William F. Buckley - Words Never Failed Him
William F. Buckley struggled with the pain and inconvenience of emphysema for years, but it was only when he broke a bone in his right hand - the hand he wrote with - earlier this month that the decline of a man who very much lived by words accelerated. He sent out a note to a few close friends essentially saying that he knew the end was near.
It came at the desk in his study yesterday morning, perhaps as Buckley was struggling to put the finishing touches on his latest project - a book on the president he helped bring to office that he planned to call The Reagan I Knew. That project was far enough long it will no doubt be published posthumously. Here's hoping he finished enough of another book on Barry Goldwater that we will be rewarded with that as well.
It is ironic that Buckley's last works should hearken back to his fellow giants in the conservative movement. In an interview with Buckley in 2005, conservative columnist George Will told him: "Without Bill Buckley, no National Review. Without National Review, no [Barry] Goldwater nomination. Without the Goldwater nomination, no conservative takeover of the Republican Party. Without that, no Reagan. Without Reagan, no victory in the Cold War. Therefore, Bill Buckley won the Cold War."
Buckley, of course, demurred at that compliment, but there was a real kernel of truth to it. He was that rarest of revolutionaries - someone who unflailingly set about to change the world, largely succeeded and yet retained a zest for the non-political, a gentleness of spirit and a boyish charm into his 80s. He set a standard we all should emulate for having friendships across the political divide.
In the end, he left untold riches behind. He inspired three generations of conservatives, including me. I first met him at a taping of his TV show "Firing Line" at a public television station in California back in high school. He was unfailingly polite and helpful and I can genuinely say he helped inspire me to become the writer I am.
He seemingly had time for everyone who sought him out, despite a work schedule whose partial output included 55 books (both fiction and nonfiction); 1,429 separate Firing Line shows and 5,600 newspaper columns. Now it is incumbent on all of us to take the time to appeciate a great man and mourn his loss.
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 worked for National Review in the 60's. I was enthralled with him, as was everyone who worked at the magazine. In addition to being brilliant, he was a gentle, kind man. Even though I am now a progressive Democrat, I always remember him with great fondness and respect. He was one-of-a-kind.
A revolutionary for the status quo only. 19th century Robber Barons would have loved him.
Bill Bukley was just too L I B E R A L for me. Any way, happy voyage Bill.
.
Today, the world is a poorer place.
.
Thank you, Mr. Buckley.
Your definition of what a conservative is, was well stated, intelligent, and open to discussion by your willingness to have debate with opposite views.
Your articulation helped me define my political ideology, which ended up, not the same as yours.
I feel confident in my positions, having put them up against your precise definitions. I'm a moderate, not a screaming liberal. That, I'm sure, is due to your influence. I sometimes come down on different party lines, depending on the issue. That also, is due to your influence to think for my self and not just follow the party dictates.
Sorry, I couldn't be another convert, but thanks for the decades of discussion.
Wasn't it Bill Buckley who tried pot by having his boat go beyond some boundary so that it would be legal for him to light up? What a man of the people, it's okay for the wealthy to yacht their way to smoking a legal joint, but screw everybody else. And what a profoundly sleazy way to "respect" the law. People like him looked down their noses at those whose (counter) culture included pot smoking as the inebriation of choice. Would his conservative image have been so severely tarnished had he spoken up for the legalization of pot in a big way? We already know the answer, and the choices his made. I could say a few other things, but I'm the land of "never call a dead man a bastard".
Hate to speak ill of the dead, but Buckley was the opposite of a "revolutio
Granted, he was far more intelligent and amicable than O'Reilly or any of his current counterparts, but I remember watching him as a kid, and over the years, and he was smarmy, creepy and often, like the current conservative TV hosts, very unfair and illogical in his arguments.
"Without Reagan, no victory in the Cold War. Therefore, Bill Buckley won the Cold War."
Sure.
Such sweeping statements that credit Reagan with winning the Cold Ware are why everybody should go see Tom Hanks in "Charlie Wilson's War" and ponder the wisdom and economics of war for imperialistic or hegemonic reasons.
Then consider the potential impact of little bits of relatively inexpensive technology such as the Stinger missile.
Or IEDs.
Charlie Wilson's is perfect for people like you who actually believe the tripe hollywood dishes out, William Buckley started a movement that has had profound changes in America...
How ironic that the "inspiration" for the conservative movement passes on coincidently with the the "movement" itself. The man that brought us Ronald Reagan leaves behind candidates like John McCain who say they're "Reagan conservatives" but are con artists.
Buckley was beyond displeased with the hijacking of his "conservative" party by warmongering, endless spending, Christian-based, party hacks that have finally "jumped the shark".
The present crowd of hucksters and snake oil salesmen were an ultimate disappointmet to him in his last few years. Barry Goldwater was the real deal. Ronald Reagan has been so over-hyped as a success and hardly ever gets noticed for his multiple disasters that still affect us to this day.
Reagan's so called ending to the Cold War is a farce. The downfall of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War. Ronald Reagan happened to be President at the time and delivered a speech announcing it and then took credit for it. The present Republican Party propaganda machine including George Will and John Fund continue the misinformation with embarrassing denial hoping for an uninformed public to be too busy or self-involved to accept the facts.
Fox-like faux facts are now sadly the mainstream.
Yeaf, Huffan. You are exactly right. "Reagan won the Cold War" my ass.
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.
Buckley's grammar was good. wonderful. Stephanopoulos tore him a new one.
Mr. Buckley made only two mistakes in his life:
1) Creating the Conservative Movement.
2) Letting the riffraff in.
Buckley had honor, something the modern day "conservative" lacks.
he also was disgusted by the insanity and extremism of the christian extremists.
Buckley ,being an intelligent man, saw that repealing drug prohibition and ending the total failure of the War On Some Drugs was the only answer to addressing the illusionary drug problem.
I disagreed with many things he said and he was blinded by the Reagan myth so he didn't see what a bumbler Reagan was.
The USSR beat itself. The Soviets spent too much money on offense and the military, they spied on their people and allowed little Freedom and the Soviet government was full of corruption.
Nothing America did really won the Cold War because the Soviet Union had destroyed itself by the late 60s; it just took awhile to die completely.
Agreed on the Cold War. Further, replace 'USSR' and 'Soviets' with 'US' and 'Americans' and you could be describing the ongoing demise of another superpower.
"The Soviets spent too much money on offense and the military, they spied on their people and allowed little Freedom and the Soviet government was full of corruption".
If it weren't so sad it would be amusing. The USSR goes into Afganistan and drains it self and its military. Meanwhile we support the Afgans by suppling arms to the Taliban and employe one of its leaders Osama Bin Laden to help us in our efforts. Now we find ourselves in an endless battle against the Taliban and view Osama Bin Laden as our most dangerous enemy. While we spend to much money on the military, spy on our people and pass laws that limit our freedoms. Maybe it's the third world that in the end will really win the cold war.
As I read many of the anti-Buckley comments here, it brings to mind one of the glaring differences between rabid, modern 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (NOT neo-cons): that difference being a matter of respect.
If you watched much of Buckley, or read of him today, you realize that he had great friendships with very liberal people in his life.
Contrast that with some of the comments here. Somewhere, somehow, there has developed a sort of Brown Shirt, mindless, follower liberalism in this country that is extremely unbecoming
"rabid, modern 'liberals' and 'conservatives'" -- does this reference rabid conservatives and/or does it reference only those liberals (and conservatives) who happen to be rabid? Taking the meaning to be the latter, as a non-rabid liberal I always respected Buckley.
I remember watching Firing Line when I was a kid. I thought the show was interesting, even though the format sometimes emulated something you might see at a prep school debate club. But the arguements were always civil and respectful. A few years later I bumped into Buckley at a home electronics store and chatted with him for a couple of minutes. He couldn't have been more courteous and engaging. When I compare what passes for political debate on television today to his approach, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. Rush Limbaugh et al are less his heirs than his -- how can I put this mildly -- excrement.
Bush is the direct ideological descendant Buckley. Buckley, who set up the rabidly anti-Communist organization, the "Young Americans for Freedom", (which put an end to the Society for Individual Liberty) went on to support the present dominance of such neo-Nationalistic organizations as The Heritage Society. These lobby-fed groups remain just as paranoid about the many new "enemies" we have as they were about the "Red Threat". Bush's defense of a continuing "War on Terror" (an endless war) and "Staying the course" (to what? -- over who?) resonates pleasantly in the minds of these Pentagon-friendly corporate fat-cats(a
It might be recalled that once,during a pre-Nixon Presidential debate, Gore Vidal termed Buckley a "Fascist" -- Buckley, momentarily jarred out of his usual sardonic glibness, blurted out "Queer!" -- Vidal must have hit a nerve.
You could not be more wrong. Bush is so far removed from Buckley on an ideological scale that the two cannot be compared. Buckley was always a true conservative. Bush is part of this new neo-conservative moderate movement that has no place under the conservative tent.
And as for the Buckley-Vidal debate, I urge everyone to watch it. Vidal, trying to talk over Buckley so that he can filibuster an exchange, calls Buckley a Crypto-Nazi. Buckley never loses his cool, but with a smile and a his usual deapan delivery, states "Listen here, you queer, if you call me Crypto-Nazi again I will sock you right in the goddamn face." And he would have, too. Classic.
Dear Giglawyer,
I'm sorry, but from what I've observed this election cycle, I'm pretty sure that rational and honest discourse is strictly verboten `round here. You just don't seem to be trying hard enough to fit in.
Try more expletives, a few ad hominem attacks, and maybe pepper your posts with insubstantial comments and unsubstaniated allegations.
Sumpin' like that.
;-)
Giglawer,
You must have been looking at an edited or altered version! It was,in fact, Billy trying to talk over Vidal. "with a smile"', "deadpan"? I think not. By the way, in a much less publicised debate he threatened Noam Chomsky with the same punitive pugilistic petulance.
However, in a career as long as Mr. Buckley enjoyed he should be allowed the grace of a couple of petulant outbursts.
Even though I often disagreed with his positions I respected his integrity and am dismayed by the vitriol of some of the comments here and elsewhere. I fear this is a reflection of how debased the civility of political discourse has become.
Loading comments…
Posted February 28, 2008 | 07:49 AM (EST)