot on a dime. And a new approach to drafting, interpreting and enforcing legislation is required.
@@jordanschooley7836 - This is an age old debate that will continue long after we are gone. In considering your premise, you rightfully express concern that corporations and other large institutions behave immorally. Fair point, but the problem is that the government regulator is nothing more than a large institution... that, like its for profit counterpart... sometimes acts immorally. Why? Because both are full of imperfect human beings. Imperfect humans cannot create a perfect system. That is probably an axiom. If you agree, then the constant battle is between the "vision" of a well run and moral government institution vs. a government institution run by imperfect human beings with all of their moral failings + the tremendous authority of the state with its police power...which is far greater and more dangerous power than a for profit monopoly (in the worst case scenario examples) will ever be.
George Will's life speaks for his beliefs beyond his words here. Knowing more about how he's lived his life has earned my respect for him. ...a very compassionate and principled man.
A democratic government with intact checks and balances (which we've lacked for some time) is not "an interest group" any more than the whole of the people is one. A _captured_ government (which Will has worked for his whole life) on the other hand, cannot but be the servant of the interests that have it in thrall.
DynaCatlovesme I found his argument about how gov't becomes less respected as it becomes more involved to be especially disingenuous considering the largest scandals that hurt that image were due to conservatives (Nixon, Reagan), and their propaganda to convince people that gov't is ineffective.
Alex Floate people think government is ineffective based on personal experience, not Republican propaganda. We can't open a business due to regulations, or spend too much time and money at work complying with them. Government seizes between a quarter and a half of our earnings, yet nothing improves in our personal lives and the country goes deeper into debt. We drive on bad roads run by the government. We visit dying cities that have big governments. Our children go to government schools and receive an underwhelming education. After a century+ of big government programs, surely you have some government success stories to counter these practical, every day examples?
@@beatosu20 Where social programs fail comes from at least three main sources: political compromises made in the structure of the program in order to get in passed in the legislature; or plain corruption; or sabotage when opponents of the program are placed in control of it by an election. (You didn't address what Alex said, so I don't have to address what you said).
DynaCatlovesme then why did the Soviet Union fail to create the standard of living seen in the Western world? The government never had to compromise. There was no opposition party to sabotage the program? There was enormous corruption, which I think the government is ill-suited to help poor people. This is best spelled out in Madison's "if men were angles" argument.
Pure market capitalism (Cowboy Capitalism) has seen its day. AI and Robotics means that the end of human economic relevance is here. Growth and consumption as the means of valuation, has to end. A fair distribution of the means of production is necessary - the alternative is terrifying?
George Will is a non-believer and an ex-republican.. He has just gone up 1000 points in people I find interesting (and admire). He also has an excellent command of the English language!
Agreed.. As an American leftist Mr. Will always challenged me, as did W. F. Buckley. At the very least they offered a coherent dialogue. Now the right in America ruins the game with by denying all truths and standing for nothing
Southern Democrats were the conservatives, wanting the status quo to remain. Republicans were the progressives who looked to the future and expanding the franchise of freedom. The reason the south turned from Democrats to Republican was the Democratic Party under LBJ secured the civil rights and voting rights acts (with Republican support). Goldwater and Nixon both desired winning more than values they turned to Southern Democrats with dog-whistles of racism. By the 80's the Republican Party had become the party of the South.
Andreas Hatz Lincoln's position was that the founding values of our country were basically good and we should begin to fully live up to them. The modern progressives believe our founding values are largely flawed and we should fundamentally transform America. Therefore, I wouldn't call Lincoln a progressive.
@@beatosu20 I think you miss what a progressive stands for. They stand for progress of people, ideas and culture, and not for a static model of a snapshot in time. They do not support the status quo as the status quo is often flawed and favors one party over another. In this sense Lincoln was a progressive as was the Republican party. They stood in deep contrast to the conservative Democrats of the time who used the images of Jefferson and Jackson as an agrarian model of the ideal nation, despite the fast industrialization taking place.
I love George Will and consider him one of the reasons I pursued more knowledge about how conservative developed. His take on religion is very different than mine and thats ok. The point is free people enjoy liberty when they get to decide what they believe. I concluded - in spite of my politics - that Jesus Christ embodied everything that makes sense to me. I know others disagree. Thank God we are not all the same! We don't have to hate each other. We have so much in common. We sit in the same traffic, fight the same battles against obesity, want to see our kids grow up and be happy, enjoy time with family and friends. That doesn't mean we have to love each other or agree on everything. Will is an American treasure. I am a better christian for knowing this atheist...
WTF Again? The Republican's problem is their inability to cut spending, not their reduction in taxes. Recessions are unavoidable because humans are fallible. The best way to decrease their frequency and damage is less centralization, not more. I am interested in how you think capitalism caused the Great Depression, early 90's recession, 200 8 crash, or any other recession (I am not trying to sound snarky).
I've always like George Will -- but as a Christian, I can't accept the idea that politics is somehow tied in with a chaotic universe driven by unthinking laws. Let me add that I'm a moderate/conservative Democrat who definitely thinks that God does not belong to a political party.
_"Lord knows, we're in the opinion business..."_ THIS, immediately after he says he admires "facts". I estimate only one in ten Americans can see the dissonance in that belief system... every one a "progressive".
David Foster - Everyone should look at facts, but then they can have differing opinions over how those facts can be interpreted. For instance, if there are 20 million people without healthcare (a fact), and other nations provide healthcare to all of their citizens at ~ 25% less than America (a fact), but because of our higher costs, the innovative ness of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, new procedures, medical research, etc. is much greater in America than the rest of the world (a fact), and America therefore subsidizes that medical innovation to which the rest of the world benefits (a fact), what happens if America adopts a Medicare for all approach and reduces its healthcare spend? Does medical innovation decrease dramatically..across the world? If so, is it worth it?
Your insult at Mr Will says more about your foolishness than his. To call a man of his learning, integrity, and stature a fool appears to reveal more of your bile than his folly.
Well George can say a lot with comparatively few words. Conservatives are Conservatives because of the law of unintended consequences.. Epistemological humility.. Perceived gains have to exceed unintended losses... Awesome stuff
My question is, if he is madisonian and he is least fond of wilson's philosophies, then why does he think Elizabeth warren is the best candidate to save us from trump, when he also said she's the most wilsonian of the candidates running? Is he saying she's the best just based on her electability chances?
ALberto Martinez conservatism was fundamentally different back then. Ever since the southern strategy, conservatism has ossified, I think. Turned into something inflexible yet broken.
At 4:00, he says "now it's 120% of Americans"! Really? How can you have 120% of the population? An extra 20% of the Population that does not exist ALSO has an opinion?
You know I love George! I’ve been watching him on pundit shows since the 80s and as a teacher I love his eloquence as a writer and he has taught me quite a lot. I also love how is is calling out the GOP. But, he is misguided about climate change. Shows that no one can be right about everything. He also seems to have this way of presenting himself as right on everything. I get it; he’s been around and has studied things. But, his recent smugness about AOC on a recent talk show also shows that he thinks his way is the only correct way. George, I would love to see you be a bit more humble so more listen to you.
Georgy Will is the perfect example of a pseudo-intellectual: in love with words but completely disconnected from reality. His beloved conservative movement has had one agenda since the 80's: make the rich richer. No amount of sophistry can hide that.
God the creator of the logical universe and man with free will exists. Denying His existence means we do not exist. However where is the correct evidence based concept of God? Read the book The Human Self and Allah by Parwez. All logically and factually explained. Also what human death means in our immortality.
He’s unnecessary and doesn’t need to be heard from anymore. I’m sick of these old men who the future doesn’t belong to anymore yet won’t let go of the reins. They’re devouring our future yet don’t trust the young to make their own decisions. It’s wrong.
Oh my oh, we must still take time out to listen to the fascist George Will tell us how wonderful it is to be obedient to corporations, empire and unelected policy, really?
Will is wrong about almost every conclusion he draws, mostly because his premises are flawed. The conservative concept of small government ONLY works for the wealthy because they have had control of government for virtually all of American history. They have seen themselves as the owners of the government and for good reason, they paid top dollar for it. The reason conservative philosophy is waning in the GOP is because their ideas simply do not capture the imagination of most Americans, if it did, they wouldn't have to cheat to win elections. No, George, the reason the conservatives don't hold power in the GOP is because, in order to hold power, they've had to court two illiberal constituents: the corporatists and the religious right (and more recently the growing nationalist movement) two odd bedfellows that have been difficult to meld into a governing philosophy. But none of these constituents are amenable to democratic process, rule of law and accountability. And the reason is because of the contention over the definition of "natural rights" (the kind you believe the founders understood as you do) that the government is supposed to "secure". The religious right understands the rights they recognize to be ordained by god and resents the government defining them in a way they don't agree with. And corporate rights are property rights, another right that is supposedly "natural" or higher than rights to services such as health care. In his glorifying of conservative Barry Goldwater, Will would, like most libertarians, happily take us back to pre-civil rights America where another government protected right was the right to discriminate against existential qualities of our fellow citizens (e.g. race, gender, sexual inclination, etc.). Really? That is a governing philosophy you admire and want to claim that the best political and humane instincts of the founders? And even so. Who cares? The founders were not gods. Fortunately for us they got more right than wrong but they were wrong about some things. Trump is not a phenomenon of progressivism -- but nice try. Trump is what you get when government is failing to hold power accountable (whether the private power Trump wielded as an apparently corrupt business man or as a politician now). The GOP base (minus principled small government ideologues) indulged by a party losing the war of ideas but still assumed a natural right power is what created Trump and all the nations illiberals who despise the monopoly authority of government to hold them accountable to their fellow citizens via rule of law.
Friend, have you ever read Barry Goldwater's Senate Floor Speech just prior to the 64 Civil Rights vote? Do you know Goldwater's Civil Rights record both in business and in government?
@@marcparella I've never read the Goldwater speech you're referring to (I would only do that as an academic exercise if I wanted to critique it point by point -- don't see the point at this point). However, I think I understand the gist of his position as I've heard him in interviews defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which seems to primarily hinge on right of assembly. A case can certainly be made for segregation on the first amendment right of assembly but we progressives reject that position when it comes to civic action in public (vs private) venues where other rights contradict with the assembly right. The Goldwater-libertarian position on this issue highlights one of the many problems with libertarianism: it is overly dogmatic and, depending on its interpreter, tends to ignore context and consequence (this is based on reading I've done on libertarianism as well as having many debates with them over the years). I don't believe in a rigid reading of the constitution but see it as a frame for creating laws that would secure the most fundamental human (natural) rights (but what those rights are is in question to some degree which is one reason we have elections), which, in the view of progressives, does not include the right to discriminate in public by denying equal rights based on existential qualities of human beings. The idea of constitutional rights derive from what Enlightenment thinkers understood as "natural" rights (premised in the Declaraton of Independence which is the spiritual -- if you will -- foundation for the American government) and one's race is a natural or existential condition and the alleged right for white people to segregate themselves in society from blacks, for example, violates the rights of blacks (and even whites who don't want to be segregated) because while each "race" has equal rights, whites have had an unequal political and economic ability to segregate themselves from blacks. The constitution, in the view of progressives, was not designed to enable an apartheid state which is a glaring contradiction to the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” A "class system" is abhorrent to anyone who believes in equal rights, equal protection and the spirit of our ideals of our founding. Goldwater was wrong.
@@canteluna Libertarianism is not for you. Ok, that's fine. However under Libertarianism you get to continue to be a socialist liberal and contract with other social liberals until your heart's content. Under Social Liberalism I must conform to rules that I don't want to live under. Now which system promotes these Natural Right you keep talking about?
He has some good points but my question and point is: Who protects the environment with George Will’s approach? There would be no National Parks if George Will’s was in charge.
... if not DJT at this point in time... then whom... may I ask!? You don't have to answer this... just honestly think and do something about it... Yours truly, EUDS
Oh he's an atheist.....hits the stop button on the video, boring, been there done that for many years. Good luck on your journey George, I don't need a minister or a atheist tell me how to think about a God.
People who can convince themselve that they are the center of the universe, can then convince themselves of anything. God is the Butt of the joke in his own book. But he promises to come back when time allows him to. That's right he waits on time because your god cannot control time.
People that can convince themselves that random matter coming together to form life is an accident can convince themselves that anything I desire maybe possible, from nothing comes something, what was before nothing? If I can perceive something rather than nothing do not my perceptions merely fool me? Have I fooled myself about what maybe only 1/100th of the visible spectrum of what maybe occurring around me...as all there is to see, what pedantic childish nonsense.
George, you expound for thirty-six minutes on how great our Constitutional system is in preventing tyranny of the majority, but ignore how completely useless it was in stopping the tyranny of slavery, segregation, suppression of voting rights, and other discrimination. For 150 years it completely and utterly failed, and continues to fail to a lesser extent in that regard today. Women couldn't vote until 1920. Gay people faced jail and harassment and couldn't marry until just a few years ago. Many of the reforms you criticize were in direct response to recognition of those failures. You really have blinders on, seeing only the narrow economic concerns of comfortable, white males.
I'm a true blue, far left bleeding heart liberal. Yet, I love George Will. Hope I live long enough to see these United States reach a place where we are all on the same side, just have different ideas about how to get there.
As a conservative Trump was not my first choice but he turned out to be the right person at the right time to defeat Hillary Clinton . I would like to have asked George Will He voted in the presidential election or wasted his vote on a write in . He also should have been asked whether Hillary Clinton would have been much worse for the country then Trump could ever be .I agree 100% on his ideas about smaller government ,unelected bureaucrats making rules and laws with no restraint and politicians Trying to micromanage our economy .I have very similar views on religion as He stated except that I'm a panthist .I would also have like to know his opinion on term limits which was not brought up maybe it's in his book which I haven't read .
George is wrong on equating Johnson's Great Society and the downturn of public support of Government. The two things are not tied together. Public decline of support for the government happen when Politicians started getting bought up by corporations and stopped being a representative of the people. In the early 80's a flood of corporate think tanks appeared whose function was to change a public perception of government as an evil system to be slashed. Also they created the public perception that unions are bad by framing it as unions as takers of our money. If you reduce parties to their cores, Democrats represent the 99% of the working people and republicans represent the top 1% and that hasn't changed in a long time.
Geoge Willl refuses to acknowlege that FDR's New Deal was incomplete and in one speech FDR recognized that one more right of every American was the right to health. That right exists n all developped democracies the world over. and yet the battle to have that right acknkowledged defined the politics of the last 30 years and the job is yet incomplete. The ACA is too expensive for the consumer and still is partial in its coverage. But the 2018 electiobn proved one thing; that flawed as it is the ACA is wildly popular and any attempt to destroy it will be followed by stinging political defeat. The other unfinished business of the New Deal is the need for free or heavily subsidized college education. College education was forgotten as a citizen's right because jobs did not demand a college education until the 1970's. Moreover state governments had done a relatively good job of educating the sons and daughters of farmers throuhg the land grant colleges. But by the 1970's tuition cost in all coleges began skyrocketing as the land grant colleges became full fledged universities and their mission rto educate the farmers disapeared and with it the support of legislators from farm areas. Not too many Americans embrace a view of the state as a benevolent Leviathan controlling everything or like a mother from which all must get sustenance. State Government in Europe have had a bit of that orientation and in some cases slid into totalitarianism. Today such notions are being abandoned. Yet economic crises like the one that engulfed the world in 2008 can make people so panicky as to look fr state intervention solutions.
Where would such a right come from. What's the right to that right? You have no right to other people's money, you have no right to their ingenuity, you have no right to their risk taking, and you have no right to their work product. You feel you do you're either a thief or a tyrant. What I want is full price transparency in medicine long before I buy; expose it to the open market and stop the monopolistic shakedown between middlemen that it is today. Then they would compete to provide best price for service like any normal market behaves.
If only George Will, David Brooks, Bill Kristol and other so-called "reasonable Conservatives" would take some level of responsibility for putting Trump in the White House, I would be willing to listen to them. The longtime Conservative agenda has led to autocracy. They are enablers, but they feel that their current indignation let's them off the hook...disgusting.
George Will is someone I've forced myself to listen to for decades. I'm very far left politically, in most ways, but what I am most interested in is people who are intelligent and principled. It can't be denied that George Will is smart.
@buzzclick500 Actually it will be a different generation that will make the final payment. This generation is sorely lacking brain cells to even comprehend social compact theory.
very good interview, I have been paying attention to Charles Lane over the years and through his articles and appearances on Brett Bair, I think he may be shifting more from the left to the center
The respect for data. FACTS a new thrust in politics. Human rights are the concerns after COVID 19. Proper - Scope and competency is what our country must demand . Brilliant intellect .
The lost of trust is because as a population becomes more informed, better educated, all the flaws of system as large as our government simply becomes more apparent.
Mr. Will, no one's an atheist: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. " (Rom 1:18-20) With respect and affection, Mr. Will, you know you will be held accountable for the transgressions we all are guilty of... only the atonement God has provided, His Son Jesus Christ, can rescue you.
34:24 "You want to get money out of politics? Get politics out of the allocation of money. If government weren't so very deeply involved -- waist deep -- in the allocation of wealth and opportunity, less money would flow into politics to influence the government."
I founds this to be an interesting interview. While I do not generally agree with him, I found that he gives much to consider. That said, it is no wonder he left the Republican Party, he is a true conservative and an intelligent person. Two traits that are neither represented by, nor wanted by today’s Republican Party, which is totally in the hold of the “rent seekers” and the maintenance of power.
