Critique of George Will of Washington Post
When examining George Will’s commentary on the Mar-a-Lago search as a case study in intellectual inconsistency, several factual threads emerge that call into question his competence as a "principled" institutionalist.
The critique of Will isn't just about a difference of opinion; it is about a documented imposition of contradiction—where a writer mandates a course of action that violates the very foundational principles he has used to scold others for half a century.
1. The Hypocrisy of "Political Duty"
For decades, George Will’s brand has been built on the "Madisonian" ideal: that institutions like the Department of Justice must be insulated from the "passions" of the public. He has frequently lectured that a prosecutor's only duty is to the law, not the "optics."
The Contradiction: In his Mar-a-Lago column, Will explicitly discarded this. He argued that Merrick Garland had a "political duty" to prioritize public relations over legal protocol.
The Action: By demanding that a legal process be managed based on its potential impact on the 2024 election (fear of Trump's nomination), Will abandoned "Constitutionalism" for "Political Strategy." This is the definition of hypocrisy: demanding that a non-political office act politically to achieve a result the columnist personally desires.
2. Intentional Polarization and Sensationalism
Despite presenting himself as a calm, cerebral "scold," Will utilized highly sensationalist framing to escalate the national temperature:
The Language: He labeled a legally executed search warrant—signed by a federal judge—as a "circus perpetrated at Mar-a-Lago."
The Polarization: By using the word "perpetrated," a term typically reserved for crimes, he validated a narrative of government overreach without waiting for the evidence to be unsealed. This contributed directly to the "deep state" rhetoric he elsewhere claims to find "vulgar" and "anti-intellectual."
3. Questioning Competence and Consistency
Will’s competence as a reliable narrator is undermined by his "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" logical framework. Critics point out that his logic creates a popularity-based immunity:
If the DOJ is silent: Will calls them "politically reckless" for letting a narrative fester.
If the DOJ speaks: Will has historically attacked officials (like James Comey) for "politicizing" investigations by speaking publicly.
By creating a situation where there is no correct path forward for the Department of Justice, Will reveals that his commentary is no longer about upholding norms, but about expressing grievances.
When you examine George Will’s commentary on the "Greenland Crisis" alongside his Mar-a-Lago column, his "peevish" style is no longer just an aesthetic annoyance—it becomes a tool for intentional polarization and intellectual dishonesty.
Will’s coverage of Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland serves as a masterclass in how he uses his platform to validate chaos while simultaneously pretending to be the "adult in the room."
1. The Greenland "Circus": Facts vs. Sensationalism
In his January 2026 commentary, Will characterizes Trump’s move to "take" Greenland as an exercise in "executive determination," despite the following facts:
The Intent: Trump has framed the acquisition of Greenland as a "national security necessity" to counter Russian and Chinese influence.
The Reality: As an autonomous territory of Denmark (a NATO ally), the U.S. already has "carte blanche" military access to Greenland via the 1951 Defense Agreement.
The Contradiction: Will, the "constitutionalist," has ignored that threatening a NATO ally with military force or punitive 25% tariffs (as Trump did in early January 2026) is a violation of international law and the very "liberal order" Will spent 50 years defending.
2. False Assessments and Divisive Rhetoric
Will’s competence is called into question by his habit of outcome-based analysis. He doesn't look at the facts and reach a conclusion; he picks an outcome he likes (or a person he wants to defend/attack) and works backward:
The False Assessment: Will has argued that Trump’s Greenland gambit is a "serious policy discussion" regarding rare earth minerals. In reality, the Danish government and 85% of Greenlanders have rejected the idea as "absurd." Will presents a fantasy of a real estate deal as if it were a legitimate geopolitical strategy, ignoring the diplomatic wreckage it has caused within NATO.
The Divisive Spin: Just as he called the Mar-a-Lago search a "circus," he frames any opposition to the Greenland annexation as "European obstructionism" or "elite pearl-clutching." This intentionally polarizes the issue, forcing his readers to choose between "American interests" and "Danish stubbornness," rather than acknowledging the basic sovereignty of another nation.
3. The "Pretentious Elitist" Trap
The irony of Will calling anyone else "divisive" is that his own writing style is designed to exclude.
"He writes about Greenland with the same air of 'exasperated disappointment' he used for Mar-a-Lago—treating international law like a pesky suggestion that only 'lesser minds' care about."
His hypocrisy is complete:
On Mar-a-Lago: He demanded the DOJ be more political to save the GOP from Trump.
On Greenland: He demands the world be less legalistic to allow Trump’s "bold" expansionism.
Side-by-Side: The Will Contradiction
The 1980s: The "Madisonian" Institutionalist In the late 20th century, George Will was the premier defender of "proceduralism." He argued that the American system functioned only when its institutions—especially the Department of Justice—operated with quiet, professional distance from the "passions" of the public. He frequently lectured that:
Executive Power must be balanced by the "Take Care" clause, ensuring the President remains a servant of the law, not a sovereign above it.
International Sovereignty and the 1951 Defense Agreement with Denmark were bedrock examples of the "liberal order" that required American respect for allies to ensure global stability.
Prosecutorial Silence was a sacred norm; he once rebuked those who sought "political explanations" for legal actions, claiming that such demands "corroded the rule of law."
The 2026: The "Expansionist" Narrative Architect By 2026, Will has inverted these principles to serve immediate political narratives. His commentary on the Greenland crisis and the Mar-a-Lago search reveals a shift toward sensationalism:
Executive Power: He now treats international law—specifically the sovereignty of Denmark—as a "pesky suggestion." He characterizes the threat to annex Greenland as an exercise in "executive determination," effectively arguing that the President’s desire for rare earth minerals overrides 75 years of NATO treaties.
The "Political Duty" over Law: In the Mar-a-Lago case, he demanded that Merrick Garland abandon the "norm" of silence. He argued Garland had a "political duty" to explain the search, essentially saying the DOJ should manage its investigations based on their potential impact on the 2024 and 2026 elections.
Sensationalist Rhetoric: He replaced his typical "Madisonian" analysis with inflammatory labels, calling a legal search warrant a "circus perpetrated" and framing diplomatic resistance from allies as "obstructionism."
A Question of Competence
Ultimately, this is not a record of "self-correction," but of intentional polarization. George Will has become a "peevish scold" who creates a logical trap: he demands institutionalism for his enemies and expansionism for his interests.
His competence as a serious intellectual is undermined by this refusal to be consistent. When a commentator changes the rules of the game because he dislikes the players on the field, his writing ceases to be scholarship and becomes, as the critique noted, a "high-vocabulary tantrum."
He is no longer defending the Constitution; he is merely using it as a prop in a long-running performance of exasperated elitism.
Conclusion: The Collapse of Intellectual Authority
The case of George Will, and many more like him, serves as a definitive warning about the erosion of institutionalist punditry in the face of hyper-partisan utility.
By prioritizing situational outcomes over the very procedural sanctity he spent half a century defending, Will has traded the role of a political philosopher for that of a narrative architect.
His recent efforts to normalize the Greenland expansionist rhetoric—a move that fundamentally undermines the sovereignty of a NATO ally and ignores established treaties—reveal that his "Madisonian" principles were not a bedrock, but a facade.
Will’s transformation into a "peevish scold" who demands that the law be bent to accommodate political optics is more than a failure of logic; it is a profound failure of professional competence.
He has become an intentional agent of polarization, using a sophisticated vocabulary to shield a series of high-level tantrums from the scrutiny of common sense. When a thinker’s only consistency is his willingness to contradict himself to suit the morning's headlines, he no longer offers insight—he offers only the noise of an intellectual legacy in freefall.
End the Hypocrisy: The "Faux Conservative" Breakdown
The critique of Will centers on a documented imposition of contradiction, where his modern rhetoric effectively dismantles the foundational principles he used to build his career. This analysis highlights three primary areas where his actions reveal a shift from intellectual conservatism to situational narrative architecture:
Political Opportunism: Will has transitioned from a high-level advisor for the Reagan administration to a commentator who actively advocated for the destruction of a Republican Congress. By calling for voters to oust GOP lawmakers in 2018—not based on policy, but specifically to punish President Trump—he abandoned "principled conservatism" in favor of a spite-based strategy. This move intentionally sought to weaken the legislative branch's Article I powers, which he previously argued were the essential check on executive overreach, purely because he disliked the wielder of those Article II powers.
The Welfare State Contradiction: Despite his "Mr. Conservative" branding, Will’s historical comments reveal a surprising affinity for big-government structures. His past assertions on Agronsky & Co. that Americans are "undertaxed" and his more recent praise for Republicans "running the welfare state better" than their opponents prove he is not interested in small-government principles. Instead, his priority is who manages the power. His "Trump phobia" has led him to abandon the movement fathered by William F. Buckley Jr., moving away from those who "stand athwart history" and instead toward a "socialist squad" mentality that damages the very conservative movement he once championed.
The "Elmer Gantry" Comparison: The critique likens Will to a "con artist" or a "peevish scold" who demands moral "repentance" from the Republican base regarding President Trump, while he himself operates as a high-paid media power player. He presents himself as the intellectual heir to traditional conservatism, yet he has endorsed candidates whose policies directly contradict the movement's core tenets. This "epistle" of superiority is viewed as a fraudulent performance, where the "air of the dirigible" is let out the moment his elite status is challenged by true libertarian or conservative facts.
