Bill Buckley's Conservatism

With the death of William F. Buckley, Jr., conservatives have been eulogizing him as a pivotal figure in the history of their movement. President Bush declared, "His legacy lives on in the ideas he championed and in the magazine he founded -- National Review."

Not exactly. As Buckley headed into his final years, he became vehemently opposed to the crusading, neoconservative stance that the younger generation at National Review adopted in championing the Iraq War. Indeed, both Buckleys, William F. and his brilliantly talented son Christopher, became acidulous critics of President Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney. The elder Buckley declared that if Bush were serving in a parliamentary democracy, he would have to resign, if not impeached. And Christopher, writing recently in the Washington Monthly, noted that he hopes the GOP loses in 2008: "Who knew, in 2000, that "compassionate conservatism" meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief?"

What lies behind this disenchantment? A book that has not received the attention it deserves, and that goes a long way toward explaining why conservatism has become shipwrecked, is Jeffrey Hart's recent history of the National Review, The Making of the American Conservative Mind. Hart, a longtime contributor to the magazine, makes two important points. The first point is that Buckley wasn't a radical conservative. He didn't believe in trying to destroy the Eastern Establishment; instead, he wanted to reform it. Hart's second, and related, point was that Buckley's devout Catholicism meant that he shunned evangelical Christianity. Buckley believed in hierarchy and tradition and authority, not in personal revelation. He was no fan of the southern evangelicals who wanted to carry on their own little crusade to renew America. Hence the distaste among older, Catholic conservatives such as Buckley and Hart for George W. Bush. According to Hart, Bush "a southern evangelical and moral authoritarian," has championed policies based on a belief that "many moral issues [are] within the sphere of government." Unconservative, in other words.

But what Buckley hated most of all was the rise of neoconservatism within the GOP. (something I also touch upon in today's Los Angeles Times). Buckley didn't believe in a Wilsonian crusade that consisted of fighting wars to create peace. Instead, he viewed such bellicosity as a recipe for another Vietnam, which is what Iraq has become. As Buckley fell out of step with the movement he had helped create, he himself was treated as though had lost it, as the British writer Johann Hari has shown, on a National Review cruise last summer. Buckley's sin was to chastise Norman Podhoretz for clinging to the delusion that the Iraq War was about weapons of mass destruction.

No, Buckley never became a (gasp!) liberal. On the contrary, I suspect that his politics are, in many ways, most closely carried on by the American Conservative, which is published by Patrick J. Buchanan--and whom Buckley essentially expelled from the mainstream conservative movement on grounds of anti-Semitism. But that's another story for a different day.

For now, it's enough to note that Buckley deserves laurels not simply for his elegant flair and tolerant temperament, but also his contempt for radical ideologues on the right--the unhinged types who are now whining that John McCain isn't conservative enough because he has the temerity to recognize that global warming is actually taking place and needs to be stopped. Or who, as the indispensable Spencer Ackerman shows in the Washington Independent, are using an organization called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies to sponsor a spinoff called Defense of Democracies to lambaste Democrats for not supporting Bush on spying wiretaps. In other words, a neoconservative organization supposedly devoted to supporting democracy is subverting it in America itself.

These are the kinds of zany ideological excesses that Buckley ultimately recoiled at. He didn't try to edit reality. He lived in it. It's something that conservatives of whatever stripe might want to think about emulating before they charge off on another misbegotten crusade.

Jacob Heilbrunn, a senior editor at the National Interest, is the author of They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons

Comments

[greensmile]

If there was ever a case to prove that the commonly phrased attribute "wit and wisdom" really jams together two entirely different things, Bill Buckley was it. He had the wit to make attractive defenses of jim crow states rights, of Joe McCarthy and a host of other things he eventually repudiated or regretted. The kindest things being said about him this past week is that he was capable of learning and overcoming a narrow, privileged upbringing. But had he the wisdom, he'd never have embraced those selfish ideologies to begin with. And what excuse did he have when a fellow Yaleman with an uncanny similarity in upbringing and career became one the greatest liberal voices of his age and showed far more courage?

[rbenjamin]

A brief obituary:

William F. Buckley was born wealthy and never forgot his origins. He devoted his life to defending the tenuous position of the over privileged and up trodden. Buckley's deliberate speaking style and use of obscure vocabulary were a rhetorical asset; by the time listeners had worked out what he said he had moved on to a fresh topic. Buckley recanted some of his more extreme positions late in life, a convenient application of his Catholic faith. He died wealthy.

[newslamp]

Excellent article. The passing of Buckley marks the end of an era--of a sane conservative view.

http://www.newslampoon.com/rest_in_peace.htm

[mamacat]

As has been said many times by many people, the Republican party has been hijacked by right wing looney tunes.
My own case is illustrative. As an older American, I have voted over the years for many Republicans. I voted for Republicans for president, senator, congressman, and governor. I will continue to vote for the candidate who I think is best qualified to represent what I believe is best for me, my family, America, and the world. Today, at least on the national level, there is not one single Republican who I would choose to vote for over any of the Democrats who are running for office.
If I had to choose between Huckabee and McCain, I think I would choose Huckabee. He seems to be enough in touch with every day people that he does not think that perpetual warfare is a viable alternative to cooperative peace.

[jojojo]

Does that include when Huckabee equates homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality, or says that the constitution should be amended to reflect ( Huckabee's version of ) God's law? Or that he doesn't believe in evolution? Or said that Romney's religion calls Jesus and the Devil brothers,and questioned whether Romney is a Christian?

He's a nice cordial, squirrel-fryin' wacko, and all the more dangerous for his deceptive geniality.

As for Buckley, too few recall that he opposed voting rights legislation for Black Americans. A clever, charming bigot is still a bigot.

[Riker]

Buckley had no one to blame but himself and his toxic "National Review" for the nightmare the U.S. is currently in. The Frankenstein monster that the Republican party has become is a natural outgrowth of the small minded, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant policies that have created the two Americas the Democrats have correctly identified. Not until the Republicans are soundly trounced in this election will they (hopefully) to do some real soul-searching and become the "kinder, gentler" party Bush 41 talked about. Don't hold your breath though; the Republicans' restrictive and anti-American platform is still their ultimate goal.

[mckirsch]

I have always heard the addage "everyone is a democrat until they grow up." It went the other way for me, and Buckley helped me understand why.

I support the Democrats now for the same reasons that Buckley railed against Bush and company. The new neocons and Christian Conservatives are NOT true conservatives - big government, intrusive policies, stupid spending.

Buckley hated Bush's politics and methods. He stood for real conservatism and he also believed in tolerance, something direly missing from Republican politics today.

20 years ago Buckley and others like him convinced me to vote for Reagan 2x.
It was the right choice then, and Reagan turned out to be a great president.
We need another leader with courage, conviction, and balls. It's been too long.

Buckley was brilliant, and a voice that America needed to hear, and still needs to hear.

Thank you Mr, Buckley for all of your honesty, reality and grace.

Rest in peace sir.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

I started out as a Democrat in 1960 (age 7) when JFK was elected. Yes, I was a Democrat until I grew up. Now I'm a democrat (small d). The more intelligent people see of what kind of world we live in, the farther they move to the LEFT, not to the right! It's only natural.

BTW, the person who said "everyone is a democrat until the grow up" (grammatically incorrect) is nothing but a partisan idiot.

[Zanti]

"The grow up"?

[mamacat]

One could also say, "If you're not a democrat when you are young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a democrat when you get old, you don't have a brain."

[Doubtom43]

Take a break from hyperventilating Jacob before you deify everyone named Buckley. Can we ever get past the automatic beatification of a celebrity's spawn? If enough people claim that Buckley was "brilliant, he must be, even if he's been as wrong as anyone on most issues. Accordingly, his son must also be brilliant if only from being close to his stuffy arrogant pater.
For someone who's being revered for his decorous deportment and civility when debating, the collective memory is apparently too short to recall his debate with Gore Vidal which resulted in Buckley famously losing it and threatening to punch Vidal in his "goddam mouth" thereby showing the world that his frosty good manners were just part of a very thin facade that was finally shattered by an expert.
Good riddance to one who was disdainful of anyone who couldn't claim to be descended from one of the original "robber barons" and his disgraceful exploitation of undeveloped countries. We need fewer Buckleys!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Extremely well said. I wish I could buy you a drink.

[TheWesternBreed]

In his NYT column today, David Brooks, whom I cordially despise, wrote about how WFB had given him his big break right out of college, with a job at National Review, and then mentored him into the conservative columnist he is today. He said that in his earlier years, 1950s-60s, Buckley had "swept the crackpots" out of mainstream American conservatism. I think that Buckley outlived his day and saw a whole new breed of crackpots not only sweep right back in, but take over "his" movement. I wonder what he thought about it all in his last few years.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Buckley was a crackpot himself and Brooks has his head so far up his butt he needs a window in his stomach to see where he's going. The whole conservative/right-wing philosophy is a moral travesty and an intellectual desert.

[BobOnThis]

I will always love him best for highlighting the ubsurdity, and illegality, of the Drug War's prohibition on marijuana!

Long before the democrats joined with the republicans in the late 70's to further demonize marijuana and create the drug czars office (fuck you very much Chip O. & Joe Biden) Buckley was illuminating the lies of our government and modern day prohibitionists!

Though he was deeply religious he rarely fell into the religious (or government) trap of non-critical thinking in favor of dogma & dictates!

When it came to our Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms he was a true patriot... he believed they were god given & like Lincoln didn't believe another man had the right to tread on them.

[richw23]

Don't care.about his sincerity In my opinion we're seeing the logical growth of conservative principles. He was smart enough and educated enough to know that in the long run conservativism is about suppressing those at the bottom - he undoubtedly thought it was justified in the interest of "freedom", but that's not feedom worth having. I didn't figure the scam out until age 60 when congress and the pundits fell all over each other enabling and justifying GWB - lying to my face in the process. If they tell obvious lies, how many more subtle ones have they slipped past me.

The mask is off, so I'll never be a conservative again unless it's to counterbalance a foolish excess of liberalism. I'm now and forever more a populist. Civiliization is about ensuring everyone can have a decent life. If you take away the law of the jungle then you have to make provisions for those who can only survive by the law of the jungle. If you run an economy that takes away jobs, you have to make provisions for those who can't find another.

[aspen]

The Republican party, in its current form, needs to be soundly defeated in 2008. Then perhaps they can get back to being the "sane" conservative party. Now, they are more like a cult stuck in denial and unable to face the reality of the mess that George W.Bush and his enablers in Congress have made.

After McCain is defeated in Nov (practically a given), I can hear Limbaugh, Coulter , and Hannity chastize him for not being conservative enough. They have an excuse all set to go, rather than looking at where they have taken the party.

[realpolitic]

Their party has drifted so far right it is scary. They really do not respect the democratic process. They count on people to be uninformed and cynical about government .

[LTCKal]

The Russian anti-Utopian writer, Evgenii Zamiatin contended that ALL movements, begin with a lot of dynamism and direction and, as they get older and their leaders change, they atrophy, and finally become completely static. Buckley did not leave the conservative movement, rather it left HIM to become just another group of non-ideological people who saw political opportunities in simply working together for their own non-ideological gains which had nothing to do with conservatism. They continued to call themselves conservatives, neo-cons, compassionate conservatives, and the rest, yet they became the opposite, simply people who grew the government so that they could live off the spoils.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

I don't see your description of the current conservative movement as being any different from what William Buckley started in 1955. The only difference is this crowd today knows how to win (steal?)elections. If Barry Goldwater had Karl Rove it would have been Lyndon Johnson on the bad side of a landslide in 1964.

[geneb5]

There's another aspect of traditional conservatism Buckley broke with in later years--on cigars.

The mainstream press seems determined to ignore the role cigars played in Buckley's emphysema and untimely death, a role Buckley bitterly bemoaned in a widely-circulated column he wrote just 3 months ago:

"Half a year ago my wife died, technically from an infection, but manifestly, at least in part, from a body weakened by 60 years of nonstop smoking. I stayed off the cigarettes but went to the idiocy of cigars inhaled, and suffer now from emphysema, which seems determined to outpace heart disease as a human killer.

"Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes."

--Buckley, William F. Jr., "My Smoking Confession" NY Sun, Dec. 3, 2007.

http://www.nysun.com/article/67349

Don't expect Rush to mention this; in fact, he (as well as Joe Lieberman) extols Buckley's cigar dinners.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

If the guy is stupid enough to inhale a cigar...WTF!!!!!

[nylaw13]

So, quite typically, Buckley would "prohibit" smoking in the US (and probably the world if he could). This is/was the true Buckley - If he thought something should be one way or another, well, that was that, and the views of others be damned. Don't just think smoking - he'd ban anything else he could if he thought that was wrong (like gays, abortion, black people having voting rights)......He was 82 when he died, older than many, many non-smokers are when their day comes. And who really knows? Had he not smoked, maybe he would have died earlier of something else. Last, anyone who smokes is taking a calculated risk. I cannot believe that Buckley didn't know that and didn't do that and enjoyed every last one of his cigars until he didn't anymore - then in hindsight he'd would make a law against it so no one else could have the freedom he did to make his choices. Hardly a defense of freedom.

[geneb5]

Wow, this response is a veritable treasure trove of screwball assumptions and classic logical fallacies. The tobacco industry sure could have used nylaw13 when it was fighting the link between tobacco and disease 1954-1994.

I suggest nylaw 13 ask Buckley's family if anyone agrees that 82 years was enough. Buckley certainly didn't feel that way.

A man in Buckley's position had years left to have fun, to contribute to society and to be close to his family and grandchildren.

(I certainly disagreed with his contribution, but he was better than the neocons today--who seem to argue to nylaw13's high standards..)

[FirstShirt]

While some snicker at the phrase "compassionate conservatism" I always thought of Buckley in that way and thought that being conservative meant being generous to your fellow human beings while also believing in less government interference in our lives, less foreign involvement [more diplomacy], lower taxes and a strong military. He was a gentle man who was not threatened by different ideas. He embraced liberalism the way two fighters cling to each other in the midst of a physical battle in the ring. You could see his eyes twinkle as he engaged some of the greatest minds of the day.

[brobike42]

FirstShirt, I am a liberal Democrat and agree with every word you wrote about Mr. Buckley.

[Oldsalt]

As a 72 year old recovered Catholic and Liberal son of a devoted FDR Democrat, I used to find Bill Buckley maddening, though never uncivil. His way with words, while seemingly "snooty", was nontheless entertaining and seldom unkind (his attack on Gore Vidal notwithstanding).
I always did wonder though, how he came off calling his detractors "Elitists". He, his cultural milieu and his lifestyle were nothing if not elite. I'll have to read one of his novels one day. Suggestions, anyone?
May he RIP.

[mamacat]

Your catalog of what WFB believed in would today, in reality, be what almost all Democrats want. I do not think it accureate to categorise social security and medicare, and universal healthcare if we ever get it, as government interference in our lives. In a modern society, health care should be considered a right to everyone who works for a living and pays taxes.

[WallStreetNobody]

True conservatism is dead, or it has at least been overtaken by the fascism of the neocons of the Bush/Cheney variety. The way the neocons embrace fascism as being good for a democracy is gut-wrenching.