Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: William F. Buckley, Jr.
Know Your Right-Wing Speakers, Tim Fernholz, Georgetown University, June 14, 2006
June 14, 2006
By Tim Fernholz, Georgetown University
Wednesday June 14, 2006
[Editors’ Note: Though William Buckley has passed away on February 27, 2008, there is no question that his legacy will live on. Without Buckley, conservative ideals might never have taken center stage in American politics. Though we tended to disagree with him, we admit that Buckley’s style was refreshing; as Tim Fernholz put it in our original profile, Buckley was “one of the few intellectually honest conservatives” in the public sphere. In today’s era of overpaid gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, we can respect Buckley’s integrity, even if we stand for a completely different set of goals. Campus Progress has decided to keep Buckley’s biography in the present tense in recognition of his lasting impact on late twentieth-century American politics.]
William F. Buckley, Jr. is the man with the plan, the original conservative, the brain behind the Bushes. Get to know him, because you want to be him. A witty speaker and a brilliant writer, one of the few intellectually honest conservatives out there, he laid the groundwork for the modern conservative movement at a time when Lionel Trilling claimed that there were “no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.” But his attacks on the Civil Rights Movement, his bigotry-tinged and occasionally homophobic public presence, as well as his apologies for anti-Semitism and McCarthyism, demonstrated the ill-intentions of the conservatism he founded. So gather ’round, progressive youth, because it’s time to learn how a public intellectual can found a political movement and betray its promise (but not from the man himself: his assistant refused to put Campus Progress in touch with Buckley because he no longer “does those kind of interviews” — presumably the kind with questions).
Buckley was born in 1925, the scion of large oil-wealthy family in Connecticut. He was educated in England, France and the Millbrook School, and attended the University of Mexico just before he joined the military in 1944. After he was discharged, he joined the CIA for a year before entering Yale and graduating in 1950. Then he entered political society with a bang, publishing the seminal book God and Man at Yale.
Perhaps the first instance of the right’s “academic freedom” follies, Buckley’s book was an attack on his alma mater, charging that it violated both the Christian principles of its founding and contemporary American values; he argued that liberal professors forced their views on students. Though his arguments are about as valid as those of today, the book caused a stir, and soon after, with the founding of National Review in 1955 and the national syndication of his column “On the Right,” he became the national voice of conservatism. National Review was founded with the mantra that conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop” — later explained as a reference to communism’s faith in its own historical inevitability, though some might ask what sort of history-making in 1955 it was trying to stop… integration perhaps?
At the time, the conservative movement was a hodgepodge of John Birch Society paranoids, Ayn Rand’s self-obsessed objectivists, libertarians, reactionary anti-communists and others sidelined by then-mainstream New Deal politics. But Buckley’s eloquent and inoffensive support of the free market and low taxes, a small government and a strong (and anti-communist) national defense, as well as his willingness to sideline the more extreme elements of the conservative movement, allowed it to grow into the mainstream. Barry Goldwater, the original modern conservative presidential candidate, said that National Review inspired him; Ronald Reagan said the same thing.
Under Buckley’s editorship, the magazine featured, besides ideological disagreements to offend any progressive, arguments that would offend anyone who values civil rights. One editorial from the sixties: “The central question… 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…. National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct…” In other words National Review opposed civil rights legislation. Buckley later characterized that stance regretfully, saying, “I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us.” Whether this apology exonerates Buckley, and we believe it does not, it is important to recognize that conservatives used support for segregationists pull the South out of the New Deal Democratic coalition, paving the way to the landmark victories of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (who, like Buckley and National Review, was against school busing for integration) and the Republican congress in 1994.
Perhaps Buckley’s most important effort at crystallizing what it means to be a modern conservative took place during New York’s 1965 mayoral elections. Buckley ran under the auspices of the Conservative Party, against a liberal “Rockefeller Republican” and a Democrat. The campaign was half-joking (Buckley, when famously asked what he would do if he won, said he would demand a recount) but forced Buckley to develop policy positions that outlined conservatism’s response to the demands of a liberal northern city. He took 13 percent of the vote.
Part of his success was due to a timely newspaper strike, forcing most of the campaign’s media presence to be conducted on television. Buckley’s wit and aristocratic drawl made a mockery of his opponents, and he put his skill to good use as a frequent commentator and on his talk show. “Firing Line,” famous for its serious approach to intellectual issues, ran from 1966 to 1999. But Buckley’s most infamous TV moment occurred in 1968, during a debate with writer Gore Vidal. Vidal, who is gay, called the conservative a “pro-war-crypto-Nazi,” to which Buckley replied, “ Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered."The exchange led to a series of counter-essays in Esquire magazine and then a series of libel lawsuits. Buckley apologized to Vidal, but wrote that “the man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction [i.e., homosexuality], and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.” Well-known as a fervent follower of Roman Catholicism (except when it comes to the Pope’s teachings about social justice and fighting poverty), Buckley apparently buys into its interpretation of homosexuality. Today, he opposes gay marriage and supports a constitutional amendment to ban it.
The final flaw of Buckley’s is his defense of the indefensible: anti-Semitism and McCarthyism. His defense of McCarthyism is well-known — he has written both a book and a novel on the subject. On the subject of anti-Semitism, he engaged in a public argument with late New York Times editor and columnist A.M. Rosenthal. Buckley published a long essay, “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” in National Review (rebutted by Rosenthal in “In Search of Buckley”), which found that conservative politician Pat Buchanan had said “things about Jews” that were anti-Semitic, but excused it as “he iconoclastic daemon having a night out on the town.”
Much of the writing here has been on Buckley’s flaws, though there is much to admire in him; his famed bon mots, his political independence (he favors the legalization of drugs and has criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq). There is, alas, no time to go into the rest of his career — numerous novels, books and articles. Progressives should be reminded of the task and time ahead of them in their own fight for a political revolution: Before there was Newt, before Reagan, before Goldwater, there was Buckley and his little magazine. His ideas mattered, and still do — they are what we argue against (and it is more fun when we have so talented an opponent as Buckley). And, though we brand ourselves progressive, it is worth remembering “conservative” was as dirty a word in 1950 just as “liberal” is today. Buckley had the audacity to try to reverse the direction of history, and he succeeded. Where Buckley dared to tread, so must we.
Illustration: August J. Pollak
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
!
“There is hope for him yet.”
-John Kenneth Galbraith, as quoted at his memorial service by Gloria Steinem.
— Wandergirl - Jun 15, 09:55 PM - #Very well written!
— Carolyn - Jun 16, 06:02 AM - #Free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Thank you William F. Buckley
— kevin - Jun 17, 09:33 PM - #Oh, yes -defend segregation, anti-gay, and anti-semite. I thought conservatives were supposed to favor smaller government, yet they want government controlling every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave and our bedrooms? Hypocritical philistine is Mr. Buckley.
— Holly Horne - Jun 18, 06:04 PM - #Buckley’s only “brilliant” compared to the modern crop blowhard pundits – put him against any serious intellectual and he’s semi-erudite at best. Check out his 1969 debate with Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI
— Jacob - Jun 19, 05:45 PM - #It’s too bad Chomsky is batshit insane these days.
Tim, nice article, but a few points:
1. “Long” doesn’t even begin to scratch that Anti-Semitism article. 20,000 words?! That’s essentially a small book. I’ve read through the first 4,000 words of it or so, and he appears relatively nuanced. As such, while I haven’t been through the rest, I find it a bit disingenuous to pull one quote about Pat Buchanan out of context, rather than the main conclusions of his piece.
2. You’re right to note that apologies aside, the fact is that the Republican party made great political gains by opposing desegregation that they’ve held ever since. However, you understate Buckley’s contrition on this point; in a “10 Questions With William F Buckley” article in Time Magazine, I recall him referring to his earlier opposition to the Civil Rights Act as “the single greatest mistake of [his] career”.
3. From what I’ve read, and talking with a couple NR writers, Buckley has mellowed somewhat on homosexuality over the years, though I’d still consider him, like the Catholic Church, to be a bigot on the matter. It’s significant that his opposition to same-sex marriage stems from his (archaic and in this case wrong-headed) beliefs about state vs local authority rather than an explicit animus against gays.
All in all, a good write-up.
— Joe - Jun 20, 03:42 PM - #I will give Buckley points for being a proponent of Henry George, like Winston Churchill and so many others.
“Henry George said that the rent of all land ought to be public. ...I am sympathetic with that particular analysis. [on Firing Line, PBS, January 6, 1980]”
”[an interview with Brian Lamb, C-Span Book Notes, April 2-3, 2000]
CALLER: Mr. Buckley, it’s a pleasure to talk to you.
William F. Buckley, Jr.(WFB): Thank You.
CALLER: I’ve heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven’t heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I’m wondering why that is the case.
W.F.B.: It’s mostly because I’m beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I’m talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn’t encourage land speculation.
Anyway I’ve run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock’s book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax…
W.F.B.: The land belongs to those in usufruct. ”
— HG - Jun 25, 08:22 AM - #“Joe…It’s too bad Chomsky is batshit insane these days.”
Insanity is a legal definition. My guess is you are neither a lawyer or a doctor and even if you were, probably not considered an expert in either field. Perhaps you are the one who is “bat shit insane”. I bet you couldn’t even get into MIT.
— HG - Jun 25, 08:25 AM - #Chomsky Batshit insane? You are brainwashed. He’s also a “Jewish anti-semite” according to the right. You really have to stop listening to the drivel that drools from the right, the party of oxymoron. The new slogan is:
Individualists unite!
“Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, often considered to be the most significant contribution to the field of theoretical linguistics in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the so-called Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.
Outside of academia, Chomsky is far more widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW). He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of the United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall.”
— Nim Chimpsky - Jun 25, 11:02 AM - #Tim, this is pretty pathetic even for a hatchet job. Equating integration via busing to racist segregationism is ignorant. Busing is perhaps a perfect example of liberalism: good intentions with disasterous consequences. Would you care to provide some information about the successes of busing?
Also, do you really think Buckley is “the brain behind the Bushes” or do you just like alliteration?
Lastly, Buckley doesn’t speak on college campuses, so why is he on this page?
— Jane - Jul 10, 01:44 PM - #As far as Chomsky’s insanity, I’m speaking from personal experience – I tried to get through to the man for about 15 minutes on the topic of Hugo Chavez’s rule in Venezuela. What was stunning was not that he disagreed with me, but the complete absence of basic logic in his thinking process. His contributions to the field of logistics are substantial, but the best I can say of him on that score is that he’s an idiot savant.
As for whether or not I could get into MIT – without too much horn-tooting, while I didn’t apply to MIT (I got into my first-choice school early decision and thus didn’t have to apply anywhere else), by any quantifiable measure I was very well qualified to attend the school.
Your kneejerk snobbery is adorable, though.
— Joe - Jul 22, 04:17 PM - #Did I say logistics? That’d be “linguistics”. Note to self: Get more sleep. :P
— Joe - Jul 22, 04:18 PM - #buckley has been pulling his audience into the wrong direction.
An evangelical christian america is hazardous to the health of the americans and the rest of the planet.
unsiphisticatedly christian is very mccarthyish.
may i post a link:
http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2002/01/09/09myview.htm
happy enlightenment and 2007!
— BP - Dec 29, 11:26 AM - #“ Well-known as a fervent follower of Roman Catholicism (except when it comes to the Pope’s teachings about social justice and fighting poverty)”
Evidence? Statements like this would be the problem with this site (and punditry in general). Inflammatory (or any) statements must be backed up with examples and sources. Wikipedia does a better job at referencing than this. Perhaps that sort of community help would make this a better site.
A note about Noam, from someone who used him (as in communication with him) for his thesis — he’s not batshit-crazy but he’s also not doing a lot at MIT these days. Mark Baker (his protoge) is doing most of the Linguistics work. Chomsky spends most of his time on political/economic issues. I would say that Joe’s experience was not of a crazy man but one who is too set in his ways. People on all sides of the spectrum should endeavor to listen more. Just because Chomsky is brilliant doesn’t mean he’s always right. Changing one’s position is an area where Bill Buckley does at least as well (if not better) than the most progressive progressive.
— Michael - Jan 19, 12:36 PM - #I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the conseervative position on poverty and social “justice”. Conservatives are not opposed to helping the poor; they just believe that the government is not a charity organization. And government-run anti-poverty programs have hurt more than they’ve helped, because they create a cycle of dependency and take away the stigma of, for example, illegitimate births. Crime, unemployment, out-of-wedlock births, drug addiction, and the incidence of single-parent households have all increased among blacks, the most common welfare recipients, since the enaction of the first comprehensive welfare programs during the so-called “War on Poverty”.
— Will Jolly - Feb 21, 05:54 PM - #And by the way, Joe McCarthy was right about there being Communist spies in the government. Read up on the declassification of Project Verona.
— Will Jolly - Feb 21, 05:55 PM - #Sen. McCarthy claimed to have a list of spies at the State Department; his number kept changing. In fact, he had no such list. Also, no-one accused of being a Communist spy by McCarthy ever appeared on the list of spies from the Verona Papers. Not one person named as a Soviet spy by McCarthy was convicted of spying. McCarthy was making stuff up
he was right about there being spies, he just had no clue who they were, so he just used a shotgun approach to scare the soviet agents, and trample innocent people in the process.
— moops - Feb 27, 08:23 PM - #Buckley made only two mistakes in his life. The first was founding the current conservative movement. The second was letting the riff-raff in.
— Sam Thornton - Feb 28, 11:05 AM - #“It’s too bad Chomsky is batshit insane these days.”
They’ve been saying that since at least 1970.
I notice from #11 that you’re a patronising ass, too. It’s a nice anecdote, but have you a transcript or recording to back it up?
Here’s another view of Buckley:
— me - Feb 29, 11:07 AM - #dennisperrin.blogspo…
he’s dead, so not likely to speak at too many campuses. May want to update.
— drew3000 - Mar 14, 07:42 PM - #