The GOP choice

"Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility [...]"

That seems a little, either uneducated (of which I do not believe Mr. Will to be) or willfully ignorant of history. Hubristic volatility comes from all ideologies (see: Fascism as a movement of conservative origin, Jacobitism a la French Revolution as a movement of liberal (classic liberalism, let me be clear, and not 'American liberalism,' and the USSR as a movement of socialistic origin). Every one of the major ideologies has wrought a child of hubristic volatility, so it is supercilious to think that one could even be inoculative of the other two.

God forbid that we try to understand and improve things.

[Gingrich] belives everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. "

I will also point out this is the primary attribute of fashionable nonsense academics, particularly numerous in comp lit and history. Amazing that Newt should exhibit these traits.

And still G Will has to pull out the big C word as in Republican mythology this is the Great Satan, motivating all that is bad in the world. And so we have people who, being able to discern that X doesnt work, conclude therefore at all that is not X must therefore be correct and true, because their minds admit to only one dimension.

So if throwing the cat into the fire to cure fleas didnt work, submerging it instead in water must be the one true way.

In reply to Doug and Hamakko,

Thank you, Doug. You are very kind. Everything is relative. I don’t want to belabor how much I don’t know as it will get boring. Suffice it to say it is a lot and I suspect few of you can rightfully beat me if there is ever a contest.:)

Thank you, Hamakko, for the recommendation for a useful book to read to gain some understanding on labels. The biggest confusion for me has always been whether the two words “Conservative” and “Liberal” carry plain English meanings or whether they are terms of art in politics, and if the latter, who defines them, and when defined, whether the definition is based on the values of a person or the specific views he/she holds on a specific issue when one is not consistent with the other (e.g., a fornicating celibate.)

I shall be reading avidly. I just want to say these are fun columns to read for me because the arguments are almost always informed and impassioned. First Amendment in its full glory - What I dearly love about America.

I wonder if the little reptile fully understands the irony and hypocricy of persecuting one man for having extra marital sex while doing it himself. I wonder about the hubris of denial and self justification and how those egotistical traits could play out if Newt has his finger on the button during a global crisis. It certainly seems to me that his character flaws should disqualify him from serious consideration for the job of most powerful person in the world.

BTW is it the newt or the salamander that can change its colour? Oh no it's the chameleon of course ... well he's in fine company with other little reptiles or is it an amphibian?

In reply to Ashbird, Djyrn and others...
Agreed about not knowing exactly what defines conservative and liberal these days. Several weeks ago, to try to put it all in context, I read Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative' (1960). Bringing all of that forward to today, I now speculate that the man who became the 'Godfather of Modern Conservatism' in the 1980s would today be defined as a Libertarian (and it's scary to think that perhaps even Ronald Regan would...).
I don't consider Gingrich a conservative; not in the sense Goldwater would have. But then, labels mean very little to me anyway.
By the way, I highly recommend the book; just one thing, though - it's extremely short. I read it in about 90 minutes, and I'm a slow reader. That says something about how much of a conscience conservatives must have... but I'll leave that to the stand-up comics.

The only thing bigger than Newt's ego is his ass!!!

George Will despises Newt Gingrich and thinks Romney's managerialism "would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism."

But in conclusion, he all but endorsed Jon Huntsman.

Another categorical assault on the Economist lamenting the various "issues" with Gingrich, yet failing to add substantive value to the conservative debate.

I am amazed that the same person who is excelling through open dialogue and transparent discussions is being so consistently lambasted for things such as hubris, style, and admitted moral misgivings.

Here's a suggestion for a more accurate quote defining the Economist' position:
"we are all arrant knaves, believe none of us."

As the Economist does its level best to compete with the National Inquirer for material, let's pray the American public stumbles upon more constructive political debate. Perhaps greater minds will, in the end, prevail and lead with more qualified opinions on the future leader of the free world.

The strangest aspect of the GOP debates is that the process is being run by a highly motivated GOP base who seem to be clueless that it completely unrepresentative of the views and concerns of Joe and Jane Citizen on the wide national stage. My guess is that the middle class, 50+, white, religious Christian who make up the GOP base have become silo-ed from the real world and live in effectively gated well policed suburbs, only watch FOX, go to church with likeminded folk, ensure their kids go to Christian schools. None of the candidates are electable except perhaps Mitt and even then his real views are a mystery.

Conservatism inoculates against hubristic volatility? More like conservatism enables and feeds it.

It's fun to read George Will beating up on Newt. In my opinion it's fun to read anybody beating up on Newt.

His knock on Gingrich that, "only he understands how," is a little rich when followed by Will's defition of conservitism.

A monolithic "conservitism" doesn't exist. Every pundit, priest, and policitician of the right has their own definition, and it's usually a slippery one that affords a appeal to greater purity when a policy fails or is adopted by political opponents.

"Gingrich...(as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him"

Priceless.

George Will has been beating the holy crud out of Gingrich for a couple of weeks now, including calling Gingrich "the classic rental politician".

http://oneminutenews.com/channel/trending-news/72841/gingrich-is-just-a-...

This really highlights Gingrich's Achilles heel.

That is, the brand that Gingrich is trying to build is that Gingrich smart.

His true brand, however, as shown by Will and others, is that Gingrich is corrupt.

And Will is not afraid to remind folks.

Uh, that was supposed to be "Conservatism may be the cause and effect..."

Well now that Ashbird marked in the white page, I'll just say that in terms of modesty, Romney has a 57-point plan for restoring us to greatness and a zero-point plan for guaranteeing that Iran never has the bomb. Hubris may be the cause and effect of humility but, if so, there never was a conservative candidate for office or columnist.

Eagerly awaiting the first comment.