Bill Buckley
Bill Buckley died Wednesday at 82 at his home in Connecticut. He was the most influential public intellectual of his generation in this country, maybe the world.
More than anyone, even Goldwater or Reagan, he was the father of modern conservatism, which was as much an intellectual as a political movement from 1955, when he founded the National Review, to 2000 when, under Bush and DeLay, the movement foundered in a sea of law breaking, war mongering and greed.
I got to know Buckley a little in the 1990s, debating him on his show, Firing Line. The show, the longest running with a single host in TV history, was civil, substantive and high minded; in short, the opposite of everything political talk shows have since become.
Off camera he was witty and articulate and also gracious and warm. A couple of years after the show went off the air I was running for Governor of Connecticut and bumped into him. He put his hand gently on my arm and said, softly, "I will vote against you with the deepest affection."
Buckley evolved over time from one who insisted the constitution forbade us from ending segregation, to one who supported civil rights laws and a national holiday for Martin Luther King.
But the underlying tenets of his thought, grounded in his Roman Catholicism and equally fervent beliefs in free republics and free markets, remained consistent.
It didn't always keep him close to the leaders of his party or of the movement he had led. On the National Review website, Buckley identified himself as a "libertarian conservative," a designation that separated him, ever so slightly, from the excesses of his crowd.
He saw Viet Nam as a mistake and parted company with Bush over Iraq. He sailed to international waters to try marijuana before calling for legalization. His lovely book Nearer My God reveals a real spirituality, as opposed to the hateful, hypocritical swill peddled as religion by his party. Sam Tanenhaus, author of a much anticipated biography, says Buckley couldn't bear Ann Coulter.
I first met Buckley a decade before our Firing Line encounters at a reception for an ailing Mike Harrington, socialist and author of 'The Other America.' Harrington truly regarded Buckley as a friend. So did John Kenneth Galbraith. So did most liberals Buckley knew.
Buckley loved debate. Unlike today's cowardly conservatives, he debated the best minds he could entice on to a stage. He never used his opponents as props or punch lines for fixed fights. He liked them. Loving his own ideas, not just hating theirs, left room for liking them.
What a long sad fall from Bill Buckley to Bill O' Reilly. I'm not part of the crowd that says if we can just get along everything will be alright. But I am part of the crowd that thinks learning to get along better will help.
To get out of Iraq or into a new health care system will require some hard fighting, but also some hard thinking and most of all reasoned arguments to persuade, if not the opposition, certainly the public.
If you want to see how far we are from having that kind of debate, watch an old episode of Firing Line and then watch a random hour of live cable television. That's how far.
Bill Buckley raised an army against a liberal establishment. Like Barry Goldwater, he often dissented in later years from a conservative establishment he helped create.
The political debate Buckley launched is over, many of its old categories defunct. To shape a new debate we'll need at least a few people with the intellect, humanity, civility and great good humor of Bill Buckley. I hope we find them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I used to watch Firing Line. I'll agree that the quality of political discussion on television was, for the most part, better than today, however I also think that Buckley used that genteel facade to mask the narrow-minded arrogance & hate of his ideology.
The show was called, after all, "Firing Line," progenitor of "Crossfire," and all such programs that value conflict over consensus.
As far as your assertion that, "He never used his opponents as props or punch lines for fixed fights," tell that to Gore Vidal.
I will never praise a person who used their skills to promote and evil agenda.
Buckley promoted authoritarian corporatist conservative agenda.
The conservative agenda is and always has been the agenda of wannabe robber barons and despot kings, at least as far back a Hooverville.
The glorious fruit of that conservative agenda was BushCo when he was popular. BushCo is Corporatist fascist.
As another poster pointed out, Buckley provided a forum which also introduced us to a lot of champions for the left. We heard their ideas and climbed on board; for that I can thank him from the bottom of my heart.
I respectfully disagree, all he did was shoot them down. Remember his purpose was the disaster we have now. there we plenty of other forums for liberals where they didn't get shredded.
William Buckley was above all an intellectual. Yes, he was an elitist, but from the late 60's on, I never found him to be a bigot. Infuriating, yes. But a bigot, no.
What he did, which today's neo-con talking heads cannot seem to do, was to not shy away from straightforward debate. Why should he have? He was amazingly good at it, and had one of the quickest minds and wits I have ever witnessed. Asshats like Rush Limbaugh will not ever engage in an open debate because they are afraid of being revealed as ignorant fools. William Buckley had no such fear, and believe me he did lose his share of debates to some brilliant liberal thinkers. This rarely riled him. He knew when he'd been beaten and generally took his defeat with a smile and a handshake.
When Joe Frazier passed away, Muhammed Ali said of his arch foe: "Joe Frazier always brought out the best in me as a fighter." A touching and fitting tribute to man who three times tried to beat the crap out of him. I think that if John Kenneth Galbraith and Michael Harrington were around today, they might say something very similar about William F. Buckley. He always seemed to bring out the best in his opponents.
I agree. He possessed a profound wit that, if outdone, would submit to higher truth.
Sadly for us all, that enormous intellect ALWAYS started out on the wrong side of EVERY argument.
Let us not forget this is the man who said we should tattoo AIDs sufferers in EXACTLY the same way (and for the same reasons) the Jews in 1930's Germany were so branded.
Joe Frazier is very much alive. Other than that, good post.
The idea that everything can be debated is dangerous. There are some things that should be a given and I think our Declaration of Independence listed those off quite nicely.
Hey, I don't agree with most of what Bill Buckley stood for either. But those of you acting like he's just your typical neo-con need to learn a thing or two. Me? I'd probably be considered an ultra-liberal. Yet I still think Buckley was FAR more courageous than 99% of conservatives. In some ways, he was even better than many liberals. The most important thing was his opposition to the "war on drugs". And it wasn't just a "logical", "cost/benefit analysis" type of oppostion. No, he was against the "war on drugs" because it is IMMORAL & EVIL. He used those words many times.
If anyone's interested, check out his columns regarding Peter McWilliams. He was a writer who had AIDS, and was doing ok as long as he was able to take not only his meds, but also smoke marijuana. He was jailed for growing mj, and when released, ordered not to smoke. He was tested constantly. He obeyed the order, his health rapidly deteriorated, and he died a year later. Buckley wrote columns basically calling the judge (and anyone who supports the "war on drugs") murderers.
http://p19
http://www
Dr. Frankenstein was a brilliant man, too. But Dr. F created a monster and so did William Buckley. He deserves to praise whatsoever.
Make that "he deserves no praise"
I used to watch Firing Line every week, and while I didn't always agree with Buckley (in fact, I rarely ever did), he often got me thinking. He had a keen intellect, a sharp wit, and a rare eloquence.
Willaim F. Buckley supported the invasion of Iraq but later, after careful review, he concluded the invasion and occupation were a cotinuing disaster for the US.
I was a fan of Buckley, and of Giovanni Costigan of the University of Washington. Their famous debate during the Vietnam era was a great victory for Dr. Costigan. Dr. Costigan died a number of years ago, and thus we cannot enjoy the acerbic reviews he would otherwise have provided us regarding the Iraq fiasco.
Buckley was a great gentleman and we will miss him.
Once past the preening, the faux English accent and the solipsism, at times I could enjoy his flashy vocabulary and his wit. And it's true; there was no screaming on Firing Line.
But I was no fan of his values. He was an elitist and a social Darwinist. His hidebound constituency comprised an ugly lot: the rich, white, entitled, corporate, Republican heterosexual males who own and run the country. Among his less than admiral advocacies were his initial opposition to civil rights for black Americans and the tatooing of AIDS victims.
Today's GOP, minus the goober wing, but including the authoritarianism and the war mongering, is his legacy. I suspect that at the end he was embarrassed by it.
Make that: admirable advocacies
HuffPost's Pick
It is a sad time for the TRUE conservati
I first met him over 20 years ago when we were both involved with the Republican "Inner Circle" organization and was amazed by how open and friendly he was to someone so many years his junior who had not garnered great fame in politics or literature.
Other than a common desire for a smaller, more open and more responsive government, we soon found that we had a common love... sailing. We spent many hours telling each other sailing stories and tales of our adventures on the water.
Bill Buckley had little use for the current crop of "neo-conse
I asked him once what he perceived the difference to be between the neo-cons and the "TRUE conservatives", and he replied in his perfectly dramatic cadence... "My dear boy... TRUE conservati
Are you speaking of the same William Buckley I remember? The one I remember was a racist, egomaniacal blowhard with an impressive vocabulary and a distinctive style that camouflaged his contempt for any idea or thought that was remotely liberal.
One really important thing to remember, though: Unlikely nearly all other conservatives (and even most liberals) he was absolutely opposed to the evil (his words) "war on drugs".
Thank you, Petesdaddy: that's the Bill B*ckley I remember, too.
If Bill Buckley had such little use for the current crop of conservatives, he sure wasn't very vocal about it.
I guess that wouldn't be civil, huh?
Maybe we can't debate in a logical unbiased way, because the political parties are
never going to admit there might be a better way. When I watch the MSM "news" programs
for very long, I get mad at the bias. I wonder, how can someone not see the issues
clearly? The problems are huge, the abuses have long range effects. But there is
so much political rhetoric that it fogs the issues. If someone presents a good
arguement for their way of thinking, I listen. I may even change my mind. But even
if I don't, I try very hard not to attack the person, just the idea. Guess we have lost
the capacity to "agree to disagree".
I'm as liberal as they come and I respected Bill Buckley.
What surprised/es me the most, however, is that there were few notable "liberal" commentators or shows during Buckley's tenure. They are mostly moderate to very conservative Bill Moyers is the only single prominent liberal commentator of note on TV that i can recall.
Maybe someone here can correct me if I'm wrong.
Even though most Americans are liberals, the advertising-driven media will always be conservative, ultra-conservative or right-wing. People on the right are believers, and so make better consumers. People on the left are naturally skeptical of advertising. What would advertisers think about giving their money to media that might run a white paper that could expose and/or embarass them?
For all the many (19%?) "evolutionary challenged" members of the Homo Sapien subspecies that still cling to their undying faith in this administration of hoodlums, I suggest you refer back to comments made by JSquercia .
After you read them (and you can move your lips if it is at all helpful) find another country to infest with your poisoned-presence.
We are through with all of you.
Bill, I agree with you – Mr. Buckley pushes hard and he makes you uncomfortable but still you admire his discourse – you wish he is on your side. On the other hand, he reminds you that not all republicans are ruthless and mindless – he had values and morality, and you agree to disagree with him which is fine for both parties.
You are right when you said,” What a long sad fall from Bill Buckley to Bill O' Reilly” and I hope, one day, we will wakeup from this nightmares.
Rest in peace Mr. Buckley, you will be remembered.
Fancy words and a prep-school accent don't make me admire a person's discourse. I never wished Buckley was on my side. The radical right-wingers can have him with my blessings.
Yeah, he had morality and values, just the wrong morality and values. His morality centered around property rights.
I was watching one of William F. Buckley's last interviews on TV last night. Buckley was saying how we need more religion in government. Charlie Rose then said that many people believe that the Iraq invasion was because of oil and they ask how can that be "Christian". Buckley then replied that the roots of complete freedom and liberty are planted in Christianity. And to have complete freedom and liberty one must have petroleum. I have come to the conclusion that conservative thinking is completely flawed. Why? Because conservatives cannot think outside their tiny little "box" of arrogance and self-importance. The only purpose conservatives have in life is "me, me and me". And Buckley exemplified that.
Well, that's unkind. Like his ideas or not the man had class. You want mean spirited with a "me, me, me" point of view look to Sean Hannity or Bill O' Reilly. And we could use more religion in our politics. For more on this point, I recommend E.J. Dionne, Jr.'s new book, Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right.
I’m not going to miss him at all!
He was privileged elitist and a bigot who liked the sound of his own voice.
There's always one. You know?
I found WFB to be a condescending gasbag. I heard him first when I was somewhere between 11 and 13 and could tell by both his manner and his poor logical constructs that he was lying, or wasn't very bright. BIll Buckley didn't answer questions or arguments directly, whenever he was being beaten, and didn't have the common decency to say so. I won't miss WFB, not now, not ever. Saying that Bill Buckley was witty is giving him credit that he never earned. He was disingenuous, not witty.
Wholly unfair. At times, generally when the night's sparring partner was as boring as dirt, Buckley could be condescending. But his parries were always deft, often erudite. A far cry from what passes as opinion these days.
A word to my lefty friends - be nice. The man is dead. Look, I know the modern phalanx of righty opinionators have the demeanor of junk-yard dogs and are deserving of every invictive you can muster. But Buckley's show actually informed us - those frequent jousts with Ira Glasser and Michael Kinsley dug into the fine points of constitutional law and public policy and gave me a strong appreciation for leftist politics. Buckley may not be one of my heroes - but he did introduce a few.
That's pretty good for a thriteen year old to defunct a true conservative icon. Maybe the LSD gave you insights you didn't have previously while watching firing line. PLEEAASE! The man was a true conservative and stood for what it was supposed to mean back in the day. Free trade, free enterprise, limited service providing government, and defense i.e. the constitution. Lumping him in with the NeoCons of today does him no justice, and don't be hateful of someone because their views differ from yours. That is an essential problem with the country and this two party system that is in place, progress is brought to a halt based on party lines. Anyone with a decent heart and mind can regardless of views, and that's all it is views, see that Buckley was a genuine man with a good soul. I'll be the first to call the Bush NeoCons mindless robots, but Buckley evolved as a person like we all should, Conseratives would be excommunicated from the party for saying "Legalize it" Buckley was a man of character whom had a strong belief system stemming from the same beliefs as our founding fathers that was sadly distorted into tyranny by the party elitists. It's a shame superminds such as yourself are allowed to use words like "gas bag" for someone who's gas bag probably had more class than your entire being.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
