William F. Buckley Jr.-- R.I.P.
The death of William F. Buckley, Jr., is, for me at least, the closing of a chapter in my own history, both personal and ideological. Buckley, you see, was my childhood hero.
His magazine, the National Review, was available in our Junior High School library—along with The New Republic, The Nation, and even American Opinion (!)—and I read it regularly, as soon as the new issue came in. Nurtured on Frank S. Meyer’s essays, and Buckley’s acerbic commentary, I was part and parcel of the Goldwater movement in my own small way, and I idolized the youthful and articulate Buckley, who often appeared on television. Here was an intellectual, who was, at the same time, a man of the Right: back then, an almost inconceivable phenomenon. Buckley, with his formidable erudition, and his ready wit, was a kind of intellectual father figure for me: although I never met him, he was a kind of model. While I never succumbed to the temptation to imitate his languid style, complete with impish smiles and heavy-lidded eyes, he did inspire me to read the dictionary, from beginning to end, in search of words with which to impress my friends and correspondents.
It is hard to over-emphasize the importance of National Review for the young conservatives of the 1960s: there was no other magazine, no other center of intellectual nourishment, for us, but then none was needed. NR was quite enough. That’s because there was no party line, no neoconservative enforcers of the Frummian variety, no partisan sensibility that distorted the editors’ always sharp analysis of what we, as conservatives, ought to do, say, and think about this or that, no looking over one’s shoulder. In the pages of NR the intellectual heavyweights—Meyer, Russell Kirk, and the like—battled it out: Liberty versus Order, Fusionism versus Traditionalism, Rollback versus Containment. The Big Issues, and all very appealing to a callow youth in search of answers and intellectual adventure. And not all politics all the time, either, but columns on the arts, on travel, on matters great and small that revealed a much wider world than the suburban desert in which I lived, that gave me a hint at what life had to offer if only I kept up by subscription to NR—and a dictionary by my side.
National Review, in the old days, was an education, all by itself, and I graduated from its school, so to speak, a confirmed man-child of the Right. For that, I can only thank Bill Buckley, no matter what his latter-day sins. I shall not make the mistake he made, and use an obituary to pick a quarrel, or settle an old score. I will merely note that the National Review he founded ceased to exist around about the late 1970s, when the neocons came to prominence. I fondly remember an entire issue given over to the alleged “libertarian threat” represented by the Cato Institute and its intellectual satellites, which prominently mentioned one of my more leftish-sounding articles as proof positive that libertarians were and are a dangerous conspiracy out to smash the American State—a piece that presciently noted the separatist tendencies of the American Southwest, and its future de facto merger with Mexico. That I was celebrating this prospect, and not simply forewarning it, is why Ernest van den Haag (I think it was) found the article alarming. I was thrilled, nevertheless, to have been mentioned in the magazine-of-record of my childhood—a thrill that was long gone when the thuggish David Frum took up the cudgels again many years later.
Alas, by that time, NR was no longer even a caricature of its old self: the red-state fascist maunderings of Frum and his fellow neocons had long since taken the sizzle-and-pizazz out of the mag, and it was merely the Pravda of the Party-Liners, a slave to Party and Dogma.
I have to add, however, that Buckley appeared to have second thoughts about relegating his legacy—his magazine, that is, and the mantle of “mainstream” conservatism—to the War Party. This piece, acknowledging that the Iraq war—and the greater project of “transforming” the Middle East at gunpoint—was and is a failure did not go down easily with the neocons, who didn’t dare grumble all that audibly when it came out. Buckley’s intellectual honesty prevented him from swallowing the Party Line, and his stature on the Right stopped the David Frums of this world from declaring him an “unpatriotic conservative” on account of his realistic dissent.
So let us mourn the passing of good ol’ Bill Buckley, who, for all his flaws, managed a signal achievement: when statist liberalism was the only known alternative to socialism, his bright repartee lit up the intellectual darkness and attracted us intellectually adventurous youth to a counter-culture that would come to challenge the heretofore unchallengeable status quo. To his soul, I tip my hat and say: God speed, and thanks.
Comments
A very gracious tribute.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo does a fine job giving tribute to an
important American figure. Conservatives today,
including those who may not be truly conservative,
can all trace our views and ideas to the spadework
of William F. Buckley and he is owed our thanks. May
he meet his Lord face to face.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with most of what you have written, as I too read NR religiously from 60s till early 90s. But it should be kept in mind that he and his magazine were also rigid gate keepers of their perceived conservatism. No inclusion for Randians, Birchers, conspiratorialists,and other’s of different right-of-center opinions. But his personal friendships were inclusive of the right, left, or powerful. Referring to southern fans of his who were something of less than stellar in their education and class, he said “I am not of their breed.” An elitist, arrogant statement that showed his disdain for the mere
citizen conservative and patriot. The question must be asked: What was Buckley’s real purpose and function?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I quess I touched a couple of nerves with my previous post....certainly don’t want to speak desparagingly of any of Taki’s neighbours or contributors....So, how ‘bout this.......Both Buckely & Raimondo are charter members of the numbed ‘em & dumbed ‘em....then anestitize & asphyxiate ‘em...Club
Click to flag this comment as abusive
predeceased by his child National Review. The title of thes magazine should be rescued from the ghouls that keep it’s lifeless corpse rotting and fetid as a mockery befoe or eyes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From the obit in NY times:
He did not neglect politics, showing up uninvited to a faculty meeting to complain about a teacher abridging his right to free speech and ardently opposing United States’ involvement in World War II. His father wrote him to suggest he “learn to be more moderate in the expression of your views.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Buckley was anything but conventional in an era that champions conventional wisdom and he was proudly erudite in a time when Conventional Wisdom abjured learning and intellectualism in favor of the cheap thrills of consumerism and physicality.
The “Conservative “ Republican Party he leaves behind is lost down a dead end road that cynically disdains intellectuals while manipulating the corn pone set with jingoistic chest thumping and paranoia. In his writings at the end, one could detect a bit of melancholy about the prevailing idiocy that describes the pandering GOP.
His love of the language and respect for ideas transcended his politics and that is what should be remembered now because it is precisely what is needed most desperately.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo is a magnanimous man saluting a noble. I thank him.
I add: WFB also from the start rejected Antisemitism and Judeophobia. He rightly rejected the kooks Rand and Welch.
His goal was a conservatism purged of the these things. “Let us praise now famous men.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
All together too decent of you, Justin. I’ll never forget
the knives he stuck in the backs of the Sobrans and
Rotbards of the world--men who cared about more than
acceptance from the Mahattanites. Buckley’s true heirs
are the Limbaughs and Gingriches of the world. They are
his miserable legacy.
As Sobran said of him, “celebritas overcame gravitas.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
WFB lived a life of composed of many qualities; among them elegence, breeding, classical knowledge steeped in Jesuitical inquiry combined with anticommunist zeal.
His achievements are many as has been noted. Perhaps in some day yet to come, the long held suspicion that he was at least initially, funded and encouraged by the CIA will be proven in error. It is a mystery he would surely have enjoyed; one can just see the raised eyebrow and mischievous smile as his inquisators seek the answers. As one of his accusers once in Buckwellion mode slyly stated to him, “...but Bill, after all, you DID go to Yale...”.
We can only wonder what he may have been thinking at the end; did he feel justified that the collapse of the Soviet Union was worth his sometimes devious machinations? Or, did he in witnessing the morphing of his brand of conservatism into the bastardization of the neocons, come to regret his marginalizing and eventual defenestration of the last of the real conservatives, the Old Right.
We shall never know and yet, in his increasingly infrequent missives of his last years I always detected a bit of almost undefinable melonchaly tinged with hints of regret.
That many who had serious disagreements with him still found him personally eminantly likeable may be his finest epitaph.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Actually, Forest, he said to Vidal that he would “punch” him, and that he would “stay punched.” I watched it happen LIVE with I believe Howard K. smith.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cundiff, what have Welch and Rand to do with
Judeophobia? Rand was Jewish, and Welch did not advocate
anti-semitism.
Let us all pray for the repose of the recently departed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
His goal was a conservatism purged of the these things.
William F. Buckley left conservatism in the hands of Merovingians like George W. Bush, Rich Lowry, J-Pod, K-Lo, and Jonah Goldberg. That’s his legacy. Conservatism is a movement on the way down; sinking faster than the Titanic. Even in Georgia and South Carolina, Obama is sweeping the Gen Y’ers who have employment at Wal*Mart to look forward to. Who can blame them?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Caper hasn’t read what I wrote. Some people can’t read compound and complex sentences or deal with subordinating conjunctions, so I’ll make it simple: WFB opposed Communism AND Antisemitism AND Judeophobia AND kooks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Justin in this obituary is being properly
gracious, and it is necessary that we show ourselves
to be so,despite the fact
William F. Buckley behaved in exactly the opposite way
in his attacks on the deceased after Murray Rothbard
had died. Nor should we expect our
enemies to treat us so graciously once we have gone.
That being said, it behooves
us to hold ourselves to a higher ethic than the
thugs whom we oppose. And Justin is right that most
of us learned something from reading the Buckley and
National Review, before both descended into darkness.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“I shall not make the mistake he made, and use an obituary to pick a quarrel, or settle an old score.”
Here, Mr. Raimondo has used an old rhetorical technique
called “praeteritio.” By drawing attention to the fact
that he won’t something, he mentions it anyway. So he
has used this obituary to settle an old score, one
concerning Buckley’s obituary for Murray Rothbard. I
read that obit, and, given the two men’s differences,
I find it within bounds. If you think that Rothbard
was horribly mistaken, it is okay to say as much. If
you think that Buckley was unjust, there is no reason
to pussyfoot around it. The priest at my father’s
Requiem Mass pointed out that suffered from the vice of
anger.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin showed more class in his tribute than WFB showed in his elitist gatekeeping.
Does the establishment facilitate ideological corruption
or require it?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cundiff,
You really should, in fact, make better use of
clarifying conjunctions. You lump together long
lists of people you’d love to “purge” from this or
that. It really is quite like you to lump Rand,
Welch, and the Judeophobes together as a miscellaneous
grab-bag of the anathematized. Surely the different
groups you have, rightly or wrongly, made your
punching bags, are not all so guilty or all so errant.
When praising WFB for purging Anti-Semites, remember
that the “kook” Welch did the same!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Although Mr Cundiff and I agree on some topics (hell, we are often accused of being the same person!), I too believe his advocacy of “active purging” is wrong-headed.
I don’t need to “purge” the Randians, or the anti-Semites, or the Judaizers, or the Progressives, the Liberals, or the Cultural Marxists from my life and my associations. They “purge” themselves by leaving my company. I stand up and speak freely in what I believe, and they all run away, not wanting to associate with someone such as I. That is what “we” (if there even is a “we” on the American “Right") should do: actively drive them away by standing up for what we believe. Let them purge themselves from our ranks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What an extraordinary and full life WFB lived. He seemingly knew everyone, wrote constantly and with wit, and was that most rare of beasts--a popular intellectual.
I used to have a substantial part of his writings in my library and read it all, and subscribed for nearly 20 years to National Review through poverty and relative poverty.
I eventually threw over NR in disgust, having been won over to a truer conservatism by the writings of Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. The memory of the last straw still sticks--it was a Peter Rodman NR article in which he argued that America shouldn’t let Japan take the lead in some obscure regional economic group. NR had descended to a smelly mess of imperialist-think and infantile insecurity.
Joseph Sobran’s various comments on WFB probably make the best overview we can have of the man. He called him the finest Christian gentleman he knew, a compassionate man who helped many behind the scenes, not to mention a man of humor and wit. Sobran also recalls the man who bent backwards to court favor and power when Reagan became president, and who cravenly shrank from resisting the Kristols and Podhoretzes of the day calling for the blood of “anti-Semites” writing for NR, including Sobran.
Buckley was a remarkable man with giant flaws and virtues. For better or worse, we’ll not see his likes again.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just read Buckley’s vicious hatchet jobs
on Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Robert Welch.
Buckley was dead wrong in his disputes with all
three and people should read John McManus’s excellent
biographical expose of Buckley.
“Anti-semitism” meant anyone critical of both the
racist, fascist state of Israel AND the very large
role played by Jews in the statist-collectivist
movement. National Review was awful back in the
mid-60s, Buckley was alreading excoriating those
who criticized Lincoln’s extreme statism.
Buckley was the favorite of dumbed down neocons
and braindead liberals who always impressed by
superficial appearances, same folks who make up
the Obama Cult now. Buckley even endorsed a
hagiography of FDR by convicted felon Conrad Black
not too long ago. Frankly I’m sick of Raimondo’s
Columbus Complex, i.e., WFB was only bad when HE
disagreed with him. I could go on with example
after example of Buckley’s sellouts to statism.
Sid Cundiff precisely illustrates what’s wrong
with the neocon run “conservative movement” today.
Good riddance to it and its mentor.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Did WFB back Bradford in the 1981 battle with the
neocons over that educational post ? Let’s stick
to the essentials here. Not the superficial appearances.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<<Did WFB back Bradford in the 1981 battle with the neocons over that educational post?>>
Nominally.
From what I remember reading, WFB signed the petition in support of Bradford for the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
But we have to remember: Reagan was pretty much “did in” only sixty nine days into his Presidency. William Bennett was appointed chairman of the NEH in November of 1981, after the assassination attempt.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From all accounts WFB loved his wife dearly. She wanted to be a top socialite. She knew this was impossible with the powerful New York Jewish elite against her. She and Bill must have had a late night talk with Mrs. B laying it on the line. “Don’t get the New York Jews warring against her.” A small concession for Bill to make for marital bliss.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“A small concession” to make in the interests of
social climbing ? Puleeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzeee.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mike let me be crystal clear. Get a girl with a sweet face and a body that can bear and nourish infants, (nice T&A;), to fall in love with you. This may be mission absolutely impossible for you.
You’re all set to enjoy connubial pleasure with this beautiful creature, when she says, “No.” And it continues to be No (or the dead body routine) for days, weeks. Why? What must you do to gain access? She says, “It’s simple Mike. Just stop antagonizing the Jews. I know their dirty rotten buggers and their wives are hate filled termagants, but I need them on my side to help the little people.” A small concession to make for marital bliss.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well, “Dr.Phil,” I see you are forced to resort
to ad hominems now.
Probably WFB’s money didn’t hurt his chances of
attracting a mate.
As far as his marital bliss goes, I don’t think
it matters in the larger scheme of things.
And how were either Mrs. Buckley or “the Jews”
ever helping the little people ?
And why should they ?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mike I apologize for that snide remark. Wish I could say it was beneath me.
In WFB’s selection pool of likely mates, money was a forgone conclusion. I doubt that WFB found romance outside marriage.
For Mrs. WFB, actually helping the little people is unimportant. What matters is to be seen to be helping the little people. Remember for women their reality is how others see them. Why else would they spend half their life time deceiving others by altering their looks?
And as far as the Jews wanting to look good, their Temple raucous auctions for buying spots in the lime light are legendary.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ok, Dr. Phil, your points above are reasonable.
You might want to check out Peter Brimelow’s
comments on WFB at vdare.com.
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.