0
0
www.thediegoscopy.com – Political commentary often turns loudest when a party faces an identity crisis, and few voices illustrate this better than George Will. Once celebrated as a conservative oracle, he now stands apart from the Republican base after rejecting Donald Trump, yet his core philosophy barely budged. That tension — moral revulsion toward Trump paired with devotion to old-guard conservatism — creates a fascinating, sometimes maddening commentary thread through his recent columns.
Will’s commentary shows a man who abandoned a party label without leaving his ideological home. He still praises markets, limited government, constitutional originalism, even as he lambasts MAGA nationalism. For readers, this raises a puzzle: Is he a courageous holdout against authoritarian drift, or a relic clinging to a pre-Trump universe that no longer exists? Exploring that contradiction reveals deeper truths about American conservatism itself.
Commentary from a Conservative Exile
George Will’s commentary carries the aura of exile. He walked away from the GOP during Trump’s ascent, yet kept nearly every ideological plank he championed during the Reagan era. Many commentators who broke with Trump moderated on economics or culture; Will rarely does. He resists Trump’s personality, rhetoric, and contempt for institutions, not the traditional conservative platform beneath the MAGA spectacle. That strange continuity gives his commentary a split-screen quality: moral outrage on one side, policy nostalgia on the other.
This peculiar stance leaves Will almost party-less. His commentary criticizes Democrats for expansive social spending, cultural progressivism, and regulatory ambition. At the same time, he scolds Republicans for submitting to a leader he sees as anti-constitutional and temperamentally unfit. He feels no home with populists or progressives, so he writes as a solitary defender of what he views as “proper” conservatism: rule of law, fiscal restraint, skepticism toward concentrated power, reverence for the founding framework.
That solitude shapes the tone of his commentary. You sense impatience with everyone: Republicans for moral surrender, Democrats for policy overreach, voters for rewarding spectacle over seriousness. Sometimes this reads as principled consistency; sometimes as detached aloofness. By staking out this lonely perch, Will offers clarity on the costs of Trumpism, but also exposes the limits of a conservatism that rarely reexamines itself beyond the Trump question.
The Madness or the Method?
Critics often call Will’s recent commentary “madness” because it fuses fierce anti-Trump rhetoric with unwavering commitment to conservative dogma. To them, it seems like denouncing the arsonist while hugging the can of gasoline. By rejecting Trump’s behavior yet defending the pre-Trump Republican worldview, he appears blind to how decades of rhetoric on government, elites, and resentment paved the road for Trump’s rise. His commentary, from this angle, refuses to interrogate the soil that nourished the fruit he now loathes.
From another perspective, his commentary reflects method rather than madness. Will believes institutions require guardians who refuse to bend, even when partisan winds howl. He sees Trump as a temporary distortion, not the logical endpoint of conservatism. That view lets him claim intellectual continuity: the same principles used to justify Reagan now deployed to condemn Trump. Whether you accept this framing depends on how you interpret the last half-century of conservative commentary and organizing.
My own view places him somewhere between tragic figure and stubborn curator. His commentary usefully documents the ways Trumpism menaces constitutional norms and civic culture. Yet it often underplays how earlier conservative media, donor networks, and campaigns cultivated distrust, aggrievement, and a winner-takes-all mindset. Will seems eager to prune diseased branches while insisting the tree remains pure. That selective memory weakens his otherwise sharp analysis.
What George Will’s Commentary Reveals About Us
The real power of George Will’s commentary lies less in his policy prescriptions than in the mirror he holds up to American politics. His isolation illustrates how quickly parties can abandon long-stated principles when power calls, how intellectual movements risk captivity to demagogues, and how difficult it becomes to admit that once-cherished ideas helped set the stage for today’s chaos. Reading Will, you encounter both integrity and blind spots: a writer who refused to bow to Trump’s personality cult, yet clings to a conservatism many voters have already mutated beyond recognition. That duality invites a reflective conclusion for all sides: ideological consistency means little unless paired with willingness to confront your own tradition’s role in creating the very crises you now condemn. Thoughtful commentary, at its best, does more than score points; it compels every camp to ask how it helped write the story it now claims to despise.
