With William F. Buckley gone, is there any hope for a return to real conservative values?
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
Handy, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with setting qualifications for voting based on objective standards which don't include things like race, gender, sexual preference or national origin. Lots of societies have had more than one level of citizenship. It's not really all that radical or creepy a concept.
And keep in mind that I didn't say that we SHOULD implement a system like this, just that it had some logic to it, and that it was the kind of thing Buckley was talking about.
Dave
27 - bliffle
It's an old chicken/egg type problem: do you admit all people to the body politic and hope that they acquire the skills of citizenship, or do you require them to pay the price of admission by acquiring education and wealth first?
In the USA we have tried to obviate the issue by equipping people with a publicly funded education sufficient to both equip them for citizenship and for financial vocation so that when they attain voting age they have also achieved the citizenship requirements.
Sounds like a good idea. There are some problems in the implementation, however.
28 - Pablo
I have a better idea. Lets have the federal government subsidize all school districts throughout the US. Then the dept of education can
set up all the curiculum for all schools, with United Nations help of course. Then we can really educate people, and they will then be "worthy" of voting "priviledges".
Part of the curiculum set in US History will not include teaching that the USA is a constitutional republic, (not a democracy), nor will it provide for classes in constitutional law, as that will be left to law school students.
After said department has thouroughly brainwashed the students, then we can do as his emminence WFB suggested regarding voting.
Am I being facetious or not?
What WFB and Mr Nalle fail to recognize is that people are born with rights, we as americans have established that voting is in fact a RIGHT, not a privilege, and being a right, is not subject to infringment. Now those of you that will argue that our rights are infringed frequently, and I should get used to it, I must reply that I will never get used to it, and always resist, and that those of you that would give up (not plagerizing) your liberty for security, deserve NEITHER.
I will only say this about Mr. Buckley at this time. He was the ULTIMATE snob, and despite his so-called libertarian bent, (supporting drug posession legalization etc.)he was more aligned with globalists, and particularly the CFR.
I will write a more castigating opinion soon.
29 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Pablo. I'd argue that voting is in fact NOT a fundamental right. It's a right rcognized in a couple of amendments to the Constitution, but it's not in the main body of the document or in the Bill of Rights, and it certainly isn't covered under the rights to life, liberty and property.
What you fail to grasp is that mob democracy is inherently dangerous to the kind of libertarian ideology you claim to believe in. All mob rule does is inevitably take away the rights of everyone but the mob.
And BTW, as I'm writing this I see that the featured google ad is for my personal blog under its own name 'the elitist pig'. How appropriate.
Reminds me I need to change that ad, though.
Dave
30 - Clavos
"What WFB and Mr Nalle fail to recognize is that people are born with rights, we as americans have established that voting is in fact a RIGHT, not a privilege, and being a right, is not subject to infringment. Now those of you that will argue that our rights are infringed frequently, and I should get used to it, I must reply that I will never get used to it, and always resist, and that those of you that would give up (not plagerizing) your liberty for security, deserve NEITHER." (emphasis added; see below)
Anybody else notice Pablo's patronizing habit of telling the rest of us what we will respond to his diatribes?
He does this in almost every comment he posts.
31 - bliffle
How curious. At the same time that we are marking the death of WFB, certainly a remarkable and intriguing american, a man of great intelligence and charm, there is a new documentary on PBS celebrating the life of Peter Seeger, who is still alive and strumming that damn noisy banjo (I swear it stops the hens from laying!)
...
"we were waist deep in the big muddy,
and the big fool says to push on"
...
"if you love your Uncle Sam,
bring 'em home, bring 'em home"
"to everything, turn, turn, turn,
there is a season,
turn turn turn
and a time for every purpose under heaven..."
All my kids went to sleep hearing about the horrible monster Abiyoyo, who
"...had scraggly green teeth ...
because he didn't brush them every day..."
...and who danced himself exhaustedly to sleep because that little kid in the village kept playing his darn ukelele.
*sigh*
32 - Baronius
Dave, I sense more revisionism on your part.
Buckley opposed Rand because of her atheism. He fought to keep atheism out of the conservative fold. His first book, God and Man at Yale, was an indictment of the university for its loss of religion. National Review was overtly Catholic. Buckley's opposition to Communism was founded on individualism, yes, but also his Christian faith.
Buckley was a round peg, and you can't fit him into a progressive Republican hole.
33 - Pablo
I am so sorry that I am bothering you Clavos, I will try to make it a habit. :)
34 - bliffle
Buckley simply thought Rand was stupid. So would anyone, you would think.
35 - G. Oren
Good to see that Dave took up the task of eulogizing WFB. Good effort Dave.
I began subscribing to NR in the spring of 1980 as a college freshman. Reading past issues voraciously in the periodical stacks of our library (including the famous or infamous Whitaker Chambers putdown of Ayn Rand - which NR put out on their website some years ago)and his early books, God and Man at Yale and Up From Liberalism. I was deeply impressed by WFB's urbanity and wit. His Firing Line shows were remarkable examples of sustained intellectual discussion - something hardly possible to imagine in todays TV (except on PBS) - even with the explosion of cable news shows. For its first 30 years of existence, NR was irreplaceable as a journal of the right. There was no comparable publication in existence. The early contributing editors to NR were of varied intellectual backgrounds but were united by their opposition to communism and the fellow traveling softheadedness of postwar liberalism.
Compare the early NR writers like Wilmore Kendall, Max Eastman, Whitaker Chambers, James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer etc.. (although they many times disagreed with each other) to the nullities that populate those pages now!
It is true that the right lost its unifying force when the Soviet Union collapsed unexpectedly at the end of 1991. But NR had lost many of its best later contributors in the spat between paleos and neos. Chilton Williamson and Joseph Sobran being two of the best. Sobran's "Pensees" for the 30th anniversary issue in 1985 remains one of the best essays on American conservatism ever penned.
Reading WFB's essay preface to the 1970 edition of a collection of essays called "Did you ever see a Dream Walking - American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century" (later revised and re-released in 1988 as "Keeping the Tablets - Modern American Conservative Thought") I was struck once again by his forceful anti-statism, reverent moral sensibility within a secular framework and dedication to an American renaissance of thought. Here is a quote from the final paragraph of WFB's essay: "I hope and pray that, as time goes by, the twentieth century will shed the odium that clings to its name, that it may crystallize as the century in which the individual overtook technology-the century in which all the mechanical ingenuity of man, even when fired by man's basest political lusts, proved insufficient to sunder man's essential reliance on his Maker, the century in which we learned finally (no, not finally; we never learn finally), or at least for a period, how useless it is, how dangerous it is, to strut about ideologizing the world when we need to know that it was born intractable and will die intractable."
36 - Dr Dreadful
(later revised and re-released in 1988 as "Keeping the Tablets - Modern American Conservative Thought")
Shouldn't that be "Keep Taking the Tablets..."?
;-D
37 - REMF
"Anybody else notice Pablo's patronizing habit of telling the rest of us what we will respond to his diatribes? He does this in almost every comment he posts."
- Clavos
"Come on you guys, I don't want you to play with Billy anymore because he's always trying to start trouble."
- an insecure 4th grader trying to manipulate others at recess
38 - bliffle
I lost interest in NR as a magazine and WFB as a political thinker by 1970. His version of conservatism was simply to dry and without juice, and the consequences of many of his syllogisms were simply too adverse to support the premises. Modus Ponens.
But he was always entertaining, and very amiable, on his own terms.
39 - El Bicho
Buckley was a very intriguing political figure of the 20th Century, but his defenders here certainly don't make the case.
He kept a Communist from speaking at Yale. If Buckley had belief in the righteousness of his convictions, why would he not challenge the man to a debate or hear him out and respond to the speech at a later date? Banning only increases interest in something.
What exactly is there to be impressed about that Buckley felt the group he was born into should be the only one allowed to vote. Very courageous stand. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The clip is not from "Firing Line," but ABC News like the announcer and YouTube clearly state.
40 - G. Oren
Reading back thru some of the comments here I'm a little surprised that the only thing anyone seems to have fixated on is that WFB supported a literacy test to vote 45 years ago. While that might have seemed exceptionable to some and common sense to others at the time, the intervening years have basically demonstated that the poor and uneducated don't vote consistently anyway, neither do close to 50% of the population - conservatives would debate whether that is a good or bad thing.
Bliffle - I understand what you mean about "dry and without juice". For me NR became tedious toward the end of the GHW Bush adminstration - tired and worn-out. I don't think WFB much cared for the Weekly Standard style, nor for the political consequences of the Commentarians version of neo-conservatism - liberalism light - though they made useful allies for a time.
El Bicho - I believe I remember reading that WFB agreed with you that in a free market place of ideas, all ideas should be heard and debated. The exception to that rule of tolerance was to exclude those who, if they won enough support, would intolerantly suppress all subsequent debate. The example being that the German people supported Hitler and voted him in as Chancellor - wherein they got an end to further choices. We are too quick to embrace sloppy rhetoric about democracy - on the left and the right. Witness, if democracy as we understand it were to instituted in the Middle-East right now, we'd probably see another half-dozen Islamic Republics - I'm sure that's what W (shrub) wants.
Back to my original thought. WFB supported legalization of Marijuana, not just medical MJ but cigarette style marketing etc... He felt most of the war on drugs was a tremendous waste of time, effort and money and ultimately still made a handful of "criminals" rich - just like prohibition. WFB also supported some for of National Service - a two year commitment after high school that would have required young people to grow up a little and serve their country in some manner - perhaps military service, perhaps something similar to Americorps and the Peace Corps. This idea had great merit I think, because it would have forced a sense of community and shared sacrifice upon our young, who more and more are isolated from other young people not of their social class and prospects.
Neither legalization of MJ or National Service were at all popular with the GOP.
41 - Colin
I may be wrong - and I welcome correction in an enourmous styley - but isn't WFB the source of the "believed they could fly" acid scare stories?
There is a nice obituary of him in the Independent in the UK.
42 - Dave Nalle
He kept a Communist from speaking at Yale. If Buckley had belief in the righteousness of his convictions, why would he not challenge the man to a debate or hear him out and respond to the speech at a later date? Banning only increases interest in something.
Buckley's point was that Yale already had plenty of communists of its own and didn't need to encoruage any more of them. And he did debate plenty of people from the far left over the years, including Noam Chomsky.
What exactly is there to be impressed about that Buckley felt the group he was born into should be the only one allowed to vote. Very courageous stand. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
That's a gross mischaracterization of what he believed. The qualifications he proposed had nothing to do with being born into the social and economic elite.
The clip is not from "Firing Line," but ABC News like the announcer and YouTube clearly state.
IIRC Firing Line was a feature on ABC News. You know, back when the news lasted more than 20 minutes.
Dave
43 - Pablo
Ok I waited a week. There isn't really much to say about WFB, except this. He was an intelligent pompous ASS. That sums up my opinion of him. On a side note however to those conservatives out there, it is a sad day for you when this man is about all you can come up with as to one of your heroes. I would greatly like to hear about your opinions on such conservative luminaries as Newt Gingrich, Orin Hatch, Sean Hannity, William Kristol, or (God rest his soul) Jerry Falwell.
Your (conservatives) movement in my opinion had its most legitimacy and coherence with Barry Goldwater, and since that time has been slowly sinking down into the realm of fascism, corruption, and arrogance, particularly with your new breed of neo cons.
I did sleep more soundly the night that I heard about WFB's demise.
44 - Maurice
Dave,
I didn't read any of the comments. I read your article and appreciate your comments on a great man. Thanks, M.
45 - Clavos
Maurice,
"I didn't read any of the comments"
You didn't miss anything.
46 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, the fact that you think Buckley fits in the same category with the 'conservatives' you mention shows how little you understand him. If you don't have a basic familiarity with his beliefs and the positions he espoused, then I don't see how you can have a meaningful opinion of him. All I see you really saying is that you thought he was an elitist and that elitism is bad. That's an incredibly bigoted and naive viewpoint, sorry.
Dave
47 - Pablo
Dave,
No comment on the republican luminaries that I listed? Not surprising. I am very familiar with WFB and his political beliefs, the only one that I ever agreed with him on was the phony war on drugs. As to being bigoted towards elites, you bet I am, and proud of it. It was obvious from WFB's style and writings that he believed that he was far superior than most other people, particularly people that did not make the kind of dough that he did. His nose was always above his face, with that characteristic smugness that I found so repulsive.
The fact is Dave that your conservative movement has no heroes, most of them are vacuous, and obviously only in the movement for the dough that they may be able to generate out of it. Newt Gingrich, creep and facist, Orin Hatch using the art of being innocuous to be a storm trooper, Pat Robertson, give me a break. I could go on and on with such luminaries as Richard Armitage, Elliot Abrahms, Rush, Hannity, etc. The fact is that most of these people make their livings by promoting hate and fear, and do everything that they can to eviscerate the constitution, and declaration of independence on a daily basis.
Conservatism today is nothing more than a cloak for fascism and intolerance, and promoting the military industrial complex that Eisenhower so prophetically warned us about.
The world is a better place imho without Mr. Buckley in it, I will pray however for his immortal soul, as he will need it.
48 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, you make a typical mistake in suggesting that it is 'my' conservative movement. I'm a classical liberal and I have never agreed with Buckley on the redefinition of terms like conservative and broadening them to include ideas which really don't fit them. When you open the door that wide you leave room for people like the Neocons to slip in.
I'm surprised that opposition to the War on Drugs is the only common ground you have with Buckley. I'd have thought you would agree with his opposition to the War in Iraq and his support of small government and minimal taxation.
As for your 'luminaries', I've discussed all of them before on BC and most of them I consider dangerous scum, with the possible exception of Gingrich who I find occasionally somewhat sensible.
I find it ironic that you accuse these 'conservatives' of promoting hate and fear, when that's exactly what you seem to be selling ad nauseum in your conspiratorial rantings.
Dave
49 - Baronius
Pablo, in what sense has the conservative movement descended into fascism, corruption, and arrogance?
Your characterization of Buckley is wildly off-base. He was pro-intellect, but very anti-intellectual, anti-elite. He believed in the strength of his ideas rather than his birth. Your descriptions of other conservatives are pretty inaccurate too. (Even the names: Armitage? Really?) Hatch uses the facade of a storm trooper to hide his innocuousness. And I've never heard anyone claim that Hannity is the cream of the conservative intellectual crop.
If you oppose conservatism so much, you should know your enemy. You don't.
50 - Pablo
Baronius,
And your conservative heroes are??
51 - Clavos
"Heroes" is a subjective artificial construct rooted in mythology.
There are no heroes in the real world.
52 - Christopher Rose
Are you serious? I think there are a lot of heroes in the world; they're not always the people the establishment tells us about though.
Fiona MacKeown, the mother of Scarlett Keeling, is definitely a hero(ine) for the tremendous courage and love she has shown in standing up for her late daughter.
53 - REMF
"There are no heroes in the real world."
- Clavos
Except perhaps the late Col. David Hackworth:
**10 Silver Stars
**8 Bronze Stars
**8 Purple Hearts
**Distinguished Service Cross (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
**Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
Distinguished Flying Cross
**Air Medal (with "V" Device & Numeral 34) (One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement)
**Army Commendation Medal (with "V" Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
**25 years active duty service in the U.S. Armed Forces
**World War II Victory Medal
**Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps)
**National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service star)
**Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns)
**Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service stars)
And FWIW, Hack also condemned Billy Calley's massacre of innocent women, old men, children and infants at My Lai.
54 - troll
...and then there's my personal hero - Alfred E Newman whose insight (*What me worry?*) inspires us all in times of crisis
55 - alessandro
Isn't it spelled "Neuman?" I digress.
REMF, yes. Impressive. But once long ago soldiers were paid not with stars but loot and cash. But that became too much of an expense for the war pigs.
56 - troll
yup
57 - alessandro
There have been many great conservative minds in history. To suggest otherwise smack of pure stupidity. Start with Edmund Burke and move up and follow the lineage. Russel Kirk wrote a book called "The Conservative Mind" which influenced American conservatism (as well as British) and is worth reading. In the U.S. there was John Dewey and Milton Friedman (and of course Buckley) as well John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and D. Eisnehower who were examples of conservative leaders.
Sure there were some "controversial" ones recently discovered that ruffled the feathers of Hollywood elites like Leo Strauss but actors recite lines. They can't necessarily read and process information.
Some may not like certain tenets of conservatism but it doesn't follow that it has no "heroes."
Whatever that damn question means.
58 - Clavos
Chris Rose,
The woman you mention is a hero because you consider her so.
An American neo Nazi will consider Eric Rudolph a hero.
REMF's hero, Hackworth, came to be accused of being "derelict in his duties" and "act[ing] without honor" by General Abrams and others of his superior officers. He only saved himself from a court martial by resigning from the Army.
As I said, it's an artificial construct rooted in mythology.
One man's hero is another's scoundrel.
59 - REMF
"REMF's hero, Hackworth..."
- Clavos
The following from another who viewed Col. Hackworth as a hero, and served with him during one Hack's four tours in 'Nam:
"I’m responding here, cause Col. David H. Hackworth's passing caught me by surprise. He had made a big impact on me. I was one of the few soldiers left from the 4/39 Infantry Battalion when Hack came on board in 1969. It was in the dry season in Vietnam, and Charlie likes to get ready for his spring offensive by avoiding contact.
But I quickly found out that this was just ineffective leadership. As I recall when Hackworth came on, we had a battalion kill figure of 4,000-plus in like two months. Prior to this, during the monsoon, our battalion was on the brown-water navy duty after Tet, and in combination we lost just about 700 men in combat. We were always in fights, but never got any feedback on the kills we made unless we counted them ourselves.
But getting back to Hack, the moment I saw him, I knew he was the real deal. But Vietnam, you never expected to ever, ever actually see, nor serve under a man like Hackworth. He was the type of Army officer I thought would be in abundance, but I found out in two weeks this was not the case in the infantry. Most of guys were just doing their time to get out " I mean the officers " and really did not know anything and really did not know how to fight or command men in battle. I remember many times I questioned myself for following such crazy orders.
But I modified the orders in action, that’s way I’m alive today. Under Hackworth, we moved as a force, with purpose, and Charlie found it extremely difficult to run operations south of Dong Tam.
I was extremely fortunate to serve under Hack. One thing I saw and I really despised it, when this brigade commander came down to the fire base. Now this guy was not much older then me, he was a full bird, hell I had just turned 20. Hack being the soldier and a lieutenant colonel was showing this guy around, and he (the brigade commander) was not interested at all. Hell, you could feel it from across the base; you did not have to be close to him to know that.
Well, that’s what I mean about guys during their time and getting a promotion. But Hack knew how to soldier and how to put fear in Charlie and keep it there. The 4/39 was in charge of this part of the Delta and young full bird colonels got their star without going to the war college because Hackworth was in their pipeline.
Many years later, I was reading the Sunday newspaper and there was a lengthy interview with Hackworth about the 4/39 Infantry, part of the 9th Infantry Division assigned in the Mekong Delta area of South Vietnam. It was a spectacular account.
- A 4/39 Soldier"
(6/7/2005, from the Soldiers For Truth website)
60 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, I think your definition of heroism is too subjective.
61 - Clavos
Har de har, Chris...
62 - Pablo
alessandro,
I was referring to contemporary conservatives. I agree with the ones that are no longer with us that you mentioned. Give me some examples of living known conservatives that you actually admire and why.
63 - bliffle
I welcomed Buckley as a breath of fresh air in the 50s, and he was. He blew away much of the staleness of both left and right, liberal and conservative, and was always worth paying attention to.
Even very recently while reading a Buckley article I was impressed with the fresh insight he provided (I don't remember the subject) and tho I didn't agree with his point it made me post a proviso, a disclaimer, to my own attitude on the subject. Now that's a good writer.
64 - alessandro
Pablo,
I appreciate the clarification. Admire? Nah. I don't rationalize things along those lines. I appreciate people and ideas - except communists. Pigs.
:<)
As for "contemporary" I assume this to mean now. Nonetheless, here's a list - love 'em or hate 'em this is a pretty good list. As a point of interest, the French-Italian philosopher Joseph de Maistre was one of the lesser known fathers of conservatism. Once again, no clue how to link.
65 - Christopher Rose
alessandro, formatting links properly is both dead easy and highly beneficial to both BC and you self and/or cause.
There's a very clear explanation here on ho to make an html link.
66 - Pablo
Allesandro,
I checked out the site, they are all dead, except for Buchanan. Incidentally Irving Kristol was a marxist. I adore Lyssander Spooner however.
My point in asking and bringing this up, is that in my opinion the "conservative" movement for all intents and purposes is bankrupt. They have no statesman, no heroes.
Baronius,
I am still patiently waiting sir to hear you come up with any contemporary conservatives that you admire and why. You apparently did not like the ones that I came up with (I wonder why), I dont like them either. As to fascism and who I think in the conservative movement are facists: James Woolsey, Krauthamamer, Kristol boy, Cheney, I could go on and on. What never ceases to amaze me is that almost invariably those that I do think are fascist are almost invariably in the CFR.
You asked me in what sense has the conservative movement descended into fascism, corruption, and arrogance. With the exception occasionally of the second amendment, I have never seen modern day conservatives stand up for the Bill of Rights. Particularly the 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th amendments. They are almost always on the side of big brother government, more curtailing of civil liberties, support using RFID technology to monitor innocent citizens, and usually support nationalism to the point of fervor over reason. The corruption is indicative of such people as Abramoff, and his pals Delay and Ney, at the feeding trough.
From the days of the conservative movement when it was based on the right to be left alone, and individual liberties things sure have changed. Today's conservatives imho are much more akin to the jack booted thugs of a certain European country circa 1933, based on promoting intolerance and fear. I do know my enemy Baronius, do you?
67 - Baronius
Pablo - I'm sorry about making you wait 24 hours for a reply. I've been having awful internet security problems recently, and don't get on the boards as much as I used to.
Conservative heroes? I'd have to put Bill Bennett and Antonin Scalia on the list. I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's book yet, but I've been a fan of his for a long time, and he's definitely one of the better minds in the movement. I don't know if PJ O'Rourke would want to be called a conservative thinker, but he is. Definitely Thomas Sowell, George Gilder, and Charles Murray. Each of them has their own field of expertise, and sometimes Murray is crazy, but they've all three been writing some amazing stuff for quite a while.
You mentioned Cheney: he's certainly a hero, along with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. I wouldn't consider Rush to be a hero, but the man is talented. Very underrated as a political analyst. That puts me one shy of a dozen. I realize that I haven't listed many politicians, but I hope that this list will do.
REMF may point out that these aren't military figures. I don't think of military leaders as political. In fact, I've got more respect for the soldiers who don't use their service as a podium for their ideology.
68 - alessandro
Thanks CR.
I agree with Baronius. Bennett and Scalia are good examples as well as the others he mentions. George Will and John O'Sullivan are fine writers. I think historian John Keegan is conservative as is Niall Ferguson. Victor David Hanson is a poetic, if not at times over the top historian in the U.S.
While Mark Steyn is more of a commentator, he's popular. In Canada, Andrew Coyne is considered conservative. Economically, Larry Kudlow is by all definition a conservative as is William Watson here in Canada In France, Sarkozy is leading a Thatcherite movement in his country - politically speaking.
I would say O'Rourke (easily one of the best satirists around) is conservative.
As you can see, Pablo, there are many. I think many do influence.
Actually, it can be argued conservatism is in a healthier position and more vibrant in the halls of ideas than liberalism.
69 - alessandro
By the way, all you need to do is go read place like The National Review and First Things (to name a couple) to be exposed to various conservative thinkers.
70 - Villiami Selsele
Buckley was clever to a certain level and quite cunning- sly. In the end his "conservatism" turned out to be a variant of statism. He just had different reasons for wanting it and a different list of people he wanted to see running it. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Buckley's political movement lost steam. There were no underlying principles other than what he was against.
Buckley's primary achievement was the replacement of the traditional conservative ethic of freedpm and individuality with a new version based on the ideal of the state as sovereign over all- a reversal of what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. Didn't any of you notice?
By the way, I especially enjoyed his excoriation and critiques of books he had never read. That was funny.
I trust the man is soon forgotten.
71 - Villiami Selsele
Buckley was clever to a certain level and quite cunning- sly. In the end his "conservatism" turned out to be a variant of statism. He just had different reasons for wanting it and a different list of people he wanted to see running it. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Buckley's political movement lost steam. There were no underlying principles other than what he was against.
Buckley's primary achievement was the replacement of the traditional conservative ethic of freedpm and individuality with a new version based on the ideal of the state as sovereign over all- a reversal of what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. Didn't any of you notice?
By the way, I especially enjoyed his excoriation and critiques of books he had never read. That was funny.
I trust the man is soon forgotten.
72 - 773SleepyHollow
Some posters have suggested that Buckley's support of a literacy test for voters was non-racial... well, here's the quote from the Times obit again; I've capitalized part of it for emphasis:
"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."
In other words, Buckley's main goal was to maintain white supremacy, not to have a literate voting pool... only when some other, non-racist conservatives objected to this did he throw them the bone of denying uneducated Americans their franchise regardless of race. (Even then, I doubt Buckley truly thought the literacy tests would be applied fairly to blacks and whites in the Jim Crow south.)
73 - Dave Nalle
Sleepy, your argument fails because there's no evidence that Buckley ever held any other racially based positions. With the evidence suggesting that he was not in general a racist, his argument that the issue was fitness to vote without regard to race seems fairly believable and I see no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As for Villiami's bizarre comment, it's quite clear that he's as unfamiliar with Buckley's beliefs as Pablo and just as irrationally prejudiced because of the mere fact that Buckley was proud to openly admit to being a conservative.
Dave
74 - Baronius
Pablo - It's pretty confusing when you address these comments on another thread. The Spitzer thread has gone from a discussion of morality and hypocrisy to economic issues. It's the last place I should be defending conservative leaders.
Alessandro, how did I forget Steyn, or Hanson for that matter? I'm not a fan of George Will, but the guy can write, and he's still quite influential. I don't know if you've run across Heather Mac Donald (City Joural, I think) or Jay Nordlinger (National Review), but they're both worth reading.
I don't know if there will be another Buckley though. He was the best, and he provided a forum for the best. He so obviously deserved a seat at the table that the top people on the left and in the center paid attention, and over time other conservatives were invited into the conversation. We're so spoiled today. It wasn't long ago that a person had to prove himself to be worth listening to, and even moreso for a conservative.
75 - alessandro
Yes, I've heard of them and in fact do read Nordlinger from time to time. Is it me or do conservatives have a sense of humour?
Reason magazine certainly feel Buckley opened the door for the libertarian movement to have some space in the halls of civil discourse.
Personally and frankly, I think too many people misread Buckley. Some negative interpretations of his work are somewhat shallow. I would not be surprised those who do this are the ones who grudgingly read his stuff with a preconceived notion and are already looking for something to"catch" him on. "A-ha! I knew it! He's a racist!"
Sometimes our perceptions are dead on and other times...
Aren't we all guilty of this every now and then? That's when you have to shake your head and knock those little evil gremlins out, take a shot of hootch, inhale deeply and start again.
You don't have to like and agree with Buckley to appreciate him. Conversely, if you like them you know where his shortcomings lie.
That's the beauty of discourse and the arts.