Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
William F. Buckley, RIP
William F. Buckley
Jr., who founded National Review and did more than any
other intellectual to create a conservative alliance between
traditionalists and libertarians (an achievement that seems more
impressive with each passing day),
died this morning at the age of 82. I think my first
introduction to Buckley was through David Frye's impersonation of
him on I Am the President, so for me he was part of a
pantheon of important political figures with distinctive voices
from early on. I vividly remember watching a 60 Minutes
interview with Buckley in the 1970s and being struck by how much he
seemed to relish intellectual combat while remaining calm, polite,
and self-assured, traits that also came through in his
long-running PBS talk show Firing Line. For left-liberals,
I realized, he was a house-broken conservative, witty, learned, and
cordial even while espousing horrifying opinions. Although many of
today's most conspicuous conservatives eschew that role, Buckley's
dignified, thoughtful approach earned the conservative movement
mainstream credibility and may even have persuaded a few people,
instead of simply stirring up the mob.
In the early 1990s I worked for Buckley at National Review, although by that time he was not much involved in the day-to-day running of the magazine. He would see us at the editorial meetings every two weeks and treat us to lunch at a neighborhood Italian restaurant he favored. In conversation he was always sharp but gentlemanly. At one of those post-meeting meals I remarked that there was something to be said for the Articles of Confederation. "Yes," Buckley replied with a sly smile, taking a slug of red wine, "but not much." This formulation, which allowed for continued argument but also let me drop the subject without embarrassment, was of a piece with his confident but laid-back intellectual style.
As for substance, Buckley often called himself a libertarian; the subtitle of Happy Days Were Here Again, his 1993 collection of columns and articles, was "Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist." Buckley represented the classical liberal strain of modern American conservatism often enough that his endorsement of statist schemes such as "national service" (or, more recently, tobacco prohibition) caused real dismay. He especially endeared himself to libertarians with his courageous and persistent criticism of the war on drugs, a stance that continues to distinguish National Review from other conservative organs. Although Buckley's support for repealing drug prohibition grew more out of pragmatic concerns than a principled commitment to individual freedom, his prolific writings usually reflected skepticism of government intervention. In recent years this skepticism drove him to question another war popular with conservatives, one that could prove to be as long-lived as the war on drugs, if John McCain has anything to say about it. Buckley, in short, admirably combined an ability to fuse the disparate elements of the conservative coalition with a willingness to break them apart when he thought the stakes were high enough.
The Democratic Republican|2.27.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Wow...this makes me wish I were older and had seen the old man in his prime.
|2.27.08 @ 1:21PM|#
"He has(d) the guts to tell the truth."
Wouldn't it have been fun if he had won the NYC mayoralty election?
Of course, that was back before the "libertarian purge" from the
conservative movement. Disagreed with him on a lot of things but
this libertarian will miss him and the class he brought to matters
that is sadly lacking in the "crocidilian" Coulters of today.
Nash|2.27.08 @ 1:21PM|#
His opposition to the WOD always struck me as pretty gutsy. Considering Reagan loved it so much. Buckley "went there" when he advocated doing away with it.
|2.27.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Did he ever renounce what he wrote about "the black race" during the Civil Rights era?
Waquoit|2.27.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Good point by DR. My memory is when Buckley was on Nightline to argue with a blind guy who sailed some distance alone. His point was that you needed to see to be a real sailor. Buckley said he wasn't sure what to call what he accomplished, "But it wasn't sailing."
|2.27.08 @ 1:26PM|#
I remember buying a beat-to-shit copy of Up from Liberalism in a book store in Chicago maybe 10 years ago, and it was a major influence on my already small government-leaning views. I was also surprised that such a major conservative could be such a great writer and funny, to boot. His own views were spotty when it came to all kinds of freedom, but he was vindicated many times before the end of his life.
|2.27.08 @ 1:31PM|#
People often forget WFB2 was convinced that MLK
was a Communist and that he considered the Civil Rights Act a
threat to the Republic. Even after Goldwater and Reagan came around
on civil rights, WFB2 still blathered on about
"miscegenation" and all the rest.
|2.27.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Did he ever renounce what he wrote about "the black race"
during the Civil Rights era?
Who cares? Has Robert Byrd? Do you have concerns with anything he's
said since the 60s? Or was that it?
|2.27.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Not really, all I care about is his opposition to the war on drugs and the war in Iraq, some issues that are non academic in nature.
|2.27.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Yes, mike, Robert Byrd has done so. Often, publically, in
detail, and to the best of my knowledge, with genuine
contrition.
Which, really, is the decent thing to do.
|2.27.08 @ 1:36PM|#
And MLK was a commited socialist, will people please stop diefying MLK, he shat like the rest of us...
Fluffy|2.27.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Over at Rockwell they're noting that Buckley himself chose to use the occasion of Murray Rothbard's obituary to piss all over Rothbard. That makes me wonder whether I should show Buckley's death the same kind of respect he showed that of a former colleague.
roy edroso|2.27.08 @ 1:36PM|#
As for substance, Buckley often called himself a
libertarian...
The kind of libertarian who favored forcibly tattooing HIV+ citizens.
The libertarian tent gets bigger all the time, which only points up
its scarcity of tenants.
|2.27.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I disagree, mike, with a great deal of what he's said since the
1960s.
But considering a good idea to back the Contras, or to eliminate
this or that government program, isn't in the same ballpark as
declaring black people to be "the inferior race."
drawn asunder|2.27.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Yes, well, errr, ahhh, don't you see, don't you think your
missing the point which is that you're completely
misguided?
Goodnight funny man.
shecky|2.27.08 @ 1:41PM|#
I wonder what he thought about the Frankenstein monster he helped create. If he thought about it at all.
|2.27.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Buckley's career is so long and varied and unusual that anyone can cherry-pick through and find things to denounce him for, but that's missing a key point. Libertarians should revere him for making the anti-government case so persuasively for so long to so many millions of people through his writings and his journalistic and political acolytes. Given this massive achievement, all the griping is trivial.
|2.27.08 @ 1:42PM|#
RIP. That's bad news.
Far more familiar with his son's output but he was by all accounts
an interesting chap. And his wife was hot in her prime.
tarran|2.27.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Me, I don't like him;
Bill Buckley wanted to fight communism, and was willing to
sacrifice anything that he thought might get in the way of that,
including freedom.
The man supported conscription for God's sake! He might
have paid lip-service to believing in liberty, but his consistent
support for a massive security apparatus headquartered in DC, even
after the collapse of Communism, kind of put lie to them.
So I am not sorry to see him leave the world's stage.
|2.27.08 @ 1:44PM|#
All comfort to his family and friends.
His "Up From Liberalism" was one of the books that turned me away
from welfare-state left and toward libertarianism.
At one time, he was the best-known intellectual challenger to the
liberal/left.
Jacob, thanks very much for your piece. It's excellent.
|2.27.08 @ 1:44PM|#
I will toast his passing later today. With the good stuff. Public discourse is diminished by his death.
|2.27.08 @ 1:46PM|#
So who's gonna be the first person to say that, based on this or that idiocy published by THE NATIONAL REVIEW, Buckley's gotta be spinning in his grave?
|2.27.08 @ 1:47PM|#
RIP. That's bad news.
Far more familiar with his son's output but he was by all accounts
an interesting chap. And his wife was hot in her prime.
I agree. I have to imagine that his granddaughter (Christopher's
daughter, Caitlin) is a knockout.
|2.27.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Chris,
Not sure if you've noticed, but his acolytes have largely abandoned
his anti-government beliefs. Look at the his old magazine, whose
support for Paul was essentially limited to Derb. The biggest
surviving part of his legacy is, sadly, support for the military
industrial complex, not small government.
|2.27.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Buckley was openly opposed to the Iraq War. There's a great bit about Norman Podhoretz calling him a defeatist or appeaser or some such thing.
squarooticus|2.27.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Repeating my post from the other thread:
From several years of reading National Review in the late 80's and
early 90's, I got the distinct impression that Mr. Buckley was
considered the doddering uncle by the new guard at National Review,
always respected for the pedigree of the magazine but misunderstood
by people who didn't share his values.
Today's National Review is a far cry from the one that advocated
drug legalization in 1990, and light years from the one created by
Buckley in 1955.
RIP, Mr. Buckley.
Seer|2.27.08 @ 1:55PM|#
RIP. Obviosuly I had disagreements, but he was an articulate, intellectual conservative and we're is very short supply of those these days.
|2.27.08 @ 1:56PM|#
I think any overview of Buckley's career needs to include the good work he did making anti-semitism unwelcome in the conservative movement.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.08 @ 1:59PM|#
That's a better picture than the one at MSNBC where he looks
like The Donald without the Botox.
Somewhere in my vast archives is a photo of a young TWC (wearing a
hideous plaid sport coat and a tie the color of Homer Simpson)
shaking hands with Buckley. It was snapped by Larry Samuels at the
Huntington Sheraton Hotel in Pasadena back in the late
Cretaceous.
Godspeed.
|2.27.08 @ 1:59PM|#
"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed
in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in
1986. "I asked myself the other day, 'Who else, on so many issues,
has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of
anyone."
R.I.P.
|2.27.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I was a huge WFB, Jr. fan when I was a proto-wonk. I cut my
political teeth reading his columns in the old Long Island
Press, and watching him on Firing Line and
The Advocates. (No surprise to anyone, L'il Kevrob was
a H.S. debater.)
While I said adios to Republicanism and conservatism the
morning after the 1976 general election, I continued to appreciate
Buckley's style and wit for years after. WFB introduced me to two
of my favorite libertarian Franks - Chodorov and Meyer - as well as
to Mencken. I'd give him props for that, alone.
Long before the `net, post-Fairness Doctrine talk radio and cable
news, National Review was, while not a libertarian outlet,
one of the few places one would encounter classical liberal
thought. I always thought that the logical dénouement of
Meyer's fusionism, once the USSR collapsed, would have been for
Buckley et al to dissolve their Cold War alliance with
national security statism and emerge as full-fledged libertarians.
WFB did this in bits and pieces, as when he finally supported a
volunteer military and the end of the WoSD. The NR crowd
could never bring themselves to take the plunge, especially since
it always included a clutch of cultural conservatives -
ultramontanists, states-righters and religious cons of the
Falwell/Robertson stripe. Had The International Jihadi Conspiracy
not arisen to replace the Comintern as Conservative Enemy #1, one
wonders what, if anything, the modern conservative movement would
be using to patch together its disparate threads.
Kevin
|2.27.08 @ 2:07PM|#
With friends like John Kenneth Galbrith(a horse's ass if there ever was one) and the editor at the NY Times who died about a year ago, and Dan Rather; it is more accurate to describe Buckley as an elitist then a conservative.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.08 @ 2:09PM|#
The libertarian tent gets bigger all the time, which only
points up its scarcity of tenants.
When you have guys like Kos using the term and people at Reason
implying that Goober Schwarzzengroper might be a libertarian it
does sort of dilute the message a bit.
Course, compared to either of the aforementioned bozos, WFB looks
positively card-carrying.
GILMORE|2.27.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Isnt that a picture of "The Joker" from the batman movie?
My favorite Buckley moment was when he let Ginsburg read his
poetry, left a moment of silence when he was done, and then calmly
said, "Rubbish."
That or calling Vidal a fag on TV. Dude had a real instinct for
flames
|2.27.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Anyone here ever read any of his novels?
I read Nuremberg which was one of his later novels. I
remember thinking that he should stick to politics and
language.
I'm not one for all that afterlife stuff, but I think, on average,
he lived a good life and did more good than harm.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.08 @ 2:14PM|#
No surprise to anyone, L'il Kevrob was a H.S.
debater
As was Mrs TWC, who also taught argumentation and debate at the
college level for a while.
You guys think YOUR Old Lady is tough in an argument?
JP|2.27.08 @ 2:20PM|#
I went to hear him speak at my law school about a dozen years
ago. Pretty amazing -- when people in the audience asked questions,
he really seemed to pause and ponder what they had said and to
respond with his honest thoughts.
One thing he said that watered the then-tiny libertarian seedling
in my soul: Nothing magical happens to tax dollars if they pass
through Washington first on their way back to the states.
|2.27.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I used to really like firing line. New shows of that sort of debating depth just aren't around anymore.
|2.27.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Fair winds and following seas ever, sailor and teacher.
Requiescat in pace.
In one of his sailing books (Atlantic High) he explains, and
teaches well, the core of celestial navigation, not a subject where
political pontification and blathering is of much use.
Les|2.27.08 @ 2:28PM|#
With friends like John Kenneth Galbrith(a horse's ass if
there ever was one) and the editor at the NY Times who died about a
year ago, and Dan Rather; it is more accurate to describe Buckley
as an elitist then a conservative.
Yeah, once you start mixing with people who have different opinions
than yours then it's...no, wait, that's just silly.
|2.27.08 @ 2:29PM|#
You had to have a dicitonary handy when reading that guy.
One of my favorite recollections from Firing Line: A very young
Michael Kinsley debating WFB about something, and having to admit
halfway through (paraphrasing closely) "you are tap-dancing on my
muddled liberal head". Later in the program Kinsley scored when WFB
impertinently used the word "adze". Unflustered, Kinsley simply
sneered what the heck does that mean.
I also recall a segment in which Neil Kinnock held his own quite
well with WFB. Ancient history.
highnumber|2.27.08 @ 2:34PM|#
My favorite Buckley moment was when he let Ginsburg read his
poetry, left a moment of silence when he was done, and then calmly
said, "Rubbish."
That or calling Vidal a fag on TV. Dude had a real instinct for
flames
You sure your favorite is the fag bashing?
What about the racism?
I'm not going to judge the man on what he wrote 50 years ago (won't
look past it either - one way or the other that's a part of his
legacy), but to pick out homophobic moments as his highlights?
WTF?
(Don't mind me if it turns out that my sarcasmometer is on the
fritz.)
|2.27.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Here are the details of the exchange between Vidal and Buckley
(video included):
http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/debates.html
"Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a
crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay
plastered."
Colin|2.27.08 @ 2:47PM|#
In hindsight, he was wrong about McCarthy and Civil Rights, but
right on just about everything else.
He was also one of the last American intellectuals, and can never
be replaced.
Bingo|2.27.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Probably the last representation of classic liberalism, even
with the stubborn adherence to tradition and the few statist views
he espoused. It was all downhill for NR after he left, and his
unique views will be missed. As the first modern and one of the
most subtle political trolls, he has my respect.
RIP
|2.27.08 @ 2:53PM|#
"Buckley was openly opposed to the Iraq War."
Yeah, four years after it started.
But when his voice might have made a difference?
Not so much.
|2.27.08 @ 3:00PM|#
William F. Buckley created a movement that rejected individual
liberty, free-market economics, and peace in favor of total war and
an all-powerful state in order to pursue war. His brand of
conservatism merged with neo-conservatism, thus creating what Lew
Rockwell correctly calls "red state fascism". Red state fascism is
now mainstream conservatism. It is a depraved ideology that
embraces total war and blind obedience to the executive branch of
the federal government. It rejects economic and personal liberty
and favors central planning and regulation of all facets of
society.
Buckley was certainly not a libertarian although he possessed more
libertarian views than someone like Bill Kristol. Buckley is closer
in ideology to the red state neo-con fascism of National Review,
Townhall, and Free Republic than he is to the libertarianism of
Chodorov, Rothbard, and Mises.
|2.27.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I was once a fan. He was one of the first educated word smiths I encountered. There's a certain seductiveness that level of craftsmanship. But I blame him for the fusionism. The abusive relationship between conservatives and libertarians, where conservatives would run as libertarians and govern as fascists. WFBJr. set back the libertarian movement in this country fifty years. Of course he didn't do it alone.
|2.27.08 @ 3:01PM|#
# "Now listen, you queer," he said,
# "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock
# you in your goddamn face and you'll stay
# plastered."
Given that Buckley's own delivery was so distinctive, why does my
mind's ear persist in hearing this quotation in Carroll O'Connor's
Archie Bunker voice?
Ah, the sixties and 70s: Truly the golden age for lovable bigots on
TV. And make no mistake, WFB was widely loved by his audience,
which included many self-professed liberals. His show was on PBS,
for cripes sake.
|2.27.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"Anyone here ever read any of his novels?"
I liked his Blackfork Oakes spy novels - they were the closest
thing to an American version of "The Sandbaggers" that I've come
across. Pretty decent work.
RIP.
|2.27.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Davebo,
He did publish some rather doubtful columns much earlier than 2007,
but you're right, he didn't do much when it mattered.
highnumber|2.27.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Given that Buckley's own delivery was so distinctive, why
does my mind's ear persist in hearing this quotation in Carroll
O'Connor's Archie Bunker voice?
Of course, YouTube
has it for your viewing and listening pleasure.
NoStar|2.27.08 @ 3:15PM|#
My favorite Buckley moment is when he reach over Howard K. Smith
to punch Gore Vidal for calling him a NAZI.
I can't find a clip, but that summer of 68, watching the
conventions made me the political junkie that I am today. Sadly,
since then there has been no fix as good as that first fix.
psyclone|2.27.08 @ 3:23PM|#
one of my favorite conversationalists. he had a great style if not always an accurate view. he rarely lost, never acknowledged when he did and kept smiling. Noam Chomsky owned him, though. I'll miss him.
|2.27.08 @ 3:24PM|#
I'm a big fan of Vidal's Julian and Creation, but I'd like to punch him myself on occasion.
|2.27.08 @ 3:25PM|#
I always enjoyed his collections of essays, but I only read one
of his novels, Red Hunter. It was surprisingly awful, leaving aside
any of the politics of Joe McCarthy.
Sad to see Buckley is gone; sadder when I think of the so-called
'conservatives' (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity) who now have the
stage.
economist|2.27.08 @ 3:35PM|#
It's too bad that Bill Buckley is no longer here to be the much-needed voice of reason in the conservative movement. His own philosophy (economically libertarian, socially moderate) should be the guide for today's right. Instead it has been taken over by the likes of Bill Kristol, a statist who jerks off to the thought of raising taxes to pay for a war with Iran, North Korea, and, just for good measure, Pakistan. All the more reason to mourn his passing. RIP.
economist|2.27.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Warren,
Can you honestly say that Bill Buckley harmed the libertarian
movement? While he may have held some positions bothersome to
libertarians, he and his allies helped to push through many of the
reforms of the eighties that reduced government intrusions on the
liberties of citizens. As for the things where we disagree, they
had little actual policy impact.
|2.27.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Buckley 40 years ago...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXLTDUPJqsU
Starting at 1:09, Buckley's statement drips with glistening
libertarianism.
Paul|2.27.08 @ 3:50PM|#
modern American conservatism often enough that his
endorsement of statist schemes such as "national
service"
Give him a break, he was an East Coast blue-blood. He's not going
to be perfect.
|2.27.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Another WFB YouTube gem is the Buckley/Chomsky Firing Line
debate regarding US Cold War interventionism. The degree of
civility is almost jarring when contrasted with our present day
cable news circuses. The past truly is another country.
Check it out
here
|2.27.08 @ 3:54PM|#
I really liked the guy, and I have no idea why. I'd like to say it was his stance vis-a-vis the war on drugs, but there has to be something else. Buckley makes me nostalgic for a conservatism that is dead today, not because I would align myself with him, but because there was back then something so refreshingly stark about the differences between Buckley and, say, Vidal or Chomsky. Maybe it's because Chomsky so completely pwned him that I was embarrassed for him. But I always genuinely enjoyed seeing him put in his two cents.
|2.27.08 @ 4:03PM|#
economist,
I'm saying that since the 50's, libertarians have allied themselves
with conservatives to their own detriment.
he and his allies helped to push through many of the reforms of
the eighties that reduced government intrusions on the liberties of
citizens.
The only reform I can think of for which that is true is ending the
draft. The deregulation of transportation and telecommunication
industries for which conservatives take credit were actually Carter
initiatives.
As for the things where we disagree, they had little actual
policy impact.
I think things like: the military industrial complex, foreign
military intervention, the War On Drugs, pornography prosecutions,
gambling regulation, opposition to gay marriage have had a great,
and detrimental, policy impact.
|2.27.08 @ 4:06PM|#
pinko,
Was it his eloquence? That's what it was for me. I loved hearing
him talk. And never more so than in debate. Loved those Firing Line
debates.
Franklin Harris|2.27.08 @ 4:16PM|#
When I was a teenage conservative, WFB was one of me heroes. When I had my libertarian conversion and went back and read the history of the postwar conservative movement, I realized WFB was a backstabbing bastard. Then WFB retired and this new generation of know-nothing punks took over National Review. At that point, I realized WFB was a bastard, but at least he was my bastard.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.27.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Thanks Rick, I've updated my blog with your link (and
attribution, of course).
tip of the glass, man.
Fluffy|2.27.08 @ 4:24PM|#
If you don't like Buckley, keep in mind that he lived long to
see that helpless, drooling, helmet-wearing retard Jonah Goldberg
become the face of his baby.
Goldberg is the Gus Webb of the National Review, and more than
anyone else he symbolizes the magazine to such an extent that he IS
the Review now, much more than that wanna-be-Mitt-bride they have
as an editor over there now.
Sam Grove|2.27.08 @ 4:25PM|#
In 1976, National Review published an article 'proving' that Libertarians were communist.
|2.27.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Bummer! I wasn't around when he was in his heyday, but I used to read the National Review with some regularity, and he was always very eloquent. I didn't always agree with what he said, but I always agreed with how he said it. RIP
|2.27.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Yeah the accent and his delivery were probably the thing. I also didn't know much of him until after he'd mellowed quite a bit, so I just assumed he was always quite mellow and even gracious.
|2.27.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Les | February 27, 2008, 2:28pm | #
With friends like John Kenneth Galbrith(a horse's ass if there ever
was one) and the editor at the NY Times who died about a year ago,
and Dan Rather; it is more accurate to describe Buckley as an
elitist then a conservative.
Yeah, once you start mixing with people who have different opinions
than yours then it's...no, wait, that's just silly.
Wrong. Those men I mentioned did everything they could, which
includes LYING, to making conservatives look like Nazis or
worse.
A conservative being friends with them is like a black being
friends with Ku Klux Klan members or a Jew being a friend of
Nazis.
That evidence and that evidence alone, proves Buckley thought of
social status as more important then political beliefs.
He gave conservatism more credance then a parlos game, but not much
more.
He was a blue blood, first, last and always.
|2.27.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Here's the first segment of the Chomsky interview with Buckley
on Fireing Line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDmqRc80jJQ&feature=related
The subsequent parts are interesting as well. This sort of
considered political debate, where meaning is manifestly important,
seems sadly lacking in contemporary broadcast media.
GILMORE|2.27.08 @ 4:44PM|#
highnumber | February 27, 2008, 2:34pm | #
GILMORE SAYS =
"My favorite Buckley moment was when he let Ginsburg read his
poetry, left a moment of silence when he was done, and then calmly
said, "Rubbish.""
You sure your favorite is the fag bashing?
What about the racism?
Im not sure my point was sarcastic (i.e. intending the opposite -
like it was *especially bad*), but more tongue-in-cheek, where I
was pointing out the guy wasnt exactly *generous* to people of
alternative viewpoints, intellectual powerhouse or not.
Basically - think of it this way:
like, Morton Downey Junior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr.
...the father of schlock debate, the forefather of jerry springer,
the man who made Donahue look like charlie rose...
His "doucheness" was partly what made him so endearing. You have to
love a guy who insults people to their face. Yes, he was a populist
idiot, but his brassiness, even when offensive, was something that
was highly entertaining.
To wit, with Buckley, I ask that we should also recognize he wasnt
above the occasional, "say that again and I'll punch you the face
you simpering queer" A man in full, as it were.
I like that about the guy. Not his ACTUAL racism or homophobia. But
the fact, that when called a "proto-fascist", he'd go "oh yeah?
Fuck you! Want to fight? Fag."
That does not make him a more honorable man, but it is a more
accurate depiction of his character. He didnt run around like the
Westboro baptists saying Fag Enablers are going to hell. But he
obviously wasnt exactly a big fan.
...
Footnote = Morton Downey Jr and Ron Paul got into it in the 80s
over snorting coke, killing babies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k
lunchstealer|2.27.08 @ 5:08PM|#
I don't pretend to agree with everything he said, but there's no
denying his wit, nor his intellectual curiosity.
I will say that his articles criticizing the drug war were probably
the single biggest influence shaping my up-and-coming
libertarianism. They broke the dam of me questioning a lot of the
unspoken assumptions of government and society at large.
Robert|2.27.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Might as well mention it here too: Firing Line didn't start on PBS or its predecessor NET, but on commercial TV. Here in NYC it was on channel 11, WPIX.
|2.27.08 @ 6:25PM|#
Who cares? Has Robert Byrd? Do you have concerns with
anything he's said since the 60s? Or was that it?
Don't be an idiot mike...Joe can't even provide a quote of Buckley
saying anything...yet you automatically fall into his "All
non-socialists are racists trap"
|2.27.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Oh, joshua. Now I'm going to make you look like an idiot.
Again. Don't you ever learn?
|2.27.08 @ 6:33PM|#
R.I.P. William F. Buckley, Jr., a Renaissance man par excellence: iconoclastic magazine founder; crypto-libertarian/Cold Warrior crusading journalist; urbane public television intellectual; espionage novelist; New York mayoral candidate; sailor. He cut through the left-liberal claptrap with a fine-edged scalpel rather than the scattershot blunderbusses and rusty machetes commonplace in contemporary cable caterwauling. More than even the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, WFB was my intellectual Godfather. His ilk will not be seen again, I fear.
|2.27.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Hi, corning. Here, I'll highlight my favorite parts for
you.
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9: The most
important event of the past three weeks was the remarkable and
unexpected vote by the Senate to guarantee to defendants in a
criminal contempt action the privilege of a jury trial. That vote
does not necessarily affirm a citizen's intrinsic rights: trial by
jury in contempt actions, civil or criminal, is not an American
birthright, and it cannot, therefore, be maintained that the
Senate's vote upheld, pure and simple, the Common Law.
What the Senate did was to leave undisturbed the mechanism that
spans the abstractions by which a society is guided and the actual,
sublunary requirements of the individual community. In that sense,
the vote was a conservative victory. For the effect of it is--and
let us speak about it bluntly--to permit a jury to modify or waive
the law in such circumstances as, in the judgment of the jury,
require so grave an interposition between the law and its
violator.
What kind of circumstances do we speak about? Again, let us speak
frankly. The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for
the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert
that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc,
they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or
nudists--nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the
South.
If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from
voting--why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely
swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In
some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to
prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement
between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever
measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.
What are the issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and
others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools.
Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social
sepaation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the
matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate?
The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the
election; but that is the kind of situation the White community
will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal
Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a
jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation,
will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation,
might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the
law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose
consequences might be violent and anarchistic.
The central question that emerges--and it is not a
parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely
consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born
Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to
take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and
culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?
The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled
because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It
is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing
the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact
that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy
egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White
community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization
supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do,
and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically
one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South,
where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya,
nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between
its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
National Review believes that the South's premises are
correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic,
then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic,
enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in
the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow
to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes
impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must
give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numberical
minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine
whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of
violence.
The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original
version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage.
Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is
prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise
all else proceeds.
That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally
have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference
between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and
freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and
the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions
who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it
do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great
majorit of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to
vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.
Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote.
Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning
of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not
exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was
Jefferson either?). The problem in the South is not how to
get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro--and a great
many Whites--to cast an enlightened and responsible
vote.
The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit
the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve teh Negro as a servile
class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a
minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let
the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely
asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it
takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and
so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is
in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to
function.
!|2.27.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Must you, joe? Really? Must you fill even this thread with your
self-righteous indignation?
It's getting tedious, you're getting tedious, and your Narcissism
Donderoesque.
See, joshua, not only did I pwn you, but I did it while wearing
a duck suit.
...Anyways, did you know, joe, after he was taken to task for that
by some conservatives, he suggested that it's the uneducated who
should not be allowed to vote. Can't say I disagree with
that.
RIP, WFB. Thanks for saving the Republic. You arrived in the nick
of time.
Pre Civil Rights Era Racist|2.27.08 @ 7:19PM|#
...Anyways, did you know, joe, after he was taken to task
for that by some conservatives, he suggested that it's the
uneducated who should not be allowed to vote.
We can work with that.
|2.27.08 @ 7:59PM|#
"R.I.P. William F. Buckley, Jr., a Renaissance man par
excellence: iconoclastic magazine founder; crypto-libertarian/Cold
Warrior crusading journalist; urbane public television
intellectual; espionage novelist; New York mayoral candidate;
sailor. He cut through the left-liberal claptrap with a fine-edged
scalpel rather than the scattershot blunderbusses and rusty
machetes commonplace in contemporary cable caterwauling."
May I second that? I had also seen him play harpsichord on some TV
interview, as well as reading a couple of his espionage novels. His
first language was actually Spanish, having grown up in Mexico and
Venezuela - apparently the younger Buckley kids spoke no English
until they were four or five years old.
Whoever thinks he is an East Coast elite has no idea of how the man
was raised. He was a true Renaissance Man.
|2.27.08 @ 8:21PM|#
The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the
Negro, but how to equip the Negro--and a great many Whites--to cast
an enlightened and responsible vote.
So Buckley said that "There sure are some stupid voters out
there...blacks and whites alike"
Wow joe you sure found him out to be the cad he is.
I don't agree with him...but on that same token it is not hard to
find a Democrat who express similar views...ie some people are
stupid and should not vote.
In fact just after the 2004 election it was near impossible to find
one who did not believe exactly that.
Common socialist view on pretty much everything really...if a
non-socialist says something it is bad...if a socialist says the
same thing it is good.
|2.27.08 @ 8:52PM|#
So Buckley said that "There sure are some stupid voters out
there...blacks and whites alike"
Yes, that's exactly what the White community in the South is
entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,
politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not
predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White
community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the
advanced race There are dumb voters, black and white. That's
precisely what "the white race is the advanced race" means.
Not.
Just slink back under your rock, and try to wash my bootprints off
your hide.
|2.27.08 @ 8:54PM|#
!,
When I can expect to be treated with a modicum of civility and
respect, and when I can expect that lowlifes like corning will be
denounced without my having to do it myself, I won't have to do
things like that.
economist|2.27.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Daffy Duck,
While I might question WFB's attitude, in the 50's, towards blacks
as a race, modern-day "black culture" would seem, in large part, to
confirm his argument. My personal favorite is the collectivist
"black values" system endorsed by, among others, Barack Obama's
pastor.
economist|2.27.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Buckley was right! Some people are stupid and shouldn't vote! That's why democracy needs to be rethought.
dhex|2.27.08 @ 11:55PM|#
for fuck's sake, people.
it's one thing to point out that suffrage has downsides, and that
it's exercise is dwindling.
it's another to say "it's not a big deal for the state to prevent
people from exercising their rights because of their membership,
from birth, in a racial category, because they'd just make bad
decisions."
yeah it was 1957. but there's no reason to defend things like that,
much less embrace them.
|2.28.08 @ 12:49AM|#
yeah it was 1957. but there's no reason to defend things
like that, much less embrace them.
Umm who here defends them?
Oh wait i suppose if you take out part and simply state "it's not a
big deal for the state to prevent people from exercising their
rights because they'd just make bad decisions."
Then you could get joe to defend it.
|2.28.08 @ 12:59AM|#
I do find this intersting though...in essence Buckley is
defending the Demoratic parties possition at the time.
The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not
exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve teh Negro as a
servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress
of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful.
Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is
merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever
period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the
races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means,
the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that
permits it to function.
And if you replace "the south" with "the state"
and the words "Negro"and "minority" with "the individual" you would
have a pretty good working position paper for the Democratic party
of today.
Julian Fondren|2.28.08 @ 8:12AM|#
But I blame him for the fusionism. The abusive relationship
between conservatives and libertarians, where conservatives would
run as libertarians and govern as fascists.
Read The
Vampire Economy (pdf) and you may come to be more concerned
about Democratic fascism.
The author of The Elephant in the Room (Evangelicals, Libertarians
and the Battle to Control the Republican Party) hopes that fusionism
will return in a Cato book forum.
Julian Fondren|2.28.08 @ 8:18AM|#
Which, really, is the decent thing to do.
Why, joe? Isn't it enough to win the argument, to banish racism to
"Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to unemployed."
heresy? If WFB found his old position so untenable that he hadn't
mentioned it in decades, I don't want for shows of wailing and
gnashing of teeth.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.28.08 @ 10:40AM|#
When I can expect to be treated with a modicum of civility
and respect, and when I can expect that lowlifes like corning will
be denounced without my having to do it myself, I won't have to do
things like that.
The Good Book sez, let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.
|2.28.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Robert's not got Firing
Line's history quite right. The show started on WOR,
Channel 9 (now WWOR), before moving to PBS.
Buckley's acquiescence to Southern Segregationists was troubling.
On the one hand, a conservative's natural impulse to resist
Washington's meddling in local affairs is, prima facie,
admirable. On the other hand, the Constitution expressly charges
the Federal government to guarantee a republican form of government
in the states, and that includes enforcing the civil war
amendments. Even those who wanted to preserve the rights of private
business owners to associate or with individuals of their choice
didn't have a leg to stand on when defending a government that
discriminated among its citizens on invidious grounds such as
race.
Contemplating the establishment of a voters roll based on honest
literacy tests that excluded uneducated whites as well as blacks is
an interesting historical Gedankenexperiment, but nothing
more than that. The alternative to reforming the corrupt practices
of the Jim Crow system would never have been the disenfranchisement
of lower class whites.
Kevin
dhex|2.28.08 @ 12:27PM|#
joshua:
Umm who here defends them?
see two above my original post:
economist | February 27, 2008, 9:23pm | #
Daffy Duck,
While I might question WFB's attitude, in the 50's, towards blacks
as a race, modern-day "black culture" would seem, in large part, to
confirm his argument. My personal favorite is the collectivist
"black values" system endorsed by, among others, Barack Obama's
pastor.
perhaps this was a troll, of course.
|2.28.08 @ 1:34PM|#
What was your position during the '50s?
I think it was "I sure hope Jack and Mary Ann get it on sometime in
early 1971"
|2.28.08 @ 1:39PM|#
lowlifes like corning
I got joe to call me a lowlife...I should get some sort of award or
something.
|2.28.08 @ 4:45PM|#
"Buckley's acquiescence to Southern Segregationists was
troubling. On the one hand, a conservative's natural impulse to
resist Washington's meddling in local affairs is, prima facie,
admirable. On the other hand, the Constitution expressly charges
the Federal government to guarantee a republican form of government
in the states, and that includes enforcing the civil war
amendments. Even those who wanted to preserve the rights of private
business owners to associate or with individuals of their choice
didn't have a leg to stand on when defending a government that
discriminated among its citizens on invidious grounds such as
race."
Kevin, your summary doesn't "get it quite right" either. Though
WFB's 1957 stance was vile, he's softened quite a bit by the late
60s, as evidenced by this exchange with George Wallace of Alabama,
on Firing Line in January 1968.
Wallace: Well my... conservative to me means that you should allow,
on the governmental scene, allow local people to try to determine
policies of local democratic institutions."
Buckley: How can they without the vote?
Wallace: Without what?
Buckley: The vote. V-o-t-e.
Wallace: Well...
Buckley: What steps would you take to encourage the enfranchisement
of the Negro..
Wallace: Well, I've always...well, I'll be glad to tell you, I've
always made speeches in my state in which I said anybody's entitled
to vote regardless of their race or color...qualified under the
laws of Alabama, and we had Negro citizens by the thousands who
voted in 1958, when I first ran for governor, and I might say, in
the runoff for governor, that they voted for me.
Buckley: Is that because they didn't have the education you're
talking about?
|2.28.08 @ 4:55PM|#
More from that 1968 Firing Line exchange.
Wallace: Alabama's been treated almost as a province by the
bureaucrats and the Supreme Court of the United States and that's
one reason I may be in the presidential race, is I'm tired of
Alabama being treated as a province.
Buckley: As a taxpayer, Governor, I don't think a lot of Americans
who are paying taxes into Alabama would necessarily adopt that
position. Honestly, you're forcing me to sound like a liberal,
which has never happened to me before in my entire life. I don't
believe strings ought to be attached, but I do believe that
Alabama, Alabamans ought to be protected by the Constitution of the
United States.
Wallace: Well, they are protected.
Buckley: Well, they have been inadequately protected.
Wallace: They haven't been inadequately protected.
Moderator: Governor, let's get Mr. Buckley to fill in the
particulars. In what respect aren't Alabamans protected by the
Constitution?
BuckleyThey have not been protected, for instance, in Selma,
Alabama, it seemed to me notorious, that the rights of certain
Negroes were not adequately protected by the sheriff down
there.
|2.29.08 @ 2:49PM|#
atrevete:
Yes, WFB had adjusted his position by the 1960s, when I was first
reading him. His enemies on the left could always accuse him of
having retreated from a position that had become untenable, but one
could say the same of George Wallace, himself, 10 years on.
Kevin
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245