Matloff: Correct, but not on George Will
Print Friendly and PDF

The estimable Norm Matloff's comprehensive refutation of George Will's latest fatuous column below is the latest of a substantial body of valuable work we have noted on, both on the main page, Today's Letter and the blog (scroll down). But he is quite wrong to

given him (Will) credit for careful, tightly-reasoned analysis.

In fact, as a blogger pointed out three years, ago specimens like George Will are in their prominent MSM slots precisely not to provide anything of the sort:

When , in the 1960s, the networks began to feel heat for their systematic exclusion of conservative viewpoints, they responded by inventing a new species: the ostensibly well-credentialed individual who, representing the conservative case, would make sometimes elaborate but ultimately ineffectual arguments, and, in the end, always cave in on matters of substance.
Nowadays this species is almost extinct, its habitat having been largely grabbed by neoconservatives, who are of course neither conservative nor ineffectual. Odd examples persist, like George Will.

The MSM objective, of course, is to avoid featuring people of real ability.

My theory: Professor Matloff is a polite man, but too sensible to waste time reading Will regularly.

Can anyone remember George Will saying anything either valuable or conservative? evaluations of George Will are here and here and here.

Print Friendly and PDF