It is impossible to begin to sum up the life of someone as articulate, imaginative, capricious and influential as William F. Buckley, Jr. Every conservative pundit in the old or new media owes him an incalculable debt and is to some degree attempting to imitate him. He died on Wednesday at his home in Connecticut, and I doubt that any of the many aspirants to his throne of right-leaning wit and wisdom are qualified to fill his shoes.
Buckley is credited with single-handedly reviving conservatism and breaking the political dominance of socialistic liberalism emerging from the Roosevelt era, both through his writing and speaking and through his work as publisher of the enormously influential magazine National Review for over 50 years. Buckley authored more than 5,600 articles and dozens of books, including a number of novels. He hosted the television show Firing Line for more than 30 years and it became the model for the talking-head style interview and debate shows which now dominate Sunday mornings and cable news.
Buckley was the epitome of traditional Republicanism with his unapologetic elitism, reverence for traditional values, libertarian views on civil rights and unwavering opposition to every aspect of socialism and communism. He also opposed those who perverted the basic values of conservatism, excoriating reactionaries, bigots and theocrats with as much vehemence as he opposed those who subverted liberalism to the service of collectivism.
Buckley championed individualism and was brilliant in his own individuality. He sometimes undermined his own serious points with his insidious and self-mocking humor and while he remained true to his values they eventually put him at odds with the conservative movement which he had empowered. He was at his height of influence with his support and encouragement of the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, a campaign which might never have gotten as far as it did without the involvement of young conservatives inspired by Buckley. It was that campaign and Buckley's writing which inspired the resurgence of conservative leadership in the Reagan era.
Although every conservative leader for the last 50 years admired Buckley, he was never willing to compromise his principles enough to be anything but a political outsider, often finding himself criticizing conservatives more than liberals and advocating positions which few others on the right were brave enough to embrace. He supported marijuana legalization and opposed the war in Iraq. He despised Neocons and other interventionists, rejected the legislating of morality and consistently supported individual liberty. He understood that you could have great faith without needing to impose your beliefs on others. He always opposed big government, statism and excessive taxation. He was a great and consistent voice for reason over fanaticism.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
I heard someone on the radio this morning suggesting that Buckley's conservatism is facing abandonment in this year's election. I thought to myself: no, it was abandoned when George Herbert Walker Bush became President.
Buckley's passing is sad, no matter one's political views, I think. He was an articulate defender of his position, and always enjoyable to read.
2 - Dave Nalle
Dead on, Phillip. I think that McCain is a lot closer to Buckley's take on conservatism than most of those Bush has surrounded himself with.
I find it somewhat sickening to listen to people like Mona Charen and Jonah Goldberg crying crocodile tears over Buckley, when the truth is that judged by his standard they come up very short.
Dave
3 - Lee Richards
Well done;I think you're right on almost every point.
Buckley and Goldwater made conservatism a matter of principles. Today's pseudo-conservatives try to make it all about power over others.
We won't see his like again.
4 - Dave Nalle
I think the difference between Buckley's conservatism and the newer trends, is that Buckley arrived at his positions through reason, while the current conservative trendsetters seem to have received their conservatism as revealed truth without any kind of intellectual process involved.
I find thinking conservatism very appealing. Unreasoned and purely emotional conservatism is far more unattractive.
Dave
5 - Clavos
Nice tribute, Dave.
I loved watching Buckley. One of the articles I read this morning (a syndicated piece by AP writer Hillel Italie), portrayed him on the set of Firing Line as "all handsome, reptilian langour...," which I thought was a marvelous metaphor for his habit of licking his lips as he skewered his guests with that awesomely synoptic vocabulary of his.
I will miss him.
6 - bliffle
I found WFB in the 50s when "God And Man At Yale" was published and found him a refreshing change from the left-orthodoxy that was then current. It was a big struggle to get speaking dates on campus allowed for WFB. I was a charter subscriber to NR and enjoyed it immensely for at least 10 years when I found it becoming too dusty and Royalist. Yes, it was largely NR that brought Goldwater into prominence.
In the late 60s I attended a Buckley lecture at a local Catholic college and was treated to the most insightful, nuanced, and consistent expositions of life, love and politics that I have ever heard.
Buckley was, indeed, a fan of the Harpsichord and JS Bach, and, especially, Wanda Landowska. He helped make her early recordings popular and brought her back into some prominence. He also supported the popularization (such as it was) of the Zuckerman Harpsichord Kit, one of which I bought and assembled around 1960. Included with the kit was a short LP called "How to Write a Fugue" with a little ditty sung by Glenn Gould called "so, you want to write a fugue?" which I will bet does NOT appear in his published discography.
Buckley was an altogether amusing and intelligent fellow.
7 - Pablo
I, out of respect for the dead, will refrain from commenting on Mr. Buckley for a few weeks, after that, all bets are off.
8 - Lumpy
Pablito. I'm sure you think that Buckley was an elitist swine and a pawn of the CFR. Plus he was born in Mexico so you think he was a wetback. But all your attitude does is show how unreasonable and out of touch you are. Buckley did more in a year to advance rhe cause of liberty than Ron Paul has done in a lifetime.
9 - Pablo
Lumpy,
You said it, and I dont think anyone could have said it better than you did. Thank you, however I do not agree with the racist remark. I will post some WFB quotes soon, as I said I will allow some time to pass.
10 - Dan Miller
Excellent article.
Bill Buckley was truly one of the greats, with powers of persuasion that would make even Sen. Obama pale by comparison. Buckley had so much more to offer than does any contemporary debater, perhaps because he had consummate technical skills and really believed what he argued.
I heard Buckley speak, only once, when the Yale Political Union had a debate over whether to invite Gus Hall, the then leader of the Communist Party in the U.S., to speak. Buckley keynoted the debate, the result of which was a foregone conclusion -- Gus Hall would certainly be invited. That was before the debate. Buckley was marvelous and, when the vote was held, Gus Hall was not invited.
That was back in 1961 or 1962. Later, in law school (probably 1964 or 1965), I heard Norman Thomas, the then head of the Socialist party in the U.S. debate. He too was outstanding. He had to be led to the speaker's podium because he could no longer see very well; but his deep base, booming, speaking voice, honed by years of speaking without electronic amplification, resonated through the hall. He was exemplary, and not only his voice resonated through the hall. Even to a conservative, he was persuasive.
In later years, I often wished for an opportunity to hear Buckley and Thomas debate. It may have happened, but if it did I wasn't there.
Two great debaters, now both sadly gone.
Dan
11 - handyguy
Even I rather liked WFB, believe it or not.
However, this line from the [generally favorable] obit in the NY Times does give one pause:
In 1955, Mr. Buckley started National Review as voice for “the disciples of truth, who defend the organic moral order” with a $100,000 gift from his father and $290,000 from outside donors. The first issue, which came out in November, claimed the publication “stands athwart history yelling Stop.”
It proved it by lining up squarely behind Southern segregationists, saying Southern whites had the right to impose their ideas on blacks who were as yet culturally and politically inferior to them. After some conservatives objected, Mr. Buckley suggested instead that both uneducated whites and blacks should be denied the vote.
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Pablo,
First of all, I share your respect for the dead. In that vein, I'll note that William F. Buckley (Jr.) was one of the most amusing and entertaining men to run for mayor of the City of Greater New York. When asked what he would do if elected, he said, "why, I suppose I'd resign."
You can't beat a line like that. Ed Koch spent eight years at Gracie Mansion trying - and he never succeeded.
13 - Lee Richards
Sure, Buckley said and wrote things at one point in his life that he wouldn't have said, written (or thought) at another point. Hasn't everyone? That's called growth and maturation.
Times and circumstances change, and change us, unless our heads and hearts are made of concrete. What was unquestioned truth to us yesterday may become strongly doubtful to us today.
Anyone in history can be cherry-picked for the mistakes and mis-statements they later regretted(and any of us not in the history books, too.)
I am not defending everything Buckley ever said or did. He was no saint or savior. On balance, he was a thoughtful, highly intelligent and principled political thinker, writer, lecturer and debater. Always correct? Hardly. Stimulating and original? Usually.
His entire life can provide better evidence of the kind of person he was than can a few random quotations from his vast body of work.
14 - Dave Nalle
On reflection, I think the most telling thing about Buckley and why we HAVE to love him, is that apparently whenever he showed up at a party Ayn Rand would stomp out in overly dramatic fury. If he could piss her off that much that alone made him a great man.
Dave
15 - alessandro
Dave, first good job.
Second, where do the guys over at the Weekly Standard stand on the conservatism scale and particularly vis-a-vis Buckley?
16 - Dave Nalle
The Weekly Standard didn't do nearly as much with Buckley yesterday as some other sites. They reprinted a couple of articles and had one retrospective.
You'd think that TWS would be kind of hardcore Neocon what with Bill Kristol as one of the publishers, but it's actually tending to be more moderate and more reasonable than National Review has been lately.
As NR brought in Neocons after Buckley semi-retired, TWS was bringing in moderates to appeal to a broader audience.
IMO both magazines remain far less scary than American Conservative which is so far right that all their web content comes directly from their foamy-mouthed print edition, so they won't have anything on Buckley for another week or so.
Fuck 'em all. Just read Reason.
Dave
17 - bliffle
People tend to forget that Buckley was an excellent writer, and quite entertaining. As it happens, I fell upon "Miles Gone By: a literary autobiography" today at 'books.google.com' and proceeded to read most of it with great interest and relish.
NPR replayed a 1989 interview by Terry Gross today that showed Buckleys grace and fairness in a fine way. He was gracious and fair, exhibiting none of the petulance that Gross has gotten from brutes like Bill O'reilly. For example, Gross ( a real lightweight who does not possess the kind of Prepared Mind one needs to discuss any subject deeper than the latest pop singer) asked if she could quote something he once said many years ago that she wanted explained, and Buckley said she could quote anything he said at anytime and that was fair.
Some critics insist that Buckley was a racist, or at least defended racists, but this is a mistake. He was an elitist and when he said that southern whites were entitled to exclude blacks from voting it was on account of their inferior education, not skin color or previous condition of servitude.
18 - zingzing
"He was an elitist and when he said that southern whites were entitled to exclude blacks from voting it was on account of their inferior education, not skin color or previous condition of servitude."
huh. that kinda makes my skin crawl. when did he say this exactly? and what made him think that just because someone was white that they had been given a good enough education (by his standards) to vote? i know plenty of dumb white trash. of course, they don't tend to vote anyway...
still, that's a nasty little opinion. and a nasty way at looking at rights and freedom.
19 - zingzing
nasty way of
20 - alessandro
Yeah, Reason is interesting but more from a libertarian perspective. I read it all the time.
21 - Dave Nalle
Zing, the argument for the disenfranchisement which Buckley endorsed - and he often said these things as hypotheticals to try to make a point - was of a sort which many other conservatives still believe in.
It seems elitist, but the basic concern is that a segment of the population really isn't qualified to vote responsibly. Not because they are black or poor, though many of those falling into this category certainly would have been in the 1950s when Buckley made his controversial comment, but because they are either inadequately educated and informed or lack a commitment to society and good government because they don't own property or pay taxes and therefore have nothing at risk to the actions of government.
The idea of restricting voting to 'qualified' voters is very appealing, and it was the standard nationwide at the time the Constitution was written. Universal male sufferage wasn't something which began to even be considered desirable until the 1820s and even then it was very controversial.
It's actually one of the basic tenets of (small r) republican government that only some members of society qualify as full citizens, usually based on a certain level of income, education and ownership of property. Everyone enjoys the protections of the law, but only qualified citizens should be allowed to vote, because they have more of a stake in society and more to gain or lose from the actions of government.
I don't find the idea entirely without merit.
Dave
22 - bliffle
zing,
I'm not going to defend Buckleys view, just explain whence it came. I, too, think he was in error taking this position. In fact, I attacked it pretty thoroughly many years ago in the comments section of NR, as did many others. Buckley was a Patrician and a committed Catholic and consistent to his own code, which he inherited from his father.
He also said that white trash shouldn't be allowed to vote. Basically, he would require a literacy test and a citizenship test. One should only be rewarded with citizenship upon attaining certain creds such as literacy and financial viability. Easy to say, one might object, born into a millionaires family, sported to a Yale education, and then sported to a magazine startup by family and friends. Rather like the twit in the whitehouse who has airily stated that poor people are poor because they are lazy. But Buckley sought to establish creds on his own by enlisting in the WW2 infantry and by establishing a national coalition of radio stations.
Buckley was the kind of character that was almost non-existent in the USA, but quite common in England: rockribbed defender of the mighty with bohemian lifestyle and infinite charm that deceived people into thinking he might like them despite their own low class. In the USA such ideas were trumped by Brahmin Transcendentalism and other democratizing influences. Buckley started NR to create an intellectual superstructure for the defense of 'conservatism', which then as now meant different things to different people.
23 - handyguy
Dave, your #21 gives me [and I suspect many others] the same sort of shudder and shiver you claim Hillary Clinton's tax proposals give you. The property and income portion of your formula in particular. Disgusting.
Some very evil people could use very similar reasoning and cause devastating trouble. Some of these people, for example, might think Germany had some good ideas in 1933-45.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Handy, while Dave's comment makes me just as uncomfortable as it did you, your response (the second paragraph anyway) doesn't cut the mustard. It's an example of a curious little logical fallacy known in the trade as argumentum ad hitlerum.
Just helping ye out.
25 - handyguy
Substitute your own choice of ethnicity-focused political extremists, then. I wasn't accusing Dave of being a Nazi, but of cozying up to some very questionable arguments that could be [and have been] used for harm.