I’m not much of one to offer advice here, but here’s what I do know.
Brent Bozell III (appears on various news programs on occasion) is a very respectable one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III
Patrick Buchanan is one.
Paul Weyrich was one (deceased 3 years ago.)
Alan Keyes is a traditionalist I think.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas “might” be one.
Several of the prominent members of royal families in europe are traditionalists for obvious reasons ( you can’t very well crown a monarch with pedestrian liturgy speech, guitars etc).
Due to the fact that it is challenging and against the status quo to be “traditional” there has not been many people who prominently speak about it or admit that they are. That tide has gradually started to turn, but its not turned yet.
I believe that most of your support for the traditions of the church will be better served through reading the books by the Fathers of the Church, buy a benedictine or dominican Matins book and read all lessons by all the church fathers for the liturgical year, they’ve been used for centuries, they are timeless and totally pure.
Otherwise, Dr. Geoffrey Hull is at the top of my list.
Read his books “The Banished Heart” or “The Proto-History of the Roman Liturgical Reform” they will change your life.
Dr. Geoffrey is from Egypt, but strongly Latin rite, (descended from crusaders and merchants) and had much contact with Eastern christianity, which shaped some of his viewpoints.
The book “Treasures from the storeroom: medieval religion and the Eucharist” By Gary Macy is excellent.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf is excellent. (very sympathetic to the SSPX, in a very balanced way)
I did not know that those who attends the ordinary form (even if in latin) usually labeled as a traditionalist.
Scott Hahn and his wife have been “enemies” so to speak of traditionalists and home schoolers for 20 years. Thats nothing new. They promoted sexual education in some catholic schools at some point.
Cardinal Arinze, George Weigel, Cardinal Pell and some others mentioned above, have I believe been against the traditional 1962 and earlier form mass, but do support latin ordinary form.
I think the term “fully support the Magisterium” is rather imprecise.
There are things which the magisterium has done and or supported which are not binding on all Catholics. The Berengarian oath of 1059, by its very existence, refutes the claim that the Holy Spirit could not allow the magisterium to promulgate theological blinders, nor allow such blunders to become part of the received teaching of the Church. The oath indeed was such a blunder, and it was so received.
Many medieval authors knew quite well the meaning of the Berengarian oath, and, when they found it to be theologically unacceptable, they changed that meaning. The appear to do so deliberately, and without qualm. Reason was accepted as playing an important role in accepting, molding, and, in a real sense, creating the tradition through continuous reinterpretation. The appropriation, modification, and even nullification, on reasonable grounds, of magisterial statements is than clearly one way in which theologians have dealt with official statements of Church teaching.
A better request might be “do not link to anyone not validly in communion with Rome” or “who rejects dogmas of the Church.”