He opposed Trump in the primaries, like many conservatives, and supported him in the general, like most conservatives.
Supporting Trump isn't some weird mark of shame or anything; it's not my point that he's worth dismissing because he tolerates Donald Trump. Rather: he's worth dismissing because he has practically no interesting perspectives. He's a US-style right wing conservative in the most conventional possible sense. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him a weird topic for an HN discussion.
Later
You expanded your comment (which is fine, so did I!) and I just want to say: I'm not so much interested in debating the merits of Sowell's positions --- which would make for a boring political argument --- so much as just recognizing that he has them, and that they're the standard-issue intellectual uniform of 1990s American conservativism.
If you want to rebut the point I'm making, I think the most effective way to do so would be to spot some position Sowell has taken that is far outside the mainstream of the Hoover Institution. Then we'd be discussing what makes Sowell interesting, rather than relitigating the most boring debate in American politics.
> He opposed Trump in the primaries, like many conservatives, and supported him in the general, like most conservatives.
I feel using the final election to say someone 'supports' a particular candidate is not really a good metric in the American voting system. Primaries are better since there is more policy choice.
Obviously, Sowell would support Trump over Hillary even if he didn't like Trump as a candidate, or even if he thought Trump was not the best candidate. Sowell is very conservative, and believes in school choice, free market healthcare, deregulation, etc. Clinton didn't want any of that. Like many people, Sowell's 'support' of Trump (I don't believe he ever even endorsed him specifically) in 2016 (and likely in 2020) is a vote against the other candidate.
> but it does make him a weird topic for an HN discussion.
Because they're same positions every mainstream conservative shares. They're the essence of what the guidelines refer to when they say "Off topic: most stories about politics".
Supporting Trump isn't some weird mark of shame or anything; it's not my point that he's worth dismissing because he tolerates Donald Trump. Rather: he's worth dismissing because he has practically no interesting perspectives. He's a US-style right wing conservative in the most conventional possible sense. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him a weird topic for an HN discussion.
Later
You expanded your comment (which is fine, so did I!) and I just want to say: I'm not so much interested in debating the merits of Sowell's positions --- which would make for a boring political argument --- so much as just recognizing that he has them, and that they're the standard-issue intellectual uniform of 1990s American conservativism.
If you want to rebut the point I'm making, I think the most effective way to do so would be to spot some position Sowell has taken that is far outside the mainstream of the Hoover Institution. Then we'd be discussing what makes Sowell interesting, rather than relitigating the most boring debate in American politics.