George Will and the National Review crew are neo-cons. AKA not-Conservatives. Straussians. They are the fake "right" of the modern pro-global government party. Watching people aruge over what's "left" and "right" is surreal. The real differences (if one wants to find them) are sovereignty of nation states vs a permenant ruling class that sets quazi-global policy.
To anyone who thinks they are "left": Consider watching the current presidents UN speeches.
> Consider watching the current presidents UN speeches.
I can't. They're a nonsensical standard of English full of insultingly untrue things.
> sovereignty of nation states vs a permenant ruling class
These two things are not in conflict; historically most nation states have a fairly fixed ruling class. There was a paper a while ago showing how many of the ruling families of 14th century Venice were still in significant positions politically or economically.
The commoners are aware of the various power centers. The conflict you pretend does not exist happens when that status is challenged. From the perspective of power, it should not be possible; hence their PR firms (FOX/CNN/xNBC/NYT etc) losing control of the "pick A or B" directive.
You stepped over the mention of the quazi-global policy. The narrative is that does not exist, or you are a "insert negative words" if you talk about it. The concentration of power is in conflict with the idea of a soverign nation state. Modern language engineering, like the constant attempts to asscoiate liking one's country with ethnic supremicy (kinda hard with the US:) is one rather transparent technique used to attempt to shape how people think about it.
> George Will and the National Review crew are neo-cons.
Irrelevant.
The parent comment claimed being dismayed by Trump's election makes one automatically part of the "partisan left". Neither George Will nor National Review are, by any stretch of the imagination, "partisan left", despite their being anti-Trump.
They may not be the form of right-wing you like, but they're very much on the right hand side of the spectrum.
That's fair. I agree. Some of Trumps most powerful political enemies are what some people would consider "right". Ryan, Mitt, (formally) McCain... the list is long. I find the conventional l/r distinction worse than useless; to the point of deliberately obfuscating intent.
Studying YT through the conventional l/r window is not going to yield useful results.
To anyone who thinks they are "left": Consider watching the current presidents UN speeches.