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.

Comments

[anotherbozo]

I would like to have heard Buckley debate Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Soreano, Barbara Ehrenreich, or anyone else who wouldn't have been content to trade quips or share collegiate wit. Had any one of them driven Buckley to deal with his fundamental assumptions about the inequities of the world and governments' role in perpetuating them, I would have been rapt.

Alas, I never heard such encounters, now never will. No conservative on the current scene, at least any of whom I'm aware, is worth the bother.

[starboymikey]

I would like to have heard Buckley debate Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Soreano, Barbara Ehrenreich, or anyone else who wouldn't have been content to trade quips or share collegiate wit.
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­____

Personally, I much rather have seen him have a crack at Rush Limbaugh.

[neoconjob]

actually, he did debate Chomsky, albeit a long time ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

[3rdCitizen]

HuffPost's Pick

Like a lot of people of my generation who disagreed with him on most social & political issues, I always had mixed feelings about William F. Buckley. On Firing Line in the 60s & 70s, he was usually very entertaining to listen to, but he would sometimes use his pompous wordplay to obscure the weakness of some of his arguments. Unlike the cartoonish pundits who predominate today, he often displayed genuine respect and affection toward those of his left-leaning opponents whose intellects he admired, but he would sometimes shamelessly soft-pedal his interrogations of conservatives who espoused positions he supported even they did so with inane reasoning and bigoted exaggerations (I particularly recall a cringe-inducing interview with Phyllis Schlafly in the late 70s). And even when I was still an atheist, I respected his sincere religious faith which he supported with an impressive intellectual defense. However, I was never comfortable with how he seemed to conflate his religious convictions with his political ones (as if conservatism, too, were for him the "revealed word of God").

But putting aside philosophical differences, in some ways I felt that William F. Buckley and I were kindred spirits. When he interviewed Jorge Luis Borges, my favorite writer at the time, I saw him display genuine, humble awe in the face of such unaffected genius. He was a passionate aficionado, as am I, of the music of J.S. Bach. And he once wrote a column in which he expressed his lifelong love of peanut butter. When I read that, a virtual, anonymous friendship was cemented bewteen him and me.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

It was clear Buckley hated emotion. That was why he cringed in the Schlafly interview. Just because someone is emotional doesn't mean he/she is wrong anymore than being under control means you're right. Buckley was all prep-school cool and he was wrong. Schlafly was Veruca Salt spoiled rich girl temper-tantrum throwing and she was just as wrong.

[Cunningham]

HuffPost's Pick

Good pick, HuffPo. Nice job, 3rdCitizen!

And who will ever forget Frank Gorshin's impersonation of Buckley? LOL as I think of it.

[3rdCitizen]

Robin Williams also does a good one.

[bookerone]

Personally I miss the days when I could turn on TV and watch a legitimate debate between liberals and conservatives. There was a time when real ideas were discussed. Bill Buckley vs. Gore Vidal, it was such a joy, real words, real ideas, real men, defending their positions not with personal attacks or phony issues, but real ideas.

[teedee]

Yes, the good old days when some conservatives still had integrity and the intellect to support their views, however strongly one might disagree.

The only time I ever saw Buckley outdone was years ago when Archbishop Desmond Tutu was on his program. Wow -- Bishop Tutu nailed Buckley at every turn. It was astoundingly satisfying and beautiful! If only that episode could be re-aired or available for viewing.

Tobi Dragert
Los Angeles

[SamThornton]

Mr. Buckley's greatest personal inspiration was the possibility of forging a career by promoting the mistaken ideas of others.

[LutherBrixton]

Let the revisionism begin!

Yes, Buckley was a class act all the way! Enormously respectable! The New York Times said today that he "showed little appetite for the shrillness that plagues far too much of today’s political discourse.­"

I guess when he called Gore Vidal a "queer" on live TV in 1968 and said he would sock him in his "goddamn face", that was refined discourse. And the sophistication he showed in being a proponent of white supremacy during the civil rights struggle showed us all the high road of conservatism. He in no way is responsible for the sewer-dwelling scum of today's conservative movement. The Ann Coulter's, Rush Limbaugh's, and George W. Bush's. It's really a mystery that the movement he pioneered is now synonomous with slimy, ethically-bankrupt scum.

[Smartey]

Refined discourse? No.

Funny as hell? Yes.

Deserved by Vidal? Absolutely!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

When Buckley called Gore Vidal a queer and said he'd sock him in the face it was the finest moment in Buckeley's public life. It showed that he was, indeed, a human being and not just some walking thesaurus.

I couldn't stand Buckley. That dispicable prep-school refined patrician air about him, the use of $3 words to make himself and his slimy ideas look intellectual. Take away Buckley's dictionary and thesaurus and he is no different from the Imperial Wizard of the KKK.

[dartagnan]

That was a rare aberration; Buckley was virtually almost always civil. You also omit the fact that Vidal had called Buckley a "crypto pro-Nazi."

[BobSF94117]

It was rare for Buckley to face a worthy opponent. That he resorted to slurs and threats of violence is telling. At least "crypto pro-Nazi" is an assessment of one's politics.

This belief that Buckley was always genial is absurd. He sometimes dissected opponents who weren't skilled enough in debate. He could be a real bully sometimes.

[Kyuzo]

The fact that he may have been a nice, warm person doesn't negate the destructive policies and agenda he helped foist on the American people.

And I know I can't be the only one here who thinks, "I will vote against you with the deepest affection" comes off about as arrogant as possible..­.

[research]

Yes, Buckley could be charming and witty, but

Buckley promoted the corporatist fascist conservative agenda.

Buckley promoted, hell rescued, the 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.

Wow, Buckley's grammar was good. wonderful. Stephanopoulos tore him a new one.

[Smartey]

Buckley, a brilliant man, recognized a half-century ago what this psychiatrist now knows, as detailed in this article:

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy­."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

[Kyuzo]

Thanks, Dr. Rossiter. That was insightful. Hope you sell lots of copies of your book on NewsMax.

[HLMerkin]

Look for it wherever remaindered books are sold. Right next to Michael Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

[ibsteve2u]

Do you know, I do believe that various other far right-types have turned to psychiatry to justify the repression of people they didn't agree with...let me think:

Oh, yes. Hitler did it. And, come to think of it - that is PRECISELY what Russia replaced the "gulags" with - incarceration on psychiatric grounds accompanied by intensive behavior modification through the use of psychoactive drugs.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/352/29/

[research]

Yeah, sure, I believe some Republican Noise Machine shill.

Let's consider sanity:

Insane: "Bankrupt the USA till you can drowned it in a bathtub".

Unfettered capitalism.

Let the poor get sick and start plagues.

disregard the "damn piece of paper" the constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the law, then claim Freedom is on the march.

Lie to trick us into invading Iraq for Oil and Empire and to bring about the Rapture Bush Believe in. Don't send enough troops. Create the worlds largest mercenary army loyal to a religious fanatics named Prince.

etc...

Sane: Balancing the budget as Bill CLinton did.

Diplomacy.

Defending what Makes American Great: The bill of right, the constitution, and the declaration of independence.

Taking care of people, so they don't get sick and are more productive. Understanding that the society that allowed the wealthy to thrive, has every right to demand a portion of that wealth.

Others will tell you about all the other studies that show conservatives to be inflexibly and antisocial, while liberals a more creative and better able to adjust to changes.

[Smartey]

Wow, your post proves the good doctor's point! Thanks!

[joekonn]

Rossiter should, if he has no ax to grind, write a book about the conservative mind. The problem with such arrogant folks is that they fail to recognize that the frame of reference they choose, mental illness, will work its magic on anyone assessed. If you look for pathology you will always find it.

As Fritz Perls, among others, suggested, we live in a neurotic society. This means that the very structure of the society is inefficient at meeting the needs of its members. Should it surprise us that a large portion of the society (liberals) are neurotic? What would be a much greater surprise, and very, very unlikely would be to find that conservatives are healthy. Rejecting the value of government to support the rights of individuals, constant fear about the 'boogyman' next door, religious belief in free markets, disregard for well supported scientific data, it does not take long to get the picture.

The fact that Dr. Rossiter has no known activist leanings does not mean he is unbiased. Clearly, his choice of subject matter suggests quite the opposite. When his book on conservative madness comes out, I may recant. However, for now, I will chalk this up to 'scientism', the religious belief that science can explain everything, and that scientists (particularly social scientists) are capable of being objective.

Cherry picking is a frequent problem, lets pick the science which agrees with our personal opinion. The Bush administration's position on global warming is an example that comes to mind quickly.

[IncredulousGeezer]

Must be something about the U. of Chicago that instills such libertarian wackeyness in otherwise rational appearing folks. The economist Friedmans also come to mind in this regard.
I spent some time there, in the Golden Age, myself, and hearing of Rossiter's theories on liberalism saddens me. Only remembrances of the joys of knowing the really far-out, most of whom were liberal, who populated the campus, and the Second City players restore a little joy.

[deminmo]

Milton Friedman was the "father" of "shock doctrine" and unfettered
Capitalism, and the philosophy is being pushed still today. For the
Republicans it means profit above all else, and to initiate the change
it uses "shock and awe", economic or war, which ever works better.
Some of the groups that follow it are CATO, Fraser Institute to name
two of hundreds. Robert Pastor who heads the department of
North American Studies American University, also is part of the
North American Prosperity Union, and a follower of Friedman
ideas. Lots of scary stuff connected with these ideas.

[CommanderWhitehead]

No one can deny that Buckley concocted a far more sophisticated assessment of why his marijuana experience was beyond reproach, than say Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" excuse.

But, I've wondered for years how Buckley managed to procure the substance in the first place. Did he sail out into "international waters" as a helicopter flew over and dropped "a nickel-bag" down onto his deck, or did he remain out on his vessel long enough to grow his own?

There is no question that he was an elegantly articulate spokesperson for his particular ideology, and a man who enjoyed airing vastly opposing viewpoints on his program with grace and wit.

The trouble is, with the exception of his opposition to the Iraq invasion and his (tepid) displeasure the Bush gang and their band of (not very conservative) right wing zealots and neocon lunies, history has proven him to have been wrong on nearly all of his deeply held beliefs.

For me personally, Buckley was an enormously entertaining, one of a kind political commentator and social critic, and I'll kind of miss him (a little).

[Cunningham]

Good post!

I, too, will miss Buckley (a little). I cut my poltical teeth watching Firing Line with my father who was a great fan of Buckley. Even as a youngster I thought Buckley's guests had better ideas than he. It made my dad a little crazy that I most often took the opposing view, but he was proud of me for standing up for myself and told me so throughout my life. I'll always be grateful to Buckley for providing a forum which brought my dad & me closer even though we disagreed on most issues. Buckley sparked debate, and that's never a bad thing.

[Anciano]

Buckley appealed to me in my Junior High Conservative stage because he made sense, especially when contrasted with the Berkeley liberals that I was growing up around. Anyone remember when he was hosting Chomsky who threatened to do something outlandish on his show? Buckley said "if you do that I'll smash your goddamned face in". Only time I ever heard him lose his cool. Here's a lovely graphic for all you Hillary supporters:
http://prorev.com/connex.htm

[YellowPanties]

You've got your facts wrong. Chomsky handed Buckley's ass to him. Chomsky outclassed Buckley and called him on many inaccuracies, which caused Buckely to rankle.

Chomsky slapped around Buckley like Mike Tyson slapping a child - no fight at all.

Watch it yourself here:

Part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08&mode=related&search=

While Buckley may have been a kindler, gentler Conservative (and even famously diverged with Bush), it's still hard to find any real affection for the son of a multimillionaire who globetrotted and enjoyed the fruits of wealth he did not create. It's not surprising that someone like Buckley would never understand what a real person who has to work for a living goes through. I'm sure he believed in the protection of the elite ruling class he came from, but that does not make him correct or his beliefs any less wrong-headed.

Further, Buckley only in retrospect appears to be someone we'd want to continue influencing public policy. At the time, he was another demagogue. This debate shows it. Every time Chomsky points out his vague statements or statistical inaccuracies, Buckley laughs it off as a "nomenclature" difference or a "digressio­n."

Chomsky is a true intellectual.

[SunSinger]

Your words about Buckley are apt. Why spoil them by using his death and this column as another excuse to point out what you think is wrong with other conservatives?

Can we have just a moment to think of the man without ramping up the usual list of ills about the current administration?

MRC

[Hume]

Not really. We all deserve the life we make for ourselves and the heat that it created. Bill was a big boy and chose to be the gadfly of the right. If he could know that his death would create even more controversy and conversation, he would be delighted. No need to get sappy just because he's dead.

[YellowPanties]

No, we can't have a moment to sit around and let the hagiography begin.

Without Buckley's opinions, there's no reason to think about or discuss him. And since his death, the revisionism has proceeded at full speed.

Mr Curry did not "spoil" his article because he continues to repudiate the failed, wrong, destructive policies that have taken full bloom under Bush, and which were tiny seedlings tended with care by Buckley.

[YellowPanties]

An example to prove your argument about "inferior intellects [who] pass readily through the academic sieve process" :

GEORGE W. BUSH.

Case closed!

[Cunningham]

I think you do Mr. Buckley a disservice. The man lived for an exchange of ideas and never shied from telling you exactly what he thought. That includes his early support for Bush's war in Iraq and the general state of conservatism in our nation. Don't you think he would have wanted his views and stances challenged upon his death along with acknowledging the accolades he was sure to receive? I do.

[Jan2009]

Amen. What too often passes for debate and discussion these days is folks who are unable to listen to others over the shrillness of their own voices.

I'd like to think an Obama/McCain race might change that somewhat for the better, but we'll have to see.

For a well-reasoned look @ Obama's candidacy and chances, check out this week's posting at http://www.theweeklymeat.com/

[wendy82551]

When I was in high school back in the 60's, our VERY liberal Civics teacher took us all to the Ford Hall Forum to hear Bill Buckley speak. He told us it was very important to listen to people with whom we disagreed, and that Buckley was one of the most intelligent and articulate conservatives around. I was mesmerized by his ability to craft an argument. Like others, I disagreed with almost every conclusion he came to, but I was in awe of his intellect and skill.

I don't know what it's going to take to get us back to civil discourse between people with different points of view, but we're a long way from that world, when people could at least agree to disagree with grace.

[ProfessorDuh]

Buckley had to love debate, because he lived his prime in an America as numinously liberal as today's America is darkly conservative and fascistic. He helped found the modern American right wing, only to see it turn rabidly stupid and bite him.