It's so interesting how George Will seems to be tailoring this interview
for the audience when he is saying this in other places: '“What Mr. Trump is doing that is damaging to the country is public
and constant, it is a bell he’s ringing that can’t be unrung. He is
putting into our civic discourse a level of conversation and of name-calling and
of abuse that will now seem perfectly normal in the future.”And blaming troubles on progressives? These are the people who fought for
women's right to vote, who fought to overcome poverty in the elderly with
the introduction of social security, who listened when workers were injured on
the job and installed the concept of workplace safety and child labor laws.
They gave us the 40-hour work week (remember Ebenezer Scrooge?). How disingenuous, Mr. Will.
George Will has talked alot, but his talk never amounted to anything
significant.Trump is a man of action. He does the things
conservatives talk about, but never get done. Judges that believe in the
constitution (unlike RBG), moving the embassy to Jerusalem, fighting for free
speech - Romney would have caved a long time ago.
Peter Wiggin,"Trump has been the Conservative, Constitutionalist
leader the nation has been looking for."____________________Trump is neither conservative nor a Constitutionalist. He is a firebrand
populist showing increasingly bold autocratic inclinations bordering on fascism.
George Will, a conservative? This is laughable.
Conservatives only want to conserve one thing: The bank statements of the top
1%.You can't say conservatives want to conserve life
(ostensibly because they're pro life) - if conservatives were really pro
life, they would support things that keep kids alive, like health insurance,
school lunches, and vaccination.
David - Centerville, UT---A baby is an independent person, even in
the womb. It has its own DNA, brain, heart, eyes, lungs, etc, etc. ---A fetus may develop into a baby, and once born has the rights of a
person. But the moment a woman has the right and should maintain the right of
deciding whether she wants to carry that fetus through the development
process.Most abortions, approx. 90%, occur before the 13th week of
pregnancy.Laws which allow for abortions in the case of potential
death of the mother, rape, or incest, frequently seen in 'right to
life' legislation, are absolutely inconsistent with the anti abortionist
claims that innocent 'life' should be protected, since the fetus had
no responsibility for how the mother's ova was fertilized. And of course,
religious believers can rely on prayer for the case of mothers with medical
emergencies.Further, this would also include prohibiting such of in
vitro fertilization, against Catholic teaching, the freezing of fertilized ova
for later use, since there is a high likelihood of the ova not attaching, not
developing, and thereby dying, etc, or perhaps not being viable after a long
period of being frozen.
Trump has been the Conservative, Constitutionalist leader the nation has been
looking for. He has fought for the Forgotten man, principles of truth, and the
Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, people like Will and Romney are more
than happy to throw aside Freedom of Speech and support Communists.
"Boyd Matheson: Troubling trends are eroding the strength of the American
family,"Legalize the healthy, natural, scientific, traditional
practice of plural marriage if you want to strengthen the family.
To "jeclar2006" I never said that we have socialism here. However
"Marxist" keeps advocating that we convert over to Marxism/Socialism. I
would just like to see an honest answer to the question that I posed.The simplified version of the question is this: If it is so evil for a
business owner to live off of the work of their employees, why does is to noble
for a government worker to live off the work of the laborer?
jeclar2006 - Oceanside, CAWomen already have the right to do with
their bodies what they want. What they should not have is the right to abort
the life of a developing child.A baby is an independent person, even
in the womb. It has its own DNA, brain, heart, eyes, lungs, etc, etc. So let the woman decide if she will engage in behavior that will lead to
pregnancy, or not. But if she becomes pregnant, aborting the developing baby
should not be a choice. Under the Constitution, government has a responsibility
to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--that is the purpose of
government. So yes, government should regulate and restrict abortion.You brought up slavery. Abortion and Jim Crow laws are very similar in that
slave owners/women control "property" at the expense of independent
freedom and life.
"The question that recurs in American history from the founding on, most
particularly with Abraham Lincoln, which I'll talk about in a minute, is a
question of whether the United States is about a condition, which is liberty, or
about a process, which is majority rule. The process can be a threat to
liberty."____________________Yes, if it abrogates or attempts to
abrogate individual rights. But without a democratic process of any reasonable
sort, what is liberty but an invitation to anarchy?
George Will's reasoning is filled with irony.On the one hand he
continues the implicit criticism of the Federal government and a perceived
overreach. Yet, lauds Lincoln, who was the leader that essentially enforced
Federal power over the states.He decries this Federal power, yet it
is the very power that he demands for the protection of some nebulous and
essentially undefined set of Natural Rights.Apparently, and most
will agree these days, that chattel slavery is counter the Natural Right of an
individual to be free.Yet when the conversation for the present day
turns to say a woman's right to chose what she does with her body, or when
two people or more want to declare themselves married, all of a sudden Natural
Rights are cast off, and the power of the State (Federal, State, or local) to
control is invoked as right and just.Some states did not grant
Natural Right of freedom to some set of people, it required a war and the power
of the Federal government, likewise the Natural Right of marriage several
Supreme Court actions.Had the states willingly granted, or better
yet, made no laws with such limitations, the Federal government need not have
Jamchild Wealth inequality, or any inequality will always be with us, it
always has through all of time. Some people are just smarter, better looking,
more physical, and more capable. Your just going to have to come to grips with
that. All of the welfare started by Roosevelt until now, hasn’t solved
much, neither has communism, or socialism. You could divide an entire pie
equally, and everyone would still be left short, no matter how big the pie was.
Helping others has to come from within, not dictated by any governmental entity.
There is plenty of evidence that it just doesn’t work very well.George Will, the conservative who tipped over turning left.
@BoydMatheson,Thank you for the outstandingly interesting interview of Mr.
Will's book. Two of the book's primary lessons was that some truths
are self-evident apparent to a reasonably educated mind unclouded by
superstition, and that culture is paramount for success of a society. I would
greatly appreciate your answer to the quandary of church required social
believe in a thousand year BOM story of a great Hebrew Nation here in the
America's as recently as two thousand years ago. How does one reconcile
the BOM with modern day intelligence and self evident truth. It is
understandable how in past centuries of limited knowledge and superstitions one
could be a believer. But in today's world when even outer space is being
explored, what is the integrity in accepted fiction as required religious
believe. Thank you for your time and teaching.
RedShirtMIT - Cambridge, MA---Think of it this way, is it better for
the owner of a business to live off his labors combined with the labors of his
employees or is it better for a government official to live off the labors of
the laborers?---What we have now in the US is not in any was
any form of Socialism. A necessary condition for Socialism is to have major
industry owned by the state. Please point to any for of industry completely
owned by the state, 'state' meaning both state government or the
Federal.There are certain services which the government funds
directly, but even then suppliers for those services are provided by private
enterprise. The military is supplied by private companies and corporations. The
social services support pay funds to privately owned housing, privately owned
stores, and other private entities for services. Farm excess output has/is
funneled from private farmers to recipients, for example.In short,
government supported social services is neither Communism nor Socialism.
George Will? I thought he was in a care center. He's struggling to gain
marxist - Salt Lake City, UT---JHave either of you guys heard of
capital vs labor? It's like me and you live in different universes. Karl
Marx thoroughly explored the relationship in "Capital." But neither of
you have ANY knowledge of it.---For most people who have only
read the sloganeering about Marx and Communism (capital C...), don't
realize that Marx's major work was a detailed criticism of Capitalism,
which in the mid-19th Century was in its embryonic stage with the
industrialization of Britain.The Communist Manifesto can be read in
a day or for the slow reader, a couple of days. Das Kapital requires years.Capitalism has been modified from the original Industrial Revolution
state and many of those modifications were due to the organization of Labor, and
effecting changes. Today even the conservatives decry such things as
'human trafficking', which in the 19th Century was common, and not
subject to laws. Conservatives today would not permit 6-7 year olds to work in
factories, or mines, or other dangerous jobs. Such things did not pass away
because the factory/mine owners decided they were bad ideas.They
disappeared based on protest and legislation by government.
Inequality is the core issue and you two have ignored it amazingly thoroughly.
Government policies have largely led to our huge wealth inequality, and
it's not going to be fixed by changing our perspective on conservative
principles (which largely got us into this mess via "conservative"
To "marxist " they probably have, and realize that it is better to live
in a capitalist society than a Marxist/Socialist one.Think of it
this way, is it better for the owner of a business to live off his labors
combined with the labors of his employees or is it better for a government
official to live off the labors of the laborers?
@BM "But you really made the case that it's civil society, it's
community and culture, not politics, that we should really be looking to for
answers."Have either of you guys heard of capital vs labor?
It's like me and you live in different universes. Karl Marx thoroughly
explored the relationship in "Capital." But neither of you have ANY
knowledge of it.
This was a really great episode. The insights about conservatism shared on this
are greatly appreciated. It is efforts like this, the education of the mind,
that make a difference in changing the hearts and minds of people for good. I
have really enjoyed listening to these podcasts. Thank you very much for putting
them on. I wish there were more of them to listen to.
Great article and podcast, Mr Matheson!Now I want to get the book-
“The Conservative Sensibility”. Also I loved your three
sign-off’s...1. See something that inspires, 2. Say something that
uplifts, and 3. Do something that makes a difference. Thank you for your
insights! They are going up on my kitchen window again!!