WFB vs. the Neocons
William F. Buckley Jr. might have allowed the neoconservative tendency in through the gates at NR, but he never quite surrendered to its charms—opposing, eventually, the war in Iraq and never evincing any kind of “democratist” sentiments. This is worth remembering while reading the gushing eulogies coming from the old and new guard of the neocon brain trust.
Norman Podhoretz, for instance, reminisces of his days as an assistant editor at Commentary in the 50s when he scored a big coup hiring Dwight MacDonald, the Trotskyist/cold warrior/theorist of the ’68ers, to write a hit piece on Buckley and NR. Podhoretz remembers being displeased with the piece, entitled “Scrambled Eggheads on the Right,” not because he saw much of intellectual value in NR, but because MacDonald had failed to appreciate that Buckley was a great prose stylist.
Podhoretz admits that he’s still at odds with Buckley, only now, in his mind, the tables have turned:
Amazingly, [Buckley] is nowadays in the position of trying to forgive me for holding views to the right of his own on what some of us call World War IV. Conversely, I keep trying to open his eyes to the truths of the Bush Doctrine, now that those eyes have been dimmed, though thankfully not altogether blinded, by certain ideas stemming from the so-called realist school of thought. Mirabile dictu, as he might say of this bizarre reversal of roles. [emphasis in the original]
Ah yes, dedication to “ending tyranny in our time” while struggling against “Islamofascism” and bringing democracy to Babylon are truly the regalia of a real right-winger. When I mentioned this passage to my friend Paul Gottfried, he noted that it’s probably more accurate to say that Podhoretz is now to the left of Leon Trotsky.
Furthermore, it’s difficult to know to whom exactly Podhoretz is referring in his “realist school of thought” comment. Burnham? whose geopolitics were based on cold-hearted “facts and analysis,” but who actually sought “roll back” in the Cold War and the liberation of central and Eastern Europe? Perhaps Kissinger? even though Buckley and NR were hardly supportive of his détente policy, with Kissinger’s acceptance of the Soviet sphere of influence and his cozying up to Mao.
I imagine that, in the end, “the so-called realist school of thought” is simply a place holder for anyone not thoroughly obsessed with the Middle East and who doesn’t view endless wars there as inherently in the national interest.
Of course, Norman should be commended for pointing out the actual differences he has with Buckley and the NR tradition. His own progeny, and much of the neocon 2nd generation, usually make due with simply mouthing some conservative-movement bromides. And so we learn from John Podhoretz that one of Buckley’s great virtues was his “commitment to the notion that social experiments are very dangerous things indeed.”
I wonder how Podhoretz fils thinks our wonderful social experiment on the Euphrates is going? Dangerous? A bit costly perhaps?
Contra Podhoretz père, Buckley was never blinded by a surfeit of realism.
In this classic clip, Buckley pokes fun at the very notion of an “ideal president”—“we don’t live in Camelot but in the good ol’ USA and that’s all right, Jack, at least all right by me.” He praises Switzerland as the “best run country in world”—right in the heart of Europe with a proud federalist tradition, a model for a USA in which people are allowed “to dream dreams without any reference at all to the man that occupies the White House.”
These are not the words of the author of Bush Country about the American heartland’s love affair with their great visionary leader.
Buckely might have overseen the neocons ascendancy at NR, but he shared none of their instincts.
Comments
Well said. Kudos
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Buckley reminds me of the Five Books of Moses. The
last of these books are full of violence and
unpleasantness that Moses and the Children of Israel
were commanded to execute against other Semitic tribes
Genesis and even Exodus however are full of human
interests stories and provide examples of human and
divine compassion. Although WFB tailed off badly
from the 1970s on, his earlier career shows his
wit and independent spirit at their best.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
richard thank you for linking to commentary’s blog, it’s may new favorite site. I’m totally bring neo conservatism back except with catholic and shia ways :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just a couple years ago, Buckley quoted his friend Whitaker Chamber’s comment to him that he would one day know what it was to experience fatigue of the most acute kind. WFB stated that he now knew what that fatigue was like, because he felt it and frankly stated that he was tired of life. We on the outside can only guess what some of WFB’s personal and professional disappointments were, but no doubt they existed and he wished to escape them.
Perhaps it is a tribute to WFB that so many have been so disappointed in him, in what he failed to achieve in their estimation, and in what he did that they didn’t approve of. Whether WFB would have agreed with those who were disappointed in him we don’t know. We can guess that WFB, like all men, in some respects disappointed himself, and without a doubt was disappointed by others.
The fault in large part is with those who didn’t carry forward what work he had done up to the high point in his career, to the late 1960s or some time during the 1970s. That WFB lost interest in politics over time is understandable. It is one thing for conservatives to honor their heroes, but that should stop short of a slavish following that is as bad for its object of veneration as it is for the worshipers.
As WFB stated, Switzerland was well governed when nobody knew who its governors were they were so innocuous. WFB could never have been that invisible, or even that self-effacing, but because of his talents perhaps too much was expected of him.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Does anyone find it odd that the CIA employed two men with almost the exact backgrounds at the same time with almost the exact names?
William Frank Buckley (Jr) and
William Francis Buckley
Frank, born in 1925; Francis in 1928.
Frank was a Yale granduate; Francis Boston University.
Both served in Mexico, Frank in 1951; Francis in 1963.
I’m not one too much for conspiracy theories, but I have a first-hand experience with a friend who was, unbeknownst to even his family, a CIA agent, until he turned up dead in Afghanistan. After that, I was able to put two-and-two together about his life and background, and see how the CIA works. That being the case, I always will have suspicions about these two “William F Buckley” characters, one assassinated, the other a kind of totem-figurehead to a movement that has been taken over by the likes of Norman Podhoretz, the George Bushes, and John McCain.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew Capp,
“After that, I was able to put two-and-two together...”
The med-cart missed a stop. Back tomorrow with increased dosage.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a very young conservative I lived for the bi-weekly publication of the National Review. Like many I haven’t paid for a copy of that magazine in a long while. William F. Buckley did turn over the keys of the kingdom to the despicable Neoconservatives. But let’s remember that it was largely a kingdom of his making in the first place. We can remember him as the warrior prince, then the philospher king and finally the foolish old potentate choosing unwisely and letting the gypsies and peddles take over his castle.
So let’s remember him while at his best and not contend with the bastards that infest his old kingdom but build healthy straight institutions of our own.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Relax Al.
Both Buckley’s were cloned from three Hamilton Fishes,and the late Bill’s fatigue arose from having to write all the copy for The Nation as well as NationalReview. If this news causes feelings of cognitive dissonance, just gnaw on your laptop battery until they subside.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For example, J Edgar Hoover sent a corespondance to a Mr George Bush of the CIA in 1960. At first the CIA tried to deny the letter was ever sent, then claimed it was some other “George Bush”, not the eventual head of the CIA. Come to find out, there actually WAS another “George Bush” that worked for the CIA...Multiple George Bush’s, multiple William F Buckley’s, it’s a way to “cover tracks”. More could be put into it to make the conspiracy “sexy”, but I’m not one to do such things. All I’m saying is there’s probably more to it than anyone is willing to admit.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The difference between Mr. Buckley and his accursed neo-con associates is that they are humorless mountebanks, devoid of any form of independent character......derivative sycophants, disdaining reality while needing nothing so much as a brisk junket into reality...like say, I don’t know , perhaps an airdrop into the Pashtun Region of Merry Pakistan.
The comedy of watching these pasty ideologues scrambling over the rocks pursued by the Taliban would almost be a reasonable payback for the utter chaos they have caused.
The Taliban dynamited ancient Buddhist Sculptures while Podhoretz and his septic band of hired assassins have dynamited a Republic. We may have disagreed on some things with the good Mr. Buckley but the neo-cons merit only revulsion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Both Buckley and Vidal provided thoughtful and articulate commentary that would be alien on modern network television.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Joe Allen,
True..but Vidal was then and is now far more the authentic conservative.
Dylan
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.