This post is from a suggested group
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.









