William F. Buckley, Jr R.I.P.

[Virgil]

Today is a sad day for me. Perhaps the single most influential person of contemporary time that has shaped my thinking has passed, William F. Buckley, Jr. He was truly a giant, perhaps the person who shaped post WWII American Conservatism more than any other single man. Strident anti-communist, passionate supporter of free market economics, believer in traditional values, he established the modern notion of Conservatism, and as I look across the world, the Conservative parties fo many countries have evolved to American Conservatism, and there Buckley's conservatism. And what a life he lived. Wikipedia lists 34 non-fiction books he authored, 20 fiction books, he started the famous National Review magazine that continues to be the most influential American conservative journal, wrote news colums at least three times per week, he was a sailor, an accomplished harpschordist and pianist, and he was actually even a CIA spy for a short part of his life. He lived a life of intellectual accomplishment and physical intensity. There aren't too many lives I envy, but trulyI envy his. Below is a snippet of a Natioanl Review note on his passing today, and I include a Wikipedia link.


William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

By the Editors

Our revered founder, William F. Buckley Jr., died in his study this morning.

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country — and a better one — than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement. He kept it from drifting into the fever swamps. And he gave it a wit, style, and intelligence that earned the respect and friendship even of his adversaries. (To know Buckley was to be reminded that certain people have a talent for friendship.)

He inspired and incited three generations of conservatives, and counting. He retained his intellectual and literary vitality to the end; even in his final years he was capable of the arresting formulation, the unpredictable insight. He presided over NR even in his “retirement,” which was more active than most people’s careers. It has been said that great men are rarely good men. Even more rarely are they sweet and merry, as Buckley was.

When Buckley started National Review — in 1955, at the age of 29 — it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide. When Buckley wrote that the magazine would “stand athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!’” his point was to challenge the idea that history, with a capital H, pointed left. Mounting that challenge was the first step toward changing history’s direction. Which would come in due course. [Snip] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVlMTE4MDk3NTAyNjAwMzM4NWM5NTI2ZDg4ODVlMTM=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

[Orionsbelt]

Well, I can't say I share his conservative ideas. However, I do share your admiration for this man. He was thoughtful, deliberate, and fair. I think we are all worse off for his passing. Nice Post, truely!

[jon1jt]

Buckley made Jack Kerouac look like a fool during one of his talk shows in 1967, having tricked Kerouac into coming on "to read poetry," when in fact it was Buckley's sole intention to pit him against a war-protesting hippy and university sociologist, which Kerouac never wanted any part of---and Buckley knew it. And Buckley also knew Keroauc was suffering from the years living under the torments of a crude, vicious media who either misinterpreted or never read his books. Kerouac deflected all of Buckley's loaded questions about the Beat Generation, refusing to play along with his intellectual-babble format. But the episode had the effect of driving Kerouac further into booze and isolation. I've read the letters. Kerouac died a year later. Of course that's not Buckley's fault. Still, what Buckley did was wrong. That wouldn't be the only time Buckley belittled people publicly who fell outside his holier-than-thou orbit of politics and religion.

I could care less he's dead, the snotty conservative prick.

[Virgil]

Intersting you should say that Jon. If that is true, it sounds unusual for Buckley. He had the reputation of being extremely genial to his guests. I remember watching his TV show, Firing Line. I must have been in my teenage years. (Yes, i was a geek back then) It was not a confrontational type show as you see on cable today. And i just saw a TV clip of a Buckley interview where he said his philosophy of the TV show was that if he had a guest he believed the guest should be allowed to speak his mind. I don't know what happened with Kerouac but what you describe does not sound like Buckley or Buckley's reputation. I went and googled Buckley and Keouac together and came up with something from the Beat museum. I can't vouch for its accuracy but here's what it says:


Despite the 'beatnik' stereotype, Kerouac was a political conservative, especially when under the influence of his Catholic mother. As the beatniks of the 1950's began to yield their spotlight to the hippies of the 1960's, Jack took pleasure in standing against everything the hippies stood for. He supported the Vietnam War and became friendly with William F. Buckley.
http://www.beatmuseum.org/kerouac/jackkerouac.html

[Granny5]

I remember watching Firing Line as a youngster and thinking how everyone should treat their guests like William Buckley did. What a gentleman! He influenced a great many people and taught us all a great many things. He was a giant and lived his life with vigor. I am not a Buckley conservative, but I admired the man. This country has lost something great with his passing.

[hellsapoppin]

I admired Buckley's great work ethic. He was a man well noted for his long working hours and his willingness to answer his mail. He was quite receptive to new ideas unlike so many of today's conservatives who proclaim themselves to be Christians while bad mouthing anyone who dares to disagree with them in any way.

He had one serious shortcoming in that he condemned welfare but did not hesitate to cash in government checks that he derived from his oil interests.

His greatest kudos should be for adhering to the ideal of America First rather than interventionism --- this was an ideal that he drifted into rather late in his activist career. But it demonstrates open mindedness and that is something we all need to consider if we are to have a peaceful and well ordered world.

Homage to an intellectual warrior.

[Il Penseroso]

His greatest kudos should be for adhering to the ideal of America First rather than interventionism --- this was an ideal that he drifted into rather late in his activist career. But it demonstrates open mindedness and that is something we all need to consider if we are to have a peaceful and well ordered world.



this is interesting to hear. I had not ever heard of Buckley until this thread, but I searched youtube and found some interesting debates between him and Noam Chomsky, in which Buckley is arguing for interventionism (this was in '69). I guess ol' Noam had an effect.

[byquist]

Kind man, smart, and interesting debater. At one time I subscribed to "The National Review for a half-dozen years; a witty and smart magazine; but obviously anathema to liberals. He seemed to enjoy his life a lot! And, some of his intellectual enemies liked him nonetheless.

[Virgil]

He was quite receptive to new ideas unlike so many of today's conservatives who proclaim themselves to be Christians while bad mouthing anyone who dares to disagree with them in any way.

I don't what you mean today's conservatives. If you're comparing people on TV cable shows, you're making one of two mistakes or perhaps both. (1) People on TV cable shows mostly talk politics, not ideas, which there is a significant distincton. Just look at how people from the same party in these current primaries are squabbling over distinctions that are razor thin. (2) You're comparing high brow debate with middle or low brow debate. All factions, if they've developed long and deep enough have low, middle, and high brow debate. It is common to stand up the opposition's low or middle brow debate against one's high to demosntrate a distiction.


this is interesting to hear. I had not ever heard of Buckley until this thread, but I searched youtube and found some interesting debates between him and Noam Chomsky, in which Buckley is arguing for interventionism (this was in '69). I guess ol' Noam had an effect.

:lol: :lol: Oh Pensero, don't make me laugh. There isn't anything that Noam Chomsky, not an iota, not an infintesmal molecule that Chomsky has influenced Bill Buckley. If Buckley had qualms about a particualr war (I don't want to get political here) that is a far cry from saying Buckley does not believe in interventionism. Without a doubt if America or any nation felt threatened by another, he would sanction interventionism. I don't want to discuss the nuances of his qualms with the war because it would go into current politics. And the editors of his National Review magazine all currently support the policy you are alluding to.

I'm glad though that you both think highly of Buckley. From all accounts he was a generous soul.

[Virgil]

He seemed to enjoy his life a lot!
Yes, and that is another thing I admired about him and try to work into my own life.


And, some of his intellectual enemies liked him nonetheless.

Yes, and that should be a lesson to us all. I'm personally not always a happy warrior of ideas. I get petulant and peeved. :D Bill Buckley has the superior soul. ;)


One other thing, which I think can refer to the post above this as well. I did notice a difference in his columns the last year or so. They didn't seem to have the same spark and wit and passion. Obvioulsy he was 82, he had emphasema (which I had no idea), and his wife had died in the last year. I'm not sure if this was the same Bill Buckley from even a couple of years ago.

[Il Penseroso]

:lol: :lol: Oh Pensero, don't make me laugh. There isn't anything that Noam Chomsky, not an iota, not an infintesmal molecule that Chomsky has influenced Bill Buckley. If Buckley had qualms about a particualr war (I don't want to get political here) that is a far cry from saying Buckley does not believe in interventionism. Without a doubt if America or any nation felt threatened by another, he would sanction interventionism. I don't want to discuss the nuances of his qualms with the war because it would go into current politics. And the editors of his National Review magazine all currently support the policy you are alluding to.

I'm glad though that you both think highly of Buckley. From all accounts he was a generous soul.

whoa whoa whoa... I never said I thought highly of him. I may have admitted that he was interesting, but that does not necessarily translate to me thinking highly of him.

And the bit about Noam's influence was meant flippantly and in response to hells, who implied that Buckley's ideas had shifted away from interventionism in his later years. I really can't say without research whether this is true or not.

[hellsapoppin]

Bill's {he preferred to be called by this name} ideas are all in his magazine. He was one of the first to oppose a certain international conflict that will go unnamed here. He posted his rationale clearly in that format and you should have no trouble understanding what he meant.

[jon1jt]

Intersting you should say that Jon. If that is true, it sounds unusual for Buckley. He had the reputation of being extremely genial to his guests. I remember watching his TV show, Firing Line. I must have been in my teenage years. (Yes, i was a geek back then) It was not a confrontational type show as you see on cable today. And i just saw a TV clip of a Buckley interview where he said his philosophy of the TV show was that if he had a guest he believed the guest should be allowed to speak his mind. I don't know what happened with Kerouac but what you describe does not sound like Buckley or Buckley's reputation. I went and googled Buckley and Keouac together and came up with something from the Beat museum. I can't vouch for its accuracy but here's what it says:


http://www.beatmuseum.org/kerouac/jackkerouac.html

Yeah, Firing Line, that was the name of the show Kerouac was a guest on. As far as that beat museum goes, it was put together by some Beat groupies who got together and decided to drive a camper around the country to showcase some Beat relics and organize gatherings in the name of Beat history, all for a fee. There's nothing wrong with that, I like it, actually. In response to their position that Kerouac was "friendly" with Buckley, what I do know is that Kerouac highly respected Buckley as a thinker and writer. But Kerouac was very embarrassed by the whole episode---in part due to the fact that he was drunk on the show. He shouldn't have been let on, but Buckley obviously was unconcerned. And for all the moral blabber I heard pour out of his pie hole I'd expect better. Then again, I expect better from church-goers too, and they often hate more than they love. And I happen to have a problem with that. :sick:

Putting that aside, :lol: answer this, Virge: Why should Buckley be remembered at all?

What did Buckley DO that was so significant that is worthy of people remembering him? He's an anachronism, a man with the mind and values of a distant age *cough*slavery*cough* He espoused a kind of republicanism that appealed very specifically to the sentiments of a very white population whose values they saw as falling out of step with the times---hijacked by a bunch of hippy scum and colored folk who they believed had no business protesting against their Vietnam. It all strangely smells and smacks of Iraq, eh? :rolleyes:

Buckley had a clever way to intellectualize war and human rights violations, and his social and cultural criticism was his crude way to blur the line between the honest efforts of "radicals" who understood there was a basic problem at the center of our then-government, and those radicals who smoked dope, practiced pre-marital group sex, and wore flowers in their hair just because it felt good.

Put your nuclear weapons and your Star Wars Systems and your Ronald Reagan doll away. The age of Buckley is dead, and the world is better for it. Use whatever crumbs of Buckley Morality you can scrap from your dinner plate and pray for all the dead soldiers, Darfur, the uninsured, me. :sick:

[Virgil]

Bill's {he preferred to be called by this name} ideas are all in his magazine. He was one of the first to oppose a certain international conflict that will go unnamed here. He posted his rationale clearly in that format and you should have no trouble understanding what he meant.

Whatever his qualms about the war, he supported it going in, and in his last column on the subject he supported the surge. Let's say his major qualm resides in the unproven ability of any country to nation build. I acknowledge that. The various parties on the ground need to do that themselves. We can only provide stability for them to do that. The surge seems to have done it. I think the parties on the ground are now doing their part. I think we're getting there.


Putting that aside, :lol: answer this, Virge: Why should Buckley be remembered at all?


To paraphrase George Will: Before there was Ronald Reagan there was Barry Goldwater; before their was Barry Goldwater, there was National Review; before there was National Review, there was Bill Buckely. The notion of Coservatism as a politcal movement originated with Buckley. Before the 1950s conservatism was a vague notion of business, religious, and national defense oriented elements with no interlacing connections. Bill Buckley, amongst others but he led the movement, philosophically unified the elements, proliferated that philosophy through National Review, and then converted populace and politicians that actually took that philosophy and implemented it. And the implementation has changed the nation. The victory over communism, the reduction of tax rates (70% before Reagan and then down below 30%, but has slowly crept up but nothing like it used to be), and the implementation of Conservative judicial approach. Today roughly half the country support most of this through support of a political party. This can all be traced to Buckely. I can't think of a single movement in American history except the abolitionist movement of the mid 19th century that has had such an impact. You may not support it, but its influence has been and continues to be significant. And not just nationally. Internationally the right wing parties of many if not most countries use the language and philosophy initiated through National Review. And not just Margret Thatcher; need I mention Nicolas Sarkozy.

Think of it this way. The Beats had a movement in the 1950s, actually parallel to Buckley's. The Beats never influenced politics. No politician would link themselves to the Beats. It's a rare politician you even get to admit he's a Liberal. Almost all politicians on the right link themselves to Conservatism. That's what Buckley started.

Plus Buckley made conservatism cool. ;)

[hellsapoppin]

``The surge seems ...``

Not really but I better not say more or it will be political. :)

[Logos]

uh yeah, please don't derail this topic with current politcs :)

[NikolaiI]

a remembrance thing on the KC library's webpage

http://www.kclibrary.org/guides/ourworld/index.cfm?article=read&articleID=744

[blp]

This deep thinker and affable generous debater loved even by his opponents once responded to a reasoned argument by Gore Vidal with the single word epithet, 'Queer.'

[Granny5]

This deep thinker and affable generous debater loved even by his opponents once responded to a reasoned argument by Gore Vidal with the single word epithet, 'Queer.'

I believe this explains the difference in Buckley and Vidal. Buckley was an intelligent gentleman. Vidal is neither.

[Ryduce]

If somebody called me a Crypto-Nazi in a public debate,it would no longer be a debate because said person would catch a shin to the face.

[Ryduce]

By forming a fradulently fabricated utopian dictatorship?

[blp]

I dunno Ryduce. Shutting down debate with violence sounds pretty fascist to me.

[Virgil]

I don't have time to respond to this fully now. I've seen the conversation and Vidal was beligerant and obnoxious and Buckley ultimately (and Buckley was a very patient man to say the least) finally got upset after the repeated Nazi term. I'll try to pull up that conversation. But all one has to do is look at all the Liberal kudos that Buckley recieved in his lifetime and now in memoriam to know how genial and admired he was by all sides. So he used a poorly choiced word in a moment of anger, big friggin deal.

[Ryduce]

I agree,but didn't Vidal take it to the realm of Nazism in the first place?

I think the whole Left vs Right thing is rather silly anyway.All Right wingers are not Bible thumping hicks,and all Left wingers are not fascist devil worshippers.I think this conflict perpetuated by the media is what is really hurting America.There is no longer a discourse,only rants and screaming.

[blp]

I agree,but didn't Vidal take it to the realm of Nazism in the first place?

I think the whole Left vs Right thing is rather silly anyway.All Right wingers are not Bible thumping hicks,and all Left wingers are not fascist devil worshippers.I think this conflict perpetuated by the media is what is really hurting America.There is no longer a discourse,only rants and screaming.

And occasional swipes to the face with the shin. ;)

'I got a left wing, I got a right wing. I'm an angel, man.' - Zodiac Mindwarp

[blp]

Couldn't find text of the debate, but here's Vidal's side of the story (http://web.archive.org/web/20060326111414/http://www.columbia.edu/~tdk3/vidalesquire69.html), originally from Esquire Magazine.

[Virgil]

I guess this is a partial transcript. It starts in the middle and I don't think captures the intensity leading into it.


GORE VIDAL: You must realize what some of the political issues are here. There are many, even in the United States [who] happen to believe that the United States policy is wrong in Vietnam and the Viet Cong are correct in wanting to organize their country in their own way politically. This happens to be pretty much the opinion of Western Europe and many other parts of the world. If it is a novelty in Chicago, that is too bad, but I assume that the point of the American democracy…

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: And some people were pro-Nazi, too, some people were pro-Nazi.

GV: …is you can express any point of view you want. Shut up a minute.

WFB: No I won’t. Some people were pro-Nazi, and the answer is they were well-treated by people who ostracized them, and I’m for ostracizing people who egg on other people to shoot American Marines and American soldiers. I know you don’t care, because you don’t have any sense of identification…

GV: As far as I am concerned, the only sort of pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself. Failing that,…

MODERATOR: Let’s not call names.

GV: …I would only say that we can’t have the right of assembly…

WFB: Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi…

MOD: Let’s stop calling names and let’s get…

WFB: …or I’ll sock you in the goddam face and you’ll stay plastered.

MOD: Gentlemen, let’s…

WFB: Let the author of Myra Breckenridge go back to his pornography and stop making any allusions of Nazism…

MOD: I beg you to…

WFB: …to someone who served in the infantry in the last war and…

GV: You were not in the infantry, as a matter of fact, you didn’t fight…

END OF CLIP

http://concordlive.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/william-f-buckley-jr-vs-gore-vidal-1968/

Quite interesting. Actually i love it. :lol: It's quite clear who started the name calling. He should have plastered him.

[Scheherazade]

My favorite parts:
MODERATOR: Let’s not call names.
MOD: Let’s stop calling names and let’s get…
MOD: Gentlemen, let’s…
MOD: I beg you to…:p

[Granny5]

I believe this explains the difference in Buckley and Vidal. Buckley was an intelligent gentleman. Vidal is neither.

:redface: oops, read it wrong. Not much sleep when I read it. Sorry. But I still believe that Buckley was an intelligent gentleman and I still don't think much of Vidal.

[Rav Maji]

Buckley helped start a movement that over glorified human nature. Thanks to people like him we live in a totalitarianism of conservative/corporate ideals. Having only figured out a way for the moneyed to stay in power, he was a poor excuse for an intellectual. I'm not saying he didn't have heart and stamina, or that he wasn't friendly. Without him it could have been worse...who knows? And there was no "victory" over communism. Communism simply came to its end as a massive economic influence in Europe. Capitalism did not wage a heroic battle. There was no battle. The difference between capitalism and communism is that the communists simply got tired of murder and genocide. Besides, the assumed stand off between America and other countries is only a method of controlling the American people with fear. It's a tactic thousands of years old. We're all rats on a sinking ship.

[jon1jt]

:redface: oops, read it wrong. Not much sleep when I read it. Sorry. But I still believe that Buckley was an intelligent gentleman and I still don't think much of Vidal.

Vidal wrote better prose. What is indisputable is Buckley's a homophobe. He's lucky he's not alive today I'd get Richard Simmons to kick his ***. :p

[Virgil]

Actually that Vidal "Nazi" epithet is revealing on the way conservatives and liberals think of each other. For the most part Coservatives think Liberals are wrong, mostly due to a naivete. It isn't enough for Liberals to think of Conservatives as wrong, they have to project evil in their motives, like calling them a Nazi or believing they want to throw old ladies into the street. Liberals have to impune the moral character of conservative ideas. They truely believe it. Let me give you an example. We had a Mayor in New York, the one just before who just ran for President and lost in the primary. He was tough on crime, real tough. He put into place policies that really cleaned up the city, threw out the strip bars, stopped the squeegy men from pedaling, came down hard on drugs and graffiti. The opposition couldn't just say he was wrong or disagreed, they called him a fascist. It wasn't enough to disagree, they had to impune his character. And given that he was of Italian descent they associated him with Mossolini, the Italian dictator. It drove the mayor into a rage. The city today is the safest big city in America, and before that it was a hell hole. I lived it. Only bleeding heart simpletons today believe that being soft on crime has a better outcome. So when Buckley was called a Nazi, that sort of thing from the left against conservatives was not isolated and goes on all the time. Buckley wasn't going to take it.

[Rav Maji]

Only bleeding heart simpletons today believe that being soft on crime has a better outcome.

By bleeding heart simpletons, I think you mean compassionate people that seek to soften the blow of inequality affecting most people. Everything that happens has a motivating cause. Unfortunately, our justice system places the blame squarely on the individual as if there weren't a world of causes and failed systems.

[jon1jt]

By bleeding heart simpletons, I think you mean compassionate people that seek to soften the blow of inequality affecting most people. Everything that happens has a motivating cause. Unfortunately, our justice system places the blame squarely on the individual as if there weren't a world of causes and failed systems.


Right on, and the stats show the US system metes out punishment disproportionately, and with unabated frequency. This is disgusting.




One in 100 US adults in prison: Pew report
Nick Fiske at 6:56 PM ET



[JURIST] One in every 100 US adults is currently in prison, according to a report [PDF text; press release] released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States (PCS) [organization website]. The report found that males were 17 times more likely than females to be imprisoned, and that African Americans and Hispanics faced significantly higher incarceration rates than Caucasians. Since 1987, the national prison population has nearly tripled and state spending on corrections has skyrocketed to $44 billion per year, increases that the report attributed to the prevalence of stiffer sentences for nonviolent crimes and repeat offenders during the 1980s and 90s. In all, the nation's prisons house roughly 1.6 million inmates, more than any other country in the world. AP has more. The New York Times has additional coverage.

[blp]

:redface: oops, read it wrong. Not much sleep when I read it. Sorry. But I still believe that Buckley was an intelligent gentleman and I still don't think much of Vidal.

Because...

[hellsapoppin]

Evidently, people readily overlook the fact that conservatives often call liberals ''communist'' or terrorist sympathizers. Nobody engages in more name calling or mischaracterizations than they do. ;)

[Virgil]

Right on, and the stats show the US system metes out punishment disproportionately, and with unabated frequency. This is disgusting.

So you point out an imperfection in a jury system. So what's your solution? The implication of what you're suggesting is that minority criminals should be released or not arrested. Is that what you're suggesting? Come on Jon. At the end of every violent crime is a victum, someone who's life has been permanently altered by violence. And no criminal stops at one crime. For every criminal there are dozens of victums. The answer is not letting criminals off but doubling our efforts against white criminals if you think there is a bias in outcomes. But you know this is such an exaggeration. The fact is that for whatever complex societal reasons minorities do commit a disproportional share of the crimes. I'm Italian American. I cheer when mafia mobsters are caught and prosecuted and jailed. No one is consciously searching out minorities to jail.

[Virgil]

Evidently, people readily overlook the fact that conservatives often call liberals ''communist'' or terrorist sympathizers. Nobody engages in more name calling or mischaracterizations than they do. ;)

I've never heard anyone call liberals terrorist sympathizers. I've heard claims of being soft on terror or terrorists appeasers in the nature that Chamberlain appeased the Nazis. And those are fair debating points. But I've never heard the claim that liberals share intellectual ideas (that's the implication of the word sympathizers) or support terrorist ideas.

As to the communist claim. I don't know if you're aware of the history of the left's relationship in the US with communism going back at least to the 1930s but certainly through the 1950s and beyond. It was real and palpaple. Research it. I admit that since we won the cold war and the soviet union collapsed the communists rap doesn't carry much sting. I used to think that once the soviet union broke up and eastern europe embraced to free markets and with now China slowly (actually not so slowly) sucking in capitalism, I really thought communists had disappeared except for college professors in liberal arts departments. (Oh I can tell you stories about college professor communists when I went to school.;) ) But ever since I've been exploring forums on the internet, I realize communists haven't disappeared at all. There are people who can't see reality if it fell on them. I do admit that it's inappropriate in a typical right/left debate on US (not my place to judge debate or policy in other countries) policy. The appropriate nature of a right/left debate is to debate not some radical notion of economic revolution but where the correct place to establish a safety net for those in lower economic straights.