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

[provoice]

Bill Buckley was a truly great man and certainly a TRUE conservative, not one of these fascist neo-cons who have come into control of most of Washington D.C.

He in fact DESPISED the current crop of phony "conservatives".

I originally met him when we were both involved with the Republican "Inner Circle" organization 20 some years ago... and was amazed by his friendliness and openness to someone like me who wasn't born with the proverbial "Silver Spoon" or well-known for my political or literary efforts at the time.

We found common ground, not just in our conservative views, but also in our love of sailing, and spent many hours sharing fine whiskey and tales of our sailing adventures.

I remember once asking him what the difference was between TRUE conservatives and the "neo-conservatives" who are claiming the title these days.

He said, in his trademark halting speech... "My dear boy... TRUE conservatives believe in... CONSERVING!"

He went on to explain that REAL conservatives believe in LESS government control and meddling in the lives of citizens, LESS spending, strong alliances, and far more cautious foreign relations.

One can only hope that there is still a spark of REAL conservatism left after the neo-cons get through making "conservative" a dirty word.

[FirstShirt]

"He went on to explain that REAL conservatives believe in LESS government control and meddling in the lives of citizens, LESS spending, strong alliances, and far more cautious foreign relations."

Thank you! An eloquent post and the historical anecdotes are gems for conservatives. Unfortunately, many younger people don't know the struggles within the conservative movement. And, now equate the aggressive neocon bluster with conservatism. Nothing could be further from the truth, as this quote implies. It will take us a generation probably to recover from the systemic destruction of our due process and civil rights.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Wrong. What we have today with Bush, Cheney et al. is the natural progression from the New Conservatism that Buckley began by launching the National Review. He's nothing but a real-life Dr. Frankenstein who created a monster and bemoaned the fact that he couldn't control it. I have no sympathy for Buckley, nor will I ever say anything positive about him. he did America no favors.

[biglover]

Provoice - a truly great man you say? Really??? This is a man who didn't think blacks should ever be able to vote, a man who wanted to tattooo sick people and people with aids? This is your idea of a great man? If true, this country is in even worse shape than one could imagine. He spewed hate all of his life. He was not a good man - let alone great

[Thundrdrum]

I always enjoyed hearing him speak--the man was a great American orator. Too bad he was conservative but, given a bit more of the Bush "legacy", perhaps he'd have bolted that party. OK, probably not, but I had great appreciation for his last pronouncement of Bush's legacy: that it will be indeterminant.

[Galina]

He was elegant, and well-read, and witty, and yet we did not hear his voice in defense of democracy during the Bush Dark Ages. During his last years, the very name "conservatism” had been expropriated by people with dubious conservative credentials. Who would believe that a thrice-divorced drag-addict with a pedestrian mind and a single, promiscuous, swearing woman who looks embarrassingly like a man would have become the spokespersons for the neo-conservatives? But the greatest insult to Buckly comes from David Brooks (his protégé) and likes who have discovered the moral relativism as their new ideology in an era of the plebeian Prez.

[FirstShirt]

"But the greatest insult to Buckly comes from David Brooks (his protégé) and likes who have discovered the moral relativism as their new ideology in an era of the plebeian Prez. "

Wow!! I disagree with what you said but am impressed with how you said it.

[realpolitic]

Moral relativisn is a good argument there. Can you expand on it?

[Skepticat]

I very rarely agreed with him but he expressed ideas well and if nothing else made you think.
He was also polite, perhaps in a patronizing elitist way, but polite none the less. I suspect that the Bush years must have been very demoralizing for him.

[longislandlol]

I met him once at a dinner party on the upper east side- his beloved wife was at his side; and two classier people Iike the Buckley's I have never met... he put to shame these neocons who developed a brazen- unrefined style-- he mingled and was beloved by the entire liberal establishment and anti-establishment- he embodied a spirit of the finest humanity has ever offered- and although I never had a chance to chat (there were a couple of hundred in the massive group)-- I'd like to imagine that he may have found the entire Obama movement quite profound.... Rest in Peace Mr. Buckley....

[starboymikey]

Impossible to imagine Buckley telling a guest to shut up or turning of his/her microphone. It's just as impossible to imagine him mocking someone's illness, calling a presidential candidate (or anyone for that matter) a "fag", or suggesting that terrorists might consider detonating a nuclear bomb in San Francisco.

Likewise, it's impossible to imagine the kind of tributes we've been seeing here, on a basically liberal website, for someone like Bill O'Reilley, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter.

[realpolitic]

O'Reilly and the rest would make good door mats. That is all! They are hateful, foaming at the mouths accusers. They point their fingers and accuse people and that is all.

[Oldsalt]

Buckley did, as a matter of fact, call Gore Vidal a "queer" and tell him to "shut up" during an interview/debate. Perhaps Vidal had it coming but Buckley later said he regretted losing his cool. See Youtube, Buckley/Vidal for old video. He also later complimented Vidal's writing skill.

[nighthawk808]

The difference between Buckley and Billo is this:

Person: "Why did you say X about Y?"

1. Buckley: "I lost my temper. I shouldn't have. It was wrong of me to do, and it was a very inelegant way of handling it."

2. O'Reilly: "I never said that."
Person: "But we have the transcript!"
O'Reilly: "I never said that."
Person: "But we have it on tape!"
O'Reilly: "I never said that."
Person: "Look, here's the clip."
O'Reilly: "I never said that."
Person: "Will you look at the screen? We're playing you saying it right now!"
O'Reilly: "I never said that."
Person: "Look at the screen! There is you saying those words! How do you deny it?"
O'Reilly: "I never said that. Cut his mike!"

[pkafin]

THat is so ironic that you would write that.

in 1968 William Buckley debated Gore Vidal.

The follow exchange took place :

Vidal called Buckley a "pro-crypto-Nazi," a modest slip of the tongue, he later said, because he was searching for the word "fascist" and it just didn't come out. Inflamed by the word "Nazi" and the whole tenor of the discussion, Buckley snapped back: "Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered."

So, is it really "just [as] impossible to imagine him mocking someone's illness, calling a presidential candidate (or anyone for that matter) a "fag", or suggesting that terrorists might consider detonating a nuclear bomb in San Francisco."

For the most part, William F. Buckley was a far classier act than the current group of conservatives. However, you shouldn't assume that his worldview didn't lead him into some of the same dark recesses of human thought.

[bauersox]

He called Vidal "a *proto* crypto Nazi." There's a difference.

[circusfifthfloor]

Great posts today. Conservativism has mutated into something quite extrodinary. One must read some of Goldwater's comments about the religious right to see that he was sickened by the dogmatic Christian fringe's attempt to lay the foundation of a theocracy. Sure Bill was a bright boy, but he did not have the spiritual capacity to understand Lennon's Imagine. He tried in vain to trash it, but fell short in even grasping the level John was painting in song. In other words. Bill could not "IMAGINE". This did not make him a bad person. Just not equipped to step to another level of enlightenment. His social comments were true to one part of the Bible...and that would be the Old Testament. Peace and Grace...CFF

[WilliePilgrim]

Great piece. However, your last sentence in your last paragraph, I suggest you change the word "conservative" to "anybody" or better yet "everybody".

[Stanley]

Look Neocon or Classic Con matters little at this moment. The point of his eulogy is not to attack others but remember the man. Like his ideas or not, it wasn't hard to like the man. William Buckley was a thoughtful and intelligent soul with a sharp mind, mild manner and ascerbic wit. He raised the level of public discourse from the hatred of the past and championed the individual. He was not afraid to speak truth to power and valued convictions and belief over politics. We will miss him. Rest in peace.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Try as I might, I can't like him. He spawned a movement that is pure malevolence. How can I like that?

[normathumb]

Cant really imagine Buckley telling a guest to "Shuddup" except, perhaps, Gore Vidal who took great pleasure in trying to get Bill's goat. Did Bill let him have it or is that urban legend?

[pkafin]

Bill let him have it with the following response "Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I"ll sock you in you goddamn face and you"ll stay plastered."

Perhaps all this praise for his gentility is a bit misplaced.

[Ironfox]

As I wrote in a previous post; Mr. Buckley also threatened Noam Chomsky with the same punitive pugilistic petulance but, in a career as log as his he should be allowed a little grace for a couple of emotional outbursts.

[PartyPartyParty]

Elegant flair?!?!?!? Tolerant temperament?!!?!?!

Bill Buckley was the same as every other idealogue has ever been: if you reasonably countered any of his assertions, he'd start frothing at the mouth.

[biglover]

Thank you Elegant. I guess you and I are the only ones in this forum who really knew Bill Buckley and who he really was. I presume all these posters are conservatives.

[bauersox]

Did you know him? It doesn't sound like it.

[robiform]

I used to watch "Firing Line" occasionally, and what I remember best is that Buckley disagreed with his more liberal guests, but with class, and without resorting to name-calling and other childish behaviors displayed by O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al. There are a lot of parallels between Buckley and Barry Goldwater--both were conservative to the end, and both vocally disagreed with the excesses of the neo-cons. As with Goldwater, I disagreed with many of Buckley's opinions, but he was definitely a patriotic American and not afraid to disagree with the "party line".

[Pdubya]

two examples are his adherent opposition to militarism and the war on drugs.

besides, he was a beautiful writer and speaker. he was at the very least intelligently principled.

[FirstShirt]

Agree. He epitomized the notion that people can disagree without being disagreeable. That's really an american concept.

[procrustes]

The essence of Bill Buckley was his rationalism backed by encyclopedic knowledge. I can listen to any political view as long as it has a rational base. Buckley = rational, Neocons=dogma. By the way, we have our dogmatic liberals to keep penned.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Why do you associate "dogma" with "bad"? Being dogmatic isn't bad unless your dogma is wrong. Don't buy the crap about all truth being in the middle.

[blueraven]

Not only was Mr. Buckley more of an old-school true conservative, he was unstinting in his defense of the proper use of the English language. Precision in grammar, syntax, and semantic meaning were some of his greatest tools. I disagreed more than agreed with his opinions, but he never failed to express them with class and elan. There is no one to take up his mantle amongst the neo-conservatives, and that is one of their major failings above and beyond the others that could be enumerated,.

[drkazmd65]

What you typed blueraven,

I also rarely agreed with what I heard and read of his work - but he made his points, made them well, and didn't try to talk over his debate opponents.

He remained a Conservative to the end. The Republicans are not the real kind of conservatives any more, and Buckley knew it.

[tgh86]

He did get owned by Chomsky, though.

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

[Rivcuban]

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.