Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Let's Pay Tribute to the Spectacular Wrongness of William F. Buckley

By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted March 5, 2008.


The man himself put it best: "Some of my instincts are reprehensible."
Advertisement

William F. Buckley was a smart man, that's for sure.

He could throw around more ten-dollar words than his beloved Catholic Church has sinners (even excluding the priesthood). He knew all the right places to ski and the proper wines to drink while listening to this concerto or appreciating that symphony. A product of privilege right down to the French boarding schools he attended, Buckley was as sophisticated, erudite and insightful as they come.

Except on the subject of politics, that is -- which just happened to be his life's great work.

And aren't we lucky for it?

I mean, what can you say about a guy who wrote "General Franco is an authentic national hero" at the same time he found Dwight Eisenhower too liberal to endorse for president? What are we to make of a lover of democracy who called whites in the American South "the advanced race," entitled to prevail politically even if they were numerically inferior, and who even left the door open to using violence toward that end? Heck, for that matter, what can be said of someone so culturally perceptive that he could write, "The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music." (Was it the "We're more popular than Jesus" quote that rattled you Bill, or were you just jealous about all the screaming chicks?)

What can we say about a guy this spectacularly wrong? Probably he got it best himself when he noted, "I profoundly believe it takes a lot of practice to become a moral slob." As it turned out, he got a lot of practice.

Buckley is often credited with being the father of modern conservatism (pardon the oxymoron) in America. It is said that before he founded the National Review in 1955, there was essentially no such movement in the country. It is said (no less than by Reagan himself), that the line is drawn directly from Buckley to Goldwater to Reagan. (For some completely inexplicable reason, conservatives usually leave off Gingrich and Bush the Younger from that genealogy.)

Buckley was an astute observer of the human condition, despite keeping, shall we say, a certain polite distance from most of the poor humans who happen to find themselves stuck in that sometimes challenging condition. He was once asked by NPR's Terry Gross whether being raised in European boarding schools and being a member of Yale's notoriously elitist Skull and Bones Society hadn't left Buckley a trifle, um, out of touch with real people (the hoi polloi, that is, as they're referred to at the Club)? Au contraire!, he skillfully parried. Buckley did a lot of reading and therefore understood people quite well!

So well, indeed, that he came out in support of segregation during the era when the civil rights movement was the most important, the most consuming political question of the day. So who do you think history will judge to have gotten this question right, eh? -- Martin Luther King Jr. or Bill Buckley? One could say that Buckley's position was just about the most spectacular example ever recorded of the missing of a historical train. There was Ol' Bill (who actually didn't even have the excuse then of being old), standing on the (whites only) platform, watching the Morality Express go whooshing by.

But then, wasn't missing just such trains precisely the point of conservatism?

Buckley certainly thought so. In the essay with which he launched the National Review, he committed it and the conservative movement to the project of "stand[ing] athwart history, yelling Stop."

Yep, that's actually a bona fide quote from the man himself. If that sounds a bit anachronistic as the grand rallying cry for a modern political movement, you're -- ahem -- still not getting it, I'm afraid. The thwarting and reversal of progress is precisely the point of conservatism.

After all, progress is scary. Progress is difficult. Progress is messy. And progress means having to share.

So Buckley launched a movement to yell "Stop!" and they all did, and they were grandly successful, as a matter of fact. For three decades, conservatives have ruled America and stopped progressive change in its tracks. Moreover, they've worked assiduously to undo those achievements that so many of us took for granted as the very markers of civilization itself.

Sometimes they have only wanted to unravel a couple of decades worth of history, as when they oppose civil rights, women's rights or environmentalism. Sometimes it is more on the order of a century, as when they seek to dismantle social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. Sometimes their handiwork goes back several centuries, as when they find First Amendment ideas such as separation of church and state to be troublesome, or when they object to that whole pesky checks-and-balances thing. But sometimes it is the work of an entire millennium they wish to unravel, as they rip up the inconvenient notions of democracy itself, expressed as far back as the Magna Carta.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: william f. buckley

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at www.regressiveantidote.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Americas' Iconography of Despicable People ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 5, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite a great article the true story of Buckley and people of his ilk (thank you Robert Novak) it is the quaint American custom of legitimising these failures of human achievement that is the true story.

One can go down the list of those dead and living to see the parade of examples of liars, cheats, frauds, war crimiinals, idiots, tools, debauchers and assorted charlatans that have been resurrected to respectability by the press and the public.

Many come to mind, but here are a few , like Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan , a liar and paranoid racist , a war criminal responsible for tens of thousands of American dead, and a gipper who knew in his heart he had not traded arms for hostages nor enabled the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

And we have our current crop, call them neocons or patriots depending on where you stand, but they aren't going anywhere and are still welcomed in all the right places, even given columns at the New York Times.

It is indeed curious how maleable our collective memory and tolerance is for rhetoric and behavior that can only be called obscene.

Shouldn't their tombstones read: Here lies the murderer of thousands of Salvadorians, Chileans or Viet Namese.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fraterm? Posted by: Longdream
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 5, 2008 1:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who?


Yes, we will

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CUE THE CURTAIN
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 5, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was all theater anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CUE THE CURTAIN Posted by: bcain
But still no tribute, sorry.
Posted by: talkville on Mar 5, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley provided a noble, patrician and very Old World sheen to some very different and much smaller minds (his publications continue to do so). Indeed, one would need to go to places like Spain or France or perhaps Germany and England, or even the Vatican, to some very inaccessible and quiet estates to appreciate that world and ideology that man was living. He would have been much more comfortable and at home in a feudal world than a modern one. Democracy did not exist in his universe; this was an unknown and despicable planet. One senses he might even have barely relished nationalism or republicanism if a more adequate Monarchic Empire blessed and authorized by the Pope would have been available. A High Conservative of those Burkean kind of regions. Yelling "Stop!", an existential Reactionary with respect to Time and to Space. I get the image of a medievalist Ad Gloriam Deus kind of a person, those kinds of men a Jane Austen might have adored and admired.

And yet he lit fires beneath those whose virtues he would have (at least publicly) condemed: Avarice, Gluttony, Hypocrisy. Ad Gloriam Deus of course. His publication continues to do so (now more quantity than quality).

But it would take the King's Guard or perhaps a Torquemada to exact tribute from me to the man. He personally may have led an honest and honorable life; but he ignited a movement which is the exact antithesis. He seems to have lived in a Platonic world and yelling Stop! to History. Perhaps in that world, Heraclitus might haunt him? He left a Style, an echo of a world gone by. But best to keep a close eye on his Will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But still no tribute, sorry. Posted by: goeswithness
» RE: But still no tribute, sorry. Posted by: racetoinfinity
Gratefully
Posted by: GrannyBgood on Mar 5, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May he gratefully (for the rest of us) rest in the Peace he never granted anyone else!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The extent of the ideology
Posted by: GPFrank on Mar 5, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prof. Green elaborates on the breadth and depth of the American conservative movement ideology. There is none other like it now on this planet except for societies like the Mafia. If you include the Neo-Cons, they go back to the opposition to Democracy debated in Athens of the B.C. 500's. When you think of it they exceed even the time regress of the Al-Quaida caliphate people.
Thus while the British parliament already had a majority sympathetic to letting the American colonies go, by the time of Cornwallis's surrender, the Dinosaur Set conceived not simply going back to the monarchy but the elimination of juries in Congress by compelling customers and employees of businesses to sign guarantees,of non-suit and submitting to arbitration going way back before the Magna Charta, Admirerers of William the Conqueror and his Doomsday Book, is what they are. The present American conservative movement is more like a cult, abandoning argument itself
but adhering to use of undiluted force itself in all its forms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh the irony! Posted by: Steve_in_NH
» No Irony, Just a Sick Game Posted by: fraterm
» RE: fraterm! Posted by: Longdream
Buckley atleast supported legalizing marijuana...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Mar 5, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He wasn't all bad...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Racsist Buckley wrote in '57: 'Why The South Must Win'
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Mar 5, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article!

Excerpt from Alex Cockburn's article in Counterpunch:

Here are some lines from Buckley's editorial on "Why The South Must Win" in the National Review in 1957:

"The central question that emerges 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. 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 correctThe great majority 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.Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedomThe South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the 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."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: bornxeyed
» Obviously racist Posted by: bvconway
» RE: Obviously racist Posted by: peacefullaim
Bill's Probably Chuckling...
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Mar 5, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed this article but was a little surprised at the author's assertion that Bill
"got out... just months before the election that would seal forever the fate of his destructive little life's project."

I'll grant that he'd have likely been dismayed at having both a Black man and a woman (regardless of hue) running for President but, on a more strategic level, I rather think he'd be chuckling at the fact of so much of his conservative viewpoint having been incorporated into the faux "progressive" stance of the once-Democratic Party. Compare the positions of Obama-Clinton (I list them as a single two-headed entity) with those of Dennis Kucinich and there's no trouble distinguishing 'conservative' from 'progressive'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bill's Probably Chuckling... Posted by: peacefullaim
The first...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 5, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first in a long line of spoiled rich kids from exclusive prep schools who stand athwart the backs of the poor and cry "personal responsibility".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The first... Posted by: fraterm
god socks buckley: now you'll stay plastered
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Mar 5, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
pfft! you are already fogotten by the last and never to be remembered by the present generation.

so long, buckley! now you stand for the only part of a conservative movement i ascribe to: the conservation of matter. ashes to ashes, ya bastard!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» shiver me timbers Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
The long war
Posted by: solrev on Mar 5, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember back in the sixties I started watching William “billy boy” Buckley. We were street people and we had just waged the “us against them” war, and were winning. We won the civil rights battle and were well into the anti war battle. I thought, I might learn something from the best intellectual of the time and be able to upgrade my rhetoric. Unfortunately, I could not understand a word he said. However, his guests really didn’t understand him either. They would debate but often seem to be talking about two different issues. I am not sure, but I do not think Buckley really said anything that was not obnoxious, and I was already good at that. He reminded me of some of my tarot card reading friends, say something vague and let the fools figure it out. The only thing I remember today, is the way he had of talking through his nose. The only person who does it as well today is Ann the Man. He made a good enemy none the less, man talk about the long war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The long war Posted by: mberg
Russell Kirk was the true father of conservatism in the 20th century
Posted by: negentropy on Mar 5, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to understand American conservatism in the 20th century read "The Roots of American Order" by Russell Kirk.

Buckley was entertaining and well read but his analytical capacity was limited. He could debate well due to his education but his point of view was very narrow. This was especially true in regards to the interaction between social and technological forces. But that "blind spot" is epidemic among the aristocracy. Technology is change, which is the last thing the aristocrats want to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lovely Buckley Quote/ 1969 Chomsky v Buckley debate on VietNam
Posted by: fanny666 on Mar 5, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a 1969 debate between Buckley and Chomsky on VietNam:

1969 debate between Buckley and Chomsky

Longer clip from the "advanced race" quote, from "Why The South Must Win" written in the National Review in 1957:

"The central question that emerges 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. 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 correctThe great majority 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.Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the 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."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buckley
Posted by: catmandoo on Mar 5, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
made himself into a charicature of himself. Weirdest thing I ever witnessed. He proved conclusively that one can spout all the multi-syllabic words in Webster, but it doesn't mean what one has to say is any more than dross--he was lipstick on the pig of privilege.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buckley Posted by: mitchc
Firing Line
Posted by: CatDad on Mar 5, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Buckley's show "The Firing Line" represented the Right Wing's failed attempt to win the hearts and minds of the masses through facts and genuinely polite political discourse (a thing of the past in American political dialog). The Right cannot win based upon the facts...It takes smear, fear and resentment to win...Richard Nixon understood that...

I miss any attempt from the Right Wing to at least engage in civil, fact-based political dialog...and for that reason Bill Buckley Jr. will be missed...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George
Posted by: Moore Hognutz on Mar 5, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George


Who played with a Dangerous Toy, and suffered a Catastrophe of considerable Dimensions

When George's Grandmamma was told
That George had been as good as gold,
She promised in the afternoon
To buy him an Immense BALLOON.
And so she did; but when it came,
It got into the candle flame,
And being of a dangerous sort
Exploded with a loud report!
The lights went out! The windows broke!
The room was filled with reeking smoke.
And in the darkness shrieks and yells
Were mingled with electric bells,
And falling masonry and groans,
And crunching, as of broken bones,
And dreadful shrieks, when, worst of all,
The house itself began to fall!
It tottered, shuddering to and fro,
Then crashed into the street below-
Which happened to be Savile Row.

When help arrived, among the dead
Were Cousin Mary, Little Fred,
The Footmen (both of them), the Groom,
The man that cleaned the Billiard-Room,
The Chaplain, and the Still-Room Maid.
And I am dreadfully afraid
That Monsieur Champignon, the Chef,
Will now be permanently deaf-
And both his aides are much the same;
While George, who was in part to blame,
Received, you will regret to hear,
A nasty lump behind the ear.

Moral:
The moral is that little boys
Should not be given dangerous toys.

Hilaire Belloc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buckely's son and suicide?
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 5, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi,
Me stupid, can't remember. But, I recall a story about Buckley's son committing suicide in a heroin related tragedy. Is my memory faulty or is there a story out there?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» faulty memory Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: faulty memory Posted by: Ghoulman
Above the rest
Posted by: carbon-based on Mar 5, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley - one of the great political minds of the century..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» brilliant but flawed Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» I understand now! Posted by: bornxeyed
» true Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» No NO Posted by: bornxeyed
» doh! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
the surreality of it
Posted by: MobileSucks on Mar 5, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That second page started getting silly, what with the stuff about "negros" and about ladies staying barefoot and "assuming the position" etc. But the thing is they really have been against all progress!

Every goddamn step of the way so-called "conservatives" are truly doing their damndest to stop just about every effort to make the world a better place. It is almost too much to believe. I mean, part of me reads an article like this and feels like, "yea, yea, I'm with ya, but this is kind of biased. I mean your a liberal and of coarse you see it like that" or whatever. But then I think, but wait a second -- this stuff isn't being made up! It's true. William Buckley said those things and those were the positions of conservatives. Amazing. Sadly, Buckley seems the best example of a person receiving the best education money can buy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» reality of it Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: reality of it Posted by: MobileSucks
A minor caveat
Posted by: schubert on Mar 5, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this rather well expressed article refers to Buckley's appreciation of classical music. As a classical musician I must point out that, like so many conservatives, his love of our music apparently had everything to do with status consciousness and little if anything to do with the music. In a posthumous appreciation/hagiography that appeared in the NY Times, either Kristol or Brooks, I forget which one, remembered a recording Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto ("Bill's favorite!") playing in the background while they were coming to some decision. Beethoven is not Mantovani! You do not use it for background music if you truly love and understand it. No wonder the doofus couldn't recognize the Beatles' genius.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A minor caveat Posted by: mitchc
Candidate for U.S. Congress, CA 1st District
Posted by: mitchc on Mar 5, 2008 2:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley was a rich kid in every sense of the term, and, judging by his life's work and extensive writing, his loyalty to his class was never diverted for an instant's reflection on the common lot of humankind.

His international education--kindergarten in Paris for openers--came home eventually to Yale, to the Skull and Bones society and to prominence as a leading campus conservative, whose trademark was his large and precious vocabulary. He flashed it in a see-what-I've-got way, as an exhibitionist flashes his privates.

After college he worked as a CIA spy in Mexico under E. Howard Hunt (who later earned notoriety and a prison sentence for his leadership in the Nixon Administration's bungled Watergate burglary). In 1951, after his brief stint at espionage, Buckley published "God and Man at Yale," which denounced the university for, he said, forcing liberal ideology on its students.

The considerable attention this essay attracted paralleled the ascendancy in the U.S. Senate of Joseph McCarthy, who preceded the current president and vice-president among America's Most Despicable Public men. McCarthy's unsupported denunciations of people he claimed were Communist agents destroyed the careers of some of the country's ablest writers and thinkers. A chronic and unembarrassable liar, drunk and bully, he was a man much to Buckley's taste. The aristocrat expressed his admiration for the senator, mediocre in all respects except savagery, in a book he co-wrote called "McCarthy and His Enemies," which defended the orchestrator of that period of Terror and applauded him for patriotism.

This was followed by energetic work in the service of militant conservatism. Communism was to be confronted with an overpowering nuclear arsenal, any movements toward social welfare were to be stifled, and the lower orders (from his standpoint, that included just about all of us) were to be kept low.

These are among countless milestones in his busy life. He was a constant champion of those who ruled over lesser people, untainted by compassion. His Catholicism notwithstanding, he made respectable the withering contempt for decency that thrives today. His charm and graciousness, attested to by many who knew him personally, offer a rich subject for moral and psychological study. For many of us who knew him solely by his public acts and his words, he was cunning and treacherous, one of the Twentieth Century's most eloquent apologists for evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A very smart man?
Posted by: nusuch on Mar 5, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill wasn't smart, he just pretended to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathology with a big vocabulary
Posted by: gnaw_bone on Mar 5, 2008 3:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley was nothing more than a mean-spirited carbon-based biped who made people feel good about their baser instincts. Good riddance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buckley was wrong about nearly everything...
Posted by: kiel on Mar 5, 2008 7:05 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...just like Bill Kristol. Amazing how these self-satisfied twerps just keep spewing nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Micka
Posted by: Micka on Mar 5, 2008 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley's death was informally attributed to emphysema (by one of his servants), a consequence of his extensive cigarette and cigar habit, not to mention his association with other smokers, including I believe, his wife. He wrote a column on his disease which still reveals very little awareness nor constructive policy solution.

This is not surprising of course, since as the primo conservative he and his movement did all they could to protect the tobacco industry's right to kill its customers without regulation, taxation, and or redress via the courts, ie. lawsuits by victim/plaintiffs.

Perhaps St Bill's last years were fittingly miserable due to his ignorance and addictions, and this allowed him finally to join the suffering masses he and his ilk did so much to persecute, exploit and neglect.

Read his lame awakening entitled "Is There a Solution" published May 5, 2006 in the National Review (Google it!).

Micka

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget he defended Joe McCarthy
Posted by: leemiller38 on Mar 5, 2008 8:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley wrote a book "McCArthy and His Enemies", where he defended the Wisconsin Senator when he was undefendable by most people's standards. But not William F.'s.
He was wrong again as he was in so many cases. A great mind, but totally misguided as to the realities of average folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elite scum
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 5, 2008 10:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buckley was an insufferable arrogant bastard and his carefully researched ten-dollar words which he sprayed onto his guests, only confirmed it.

The ultimate poseur, he even convinced himself of his greatness and could not extricate himself from the role. He relished his snobbery but secretly longed to be one of the boys, to the point that he seldom knew where to stand on any issue.
His early exposure to a proper French school appropriately equipped him with considerable hauteur and very little else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lite scum Posted by: bvconway
Greatest Mind of the Century?
Posted by: M. Dery on Mar 7, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too true. Of the 12th century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mikeymog
Posted by: hopeless on Mar 7, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill was the ultimate snob. As a working journalist, we sometimes covered the same events and reading his accounts afterward I wondered if he was the same guy imprisoned with me behind police barricades, cursing the cops and talking about sailing. In covering his college appearances I was always struck by what a lightweight he really was, he brought out his straw men and demolished them with his vocabulary and always left immensely satisfied with his own cleverness.
He will not be missed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good start in anti eulogy
Posted by: whealeydj on Mar 7, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a subscriber to newsweek it was interesting to see Katrina Vandeheuvel of The Nation in which she got in several plugs for The Nation in her eulogy to to the National Review. sSe neglected however to bring up Buckley's pro segregation writings. Several people in mainstrem press mentioned Buckley's driving John Bircher and anti semites out of the conservative movement, but neglected the pro segregation and pro Franco writings. It is time to go to archives of National Review to get the the full truth on Buckley.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the future?
Posted by: wleming on Mar 7, 2008 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should future generations survive, they can look back at a time when Buckley was thought a thinker, Donald Trump an icon, and Bush a president. Not just lamentable: dammnable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a great essay!
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Mar 7, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Michael Green: I love this essay (post). Please post more here. What a great post - I'm sending it to all my friends!!

Best,

racetoinfinity (Don H - Houston)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buckley turned away at Pearly Gates
Posted by: itzamirakul on Mar 7, 2008 7:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the pompous, arrogant William Buckley was refused entry into Heaven, he called out, "Why me, Lord?"

To which God answered in a booming voice, "Cause everytime I look at you, you just piss me off!"

Later that day as Buckley was escorted through Hell, he was given his choice of activities in which he would spend eternity. He could shovel hot burning coals, or be beaten with chains, but then he entered an area where the sinners stood neck deep in sh!t daintily drinking from china cups.

"Aha!" claimed Buckley. "This is the activity that I choose for one can certainly get used to the smell after awhile".

As he slid into the pool of fetid matter and reached for a cup, a voice came over the loudspeaker, "COFFEE BREAK IS OVER. START EATING!"

And that explains just how I feel about the filthy old racist.

Thanks to the author of this article for putting my feelings into words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buckley and Gore Vidal...
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Mar 8, 2008 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least had the sense of humor to parody themselves and each other in popular films. That indicates a sense of humor...possibly the only sense William F. Buckley ever possessed. Bye-bye, you old troglydite. RIH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]