George F. Will Is The Umpire On Politics And Baseball

 

 

I sat down Washington Post columnist and author, George F. Will in Austin, Texas last month to chat about the current administration and America’s favorite pastime—baseball. They discuss politics in the age of polarization and the future of America.

We also discuss baseball as America’s favorite pastime, and George Will argues it is the sport of America’s future as parents stop letting their children play football because of the dangers of lifelong head and body injuries.

Recorded on March 29, 2018.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    This was a fantastic interview although I thought Peter should have pushed back a little more at the beginning when Will was being a bit petty about the President (the hands comment).

    I thought it was funny…sheesh…why can’t we make jokes any more?

    But the point is that Will complains about the coarseness of Trump, yet he joined him right there in the gutter.

    This is as silly as it gets around here. And that is pretty silly. Will makes a light comment – less than two seconds – and the people who hate him because he does not worship at the feet of this coarse fellow make a big deal of it. Aren’t there more elevating things to say about this wonderful interview?

    I really struggle these days because on the one hand, I do not like Trump, and I agree with Will about the coursening of dialogue (which didn’t start with Trump). On the other hand, I stand against the media and their near incessant narrative against Trump. On the third hand I agree he is better than the alternative. On the fourth hand, I find it rich that the people who love Trump because he really sticks it to “the man” seem to be so “thenthitive” to any comments made about the man, even those made in jest.

    I guess all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say “whatevs!”

     

    Nah. I don’t like Trump. I wouldn’t have a beer with him. He is doing generally good things, though, better than almost anyone else would have done.

    The real issue I have with Will is not that he thinks Trump coarsened politics, which is absurd, but that he really thinks that Hillary would have been better. This betrays that he is more interested in political machines than he is in the people’s freedoms. Hillary has coarsened politics beyond measure, but since she’s done it from a position of power, he thinks it’s okay?

    Pretty sure Will said things were better under Trump than they would have been under Hillary.

    • #31
  2. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Spin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    This was a fantastic interview although I thought Peter should have pushed back a little more at the beginning when Will was being a bit petty about the President (the hands comment).

    I thought it was funny…sheesh…why can’t we make jokes any more?

    But the point is that Will complains about the coarseness of Trump, yet he joined him right there in the gutter.

    This is as silly as it gets around here. And that is pretty silly. Will makes a light comment – less than two seconds – and the people who hate him because he does not worship at the feet of this coarse fellow make a big deal of it. Aren’t there more elevating things to say about this wonderful interview?

    I really struggle these days because on the one hand, I do not like Trump, and I agree with Will about the coursening of dialogue (which didn’t start with Trump). On the other hand, I stand against the media and their near incessant narrative against Trump. On the third hand I agree he is better than the alternative. On the fourth hand, I find it rich that the people who love Trump because he really sticks it to “the man” seem to be so “thenthitive” to any comments made about the man, even those made in jest.

    I guess all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say “whatevs!”

     

    I understand what you are saying here. But I think that it needn’t be a struggle. There is a tendency among people – probably going back decades, or even centuries – to pick a side and defend that side no matter what. I say, “A pox on all your houses”! Of course much of the Media are as abusive to Trump as he is to them. Of course they (many of what we call the “Mainstream” ones) are slanted, and highlight stories to bring up the points they want to. They hated Reagan. And you can’t more genial than The Gipper!

    I think Jonah Goldberg handles this as well as anyone: Just tell the truth. Be an umpire. Whenever Trump put out a good policy say so. Just recognize that he is the President, and we have to put with him. But he is not a good man. Similarly, there are not that many really good people in the Media. But we need them to bring the news to use. Just don’t choose sides. It isn’t worth it.

    • #32
  3. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Spin (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    This was a fantastic interview although I thought Peter should have pushed back a little more at the beginning when Will was being a bit petty about the President (the hands comment).

    I thought it was funny…sheesh…why can’t we make jokes any more?

    But the point is that Will complains about the coarseness of Trump, yet he joined him right there in the gutter.

    This is as silly as it gets around here. And that is pretty silly. Will makes a light comment – less than two seconds – and the people who hate him because he does not worship at the feet of this coarse fellow make a big deal of it. Aren’t there more elevating things to say about this wonderful interview?

    I really struggle these days because on the one hand, I do not like Trump, and I agree with Will about the coursening of dialogue (which didn’t start with Trump). On the other hand, I stand against the media and their near incessant narrative against Trump. On the third hand I agree he is better than the alternative. On the fourth hand, I find it rich that the people who love Trump because he really sticks it to “the man” seem to be so “thenthitive” to any comments made about the man, even those made in jest.

    I guess all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say “whatevs!”

     

    Nah. I don’t like Trump. I wouldn’t have a beer with him. He is doing generally good things, though, better than almost anyone else would have done.

    The real issue I have with Will is not that he thinks Trump coarsened politics, which is absurd, but that he really thinks that Hillary would have been better. This betrays that he is more interested in political machines than he is in the people’s freedoms. Hillary has coarsened politics beyond measure, but since she’s done it from a position of power, he thinks it’s okay?

    Whatevs.

    So are you saying that Hillary wouldn’t have been a fundamental threat to our Constitution and freedoms?

    “Why yes, yes indeed that’s just exactly what I said!” he said, with a roll of his eyes.

    This is what Will is saying. I disagree with it to an an extent. But it is worth thinking about. Either we believe in the Constitution or we don’t. There are enough checks and balances that nobody can really destroy the system. Even Obama couldn’t do it. Trump reversed a lot of his policies. The point is can he make it permanent? And that what makes Trump Skeptics like me fearful: Trump is alienating so many people that his worthwhile policies may be reversed themselves in a few years.

    • #33
  4. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Pretty sure Will said things were better under Trump than they would have been under Hillary.

    Jamie’s right – again! :-)

    • #34
  5. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Pretty sure Will said things were better under Trump than they would have been under Hillary.

    Jamie’s right – again! :-)

    It happens once or twice a decade. 

    • #35
  6. Travis McKee Inactive
    Travis McKee
    @Typewriterking

    I’m disturbed that no one took issue with Will’s most troubling pronouncement; that paying bullpens more than starters is somehow a more evolved position for general managers to take. 

    Just consider what it takes to be an MLB closer; you sit up, you throw between nine and twelve pitches, typically, and you sit down again. If you can muster enough velocity, teams really don’t expect you to develop much motion. 

    In contrast, a starter is expected to throw 100 times, and is expected to have more than just a fastball in his arsenal. 

    With roster sizes capped, demand for starters and relief should be roughly equal. Which one can the world supply more of, guys that can face big league lineups for a good six innings, or guys that can face them for one inning? 

    • #36
  7. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Spin (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    So are you saying that Hillary wouldn’t have been a fundamental threat to our Constitution and freedoms?

    “Why yes, yes indeed that’s just exactly what I said!” he said, with a roll of his eyes.

    Then what’s your beef?

    • #37
  8. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    So are you saying that Hillary wouldn’t have been a fundamental threat to our Constitution and freedoms?

    “Why yes, yes indeed that’s just exactly what I said!” he said, with a roll of his eyes.

    Then what’s your beef?

    Local, grass fed, purchased outside the USDA’s prying eyes on a wintry night from some people I know.  What’s your beef?  

    • #38
  9. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Travis McKee (View Comment):

    I’m disturbed that no one took issue with Will’s most troubling pronouncement; that paying bullpens more than starters is somehow a more evolved position for general managers to take.

    Just consider what it takes to be an MLB closer; you sit up, you throw between nine and twelve pitches, typically, and you sit down again. If you can muster enough velocity, teams really don’t expect you to develop much motion.

    In contrast, a starter is expected to throw 100 times, and is expected to have more than just a fastball in his arsenal.

    With roster sizes capped, demand for starters and relief should be roughly equal. Which one can the world supply more of, guys that can face big league lineups for a good six innings, or guys that can face them for one inning?

    Wasn’t he lamenting the notion?  That the focus is on the pitching, and the pitcher?  And thus the game is less interesting?  No action on the bases, etc.?  

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.