16 thoughts on “Max Boot”

  1. When WF Buckley was the ne plus ultra of conservatism the punditry could rub shoulders with the leftist elite, particularly in the media as they had a patina of scholarship. The cost of that in the age of hard left ascendancy and media dominance was the requirement that one lose gracefully. The middle class right was tired of losing and like Lincoln choosing Grant, decided that at least Trump fights. If in 1864 Mr. Boot had been a Union general, he would be on Confederate TV attacking Gen. Grant’s character.

  2. Really, who is Max Boot and why should I care about what he thinks?

    That’s what is killing NeverTrumpers like him. We don’t need him and never did.

    1. “Really, who is Max Boot and why should I care about what he thinks?”

      The answer to your question is that you can judge an argument by its merits and not by its proponent. Do you think Rand picked the link because of who Max Boot is, or because of what he says?

      I looked at the Amazon reviews of Max Boot’s book, and this one intrigued me:

      Democrats Should Not Gloat
      October 13, 2018
      Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
      Careful with this one. Max lists his core principles towards the end, all fairly mainstream views, and each popular in its own right. I read it and thought – yes, these are all acceptable to the Democratic platform… but he’s not convinced of that. The more I think about it, neither am I.

      I’m still sending a copy to my brother-in-law. Democrats shouldn’t gloat, but Republicans won’t exactly enjoy this either.

      Sounds interesting to me. (Maybe Rand will blog about Max Boot again.)

      1. Sounds like a Mid-Life Crisis made public. Maybe he should be like L. Ron Hubbard and organize a movement if he feels the uncontrollable urge to spread (quote) Core Principles (un-quote)…

    2. I never heard of him before the election then he became a conservative “institution”, the bedrock of the Republican party. When Trump is out of office, Boot can crawl back into the obscurity from whence he came.

  3. Max Boot was never of the right. The Buckley brand of liberalism dressed as conservatism is one of the bigger reasons why the USA has become the socialist dumpster fire that it is today. They would much rather be part of the elite club than be a real conservative.

    We have much the same here in Canada.

    “Progressive” Conservatives – God give me strength!

    1. Yes. It does rather appear that much of 20th century ‘conservatism’ was actually just controlled opposition to ensure the left won and the right stayed on the plantation.

  4. I used to like reading Max Boot columns before his “transformation”.

    But if what Goldberg wrote is true:

    ” First, he essentially admits — in his book and in interviews — that he didn’t do much firsthand analysis of conservatism and many conservative positions.”

    Then Boot was a fake. I expect Conservative writers to have strong foundations in Conservatism – know where it came from and why Conservatives believe what they believe. I expect them to have studied Hayak and Kirk and Bastiat and D’Toqueville.

    I expect them to leave emotion-based rhetoric to liberals.

    So I’m disappointed that Boot was merely mouthing words with little understanding.

    But this “transformation” of Boot gives support to a theory I’ve had for some time. I can’t prove it….don’t even have enough evidence for it…but things happened that have given me pause.

    The theory is:

    Commentators can massively adjust their commentary to the place where they work.

    This happens to some degree everywhere but I’m talking about massive adjustments. The first example of this was Piers Morgan.

    He was a virulent Lefty on his TV show – almost Olberman-level heat. Until he went to where he is now. It hasn’t been a 180 degree change but it was substantial More like 160 degrees.

    Now Boot.

    Changes like these – so massive – make me wonder if, say Mika Brysinski moved to Fox would her basic attitude and political view change?

    1. It’s made me think that “commentators” and “pundits” are simply playing roles for entertainment purposes.

      1. Fox is definitely this way, maybe not everyone all the time but you can spot it. It doesn’t matter if the person is right or left you will find them taking positions that they don’t necessarily believe but which portray perspectives on a current topic. Sort of like a devil’s advocate.

    2. I don’t know if Piers is the best example. From everything I’ve seen he’s still a rabid lefty–he’s still wildly anti-gun, for example.

      But he personally knows Trump–I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call him a friend–so he can’t let the other lefties lie about him.

Comments are closed.