'This Is Not My Party': George Will Goes from GOP to Unaffiliated

[sinkspur]

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/06/24/this-is-not-my-party-george-will-goes-from-gop-to-unaffiliated/?singlepage=true

'This Is Not My Party': George Will Goes from GOP to Unaffiliated

 BY NICHOLAS BALLASY JUNE 24, 2016 CHAT 218 COMMENTS


WASHINGTON – Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Will, who writes for the Washington Post, acknowledged it is a “little too late” for the Republican Party to find a replacement for Trump but had a message for Republican voters.

“Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.

Will said he changed his voter registration this month from Republican to “unaffiliated” in the state of Maryland.

“This is not my party,” Will said during his speech at the event.

He mentioned House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) endorsement of Trump as one of the factors that led him to leave the party.

 
Will, a Fox News contributor, said a “President Trump” with “no opposition” from a Republican-led Congress would be worse than a Hillary Clinton presidency with a Republican-led Congress.

Will did not say if he would vote for the Libertarian Party nominee, former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.), telling the crowd he does not know whether or not the Libertarian ticket is going to help or hurt Clinton.

Assuming Republicans retained the majority in both the House and Senate in 2016, Will said “gridlock” in government is a good thing “nine times out of 10.”

“Gridlock is not an American problem. It’s an American achievement,” he said, explaining that there are some countries that “wish” their governments were gridlocked.

Will added that gridlock often “stops things” the federal government should not be doing.


PJM asked Will about concerns among Republicans that a Hillary Clinton victory guarantees another liberal justice on the Supreme Court. In response, Will said a Republican president is not “the answer” to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“Sure, but I’m also concerned with the fact that I do not really believe Republicans think clearly enough about what they really want in judges. Republicans have given us Earl Warren, Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Burger, who was kind of mediocre, Blackmun. Having a Republican president is not an answer in itself,” he said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFElIAuvQUo

[Oceander]

In good company.

[hiram1950]

George Will used to be such an excellent read. I'm not sure when the transition started. Nevertheless, when a columnist uses his forum to campaign for Hillary Clinton, maybe he could take a column and explain what remains about him anyone can call conservative.

[sinkspur]

George Will used to be such an excellent read. I'm not sure when the transition started. Nevertheless, when a columnist uses his forum to campaign for Hillary Clinton, maybe he could take a column and explain what remains about him anyone can call conservative.

He's not campaigning for Hillary. He's campaigning  against Trump, which is what #NeverTrump is also doing.  Will is still an excellent read as long as you don't expect him (or any columnist, for that matter) to agree with you everything.  He's extremely thoughtful and has replaced Buckley as the national conservative wordsmith.

[Norm Lenhart]

In good company.

Most of the time I vehemently disagree with this guy. This time is an exception.

Of course oif people would have voted like the conservatives they pretend to be on the internet, we'd not have a GOP filled with Liberals in the first place. The "Know Betters" that pushed them on us all these years are no better than open democrats. Same goals, same result.

And here we are.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This Is Not My Party': George Will Goes from GOP to Unaffiliated

Damn,  I was hoping he'd go conservative. 

[sinkspur]

Damn,  I was hoping he'd go conservative.

He is conservative.  That's why he (and #NeverTrump) can't be in a party of a populist.  Populism is not conservatism.

[Right_in_Virginia]

He is conservative.

You misunderstand @sinkspur.  I want George Will to be the face of Conservatism. 

[kevindavis007]

In good company.

Same here. #NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverHillTrump

[EasyAce]

The only real shock is that Mr. Will didn't make the move earlier, considering his conservatism---which has
taken in a considerable libertarian strand in the past few years---has never inclined toward populism, and
considering that he has been roasting Donaldus Minimus from pretty much the outset.

I've always enjoyed him. Whether writing about politics, or writing about baseball, he's
a treasure. As was his most recent book:



I have never had a particular hankering for meeting celebrities, but I wouldn't mind having the pleasure
of watching a baseball game with Mr. Will. It'd be a hell of a lot more instructive and enlightening than
watching any political convention or legislative session.

[INVAR]

He is conservative.  That's why he (and #NeverTrump) can't be in a party of a populist.  Populism is not conservatism.

I think that is debatable.  Will is above all things an inside-the-beltway Establishment Republican.  Ivy League, the Hamptons and associated caste of 'leaders' that Trump was never part of.

I think Will's opposition to Trump is more to do with his lack of GOP country-club references on good standing than true Conservative opposition to Trump's clear Liberal fascism.

But I do agree what the GOP needs to die and go the way of the Whigs with their establishment just dropping the pretenses and going back to the Democrat Party where they vote in concert with most of the time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hurt like Hell.

Had to do it.

It's not my Party anymore.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think that is debatable.  Will is above all things an inside-the-beltway Establishment Republican.  Ivy League, the Hamptons and associated caste of 'leaders' that Trump was never part of.

I think Will's opposition to Trump is more to do with his lack of GOP country-club references on good standing than true Conservative opposition to Trump's clear Liberal fascism.

When did conservatism embrace antiintellectualism as a tenet?

When did wealth and breeding become a disqualifying factor for conservatives?

Would William F. Buckley, Jr. be shunned by today's conservatives?

[HonestJohn]

Good for Will.

He's matched his actions to his convictions, which very few ever do.

I salute you!

[EasyAce]

When did conservatism embrace antiintellectualism as a tenet?

Unfortunately, there has always been a certain strain of anti-intellect among the conservative
movement. It didn't begin and won't end with George F. Will.

When did wealth and breeding become a disqualifying factor for conservatives?

There's also been a strain of anti-wealth/breeding among some conservative factions for long
enough. For the record, Mr. Will wasn't exactly to the manor born: he is the son of a University of
Illinois professor of philosophy. He earned a BA in religion from Trinity College in Connecticut; he
studied at Oxford (earning a BA and MA there in philosophy, politics, and economics), and then
earned a master's and a doctorate in politics from Princeton. College professors in Mr. Will's
childhood didn't exactly earn ducal salaries.

Would William F. Buckley, Jr. be shunned by today's conservatives?

There were enough conservatives shunning Buckley as far back as the early 1990s, particularly after he
came out whole-hogger against the War on Drugs and in full favour of legalising marijuana. There were
those who tried to write him out of the conservative camp even earlier than that over one or another
issue. I can still remember the late Howard Phillips denouncing him after he admitted to smoking marijuana
on his schooner under police supervision and out of morbid curiosity: "Buckley hasn't been with us for a
long time now. His positions on the Panama Canal and marijuana are a disappointment. He really isn't with
us anymore." That was around 1980 or so.

Today's conservatives, actual or alleged, would probably dismiss him without a second thought; there's
no way anyone can imagine Buckley supporting Donaldus Minimus, and he was probably flashing that
big mischievious grin of his when National Review aimed an entire issue toward renouncing
Trumplestiltskin.

Good grief, a few years ago his postumous collection Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription: Notes
and Asides from National Review got denounced on TOS because of the title, the idiots on the thread
in question thinking him blasphemous without warrant when all the title was was a quote of a single-
line reply to an irate correspondent who demanded indignantly that his subscription be canceled---back in
the 1970s or thereabout! (That exchange, by the way, was included in the book, which I still think is one
of the funniest reads of Buckley's distinguished career.)

[Rivergirl]

Sadly, it is also beginning to feel like NOT MY AMERICA.

[geronl]

He's not even all that conservative either

But he is far from the only one.

[INVAR]

When did conservatism embrace antiintellectualism as a tenet?

When did wealth and breeding become a disqualifying factor for conservatives?

Think of them as part of an Ivy League Good Ol' Boys club, or the kinds of folks you read about in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Gatsby masterpiece.

Would William F. Buckley, Jr. be shunned by today's conservatives?

Probably.  Buckley would be as shunned by the Establishment GOP inasmuch JFK would be shunned by the Democrat party.   

Actually George Will and Charles Krauthammer OPPOSED Reagan's Conservatism and candidacy in 1976 and again in 1980.  It wasn't until a few days before the 1980 election that Will finally said Reagan deserved election.

Krauthammer actually was a speechwriter for Democrat Walter Mondale in 1980.  Not exactly what one would consider to be a staunch Conservative.  Yet like Stephanopolous and Matthews, they used their media influence to create an illusion of themselves that the GOP pandered to.

These two fellas that are parroted to be the voices of "Conservatism" on Leftist media, are hardly hard core Reagan Conservatives.