# William F. Buckley, Jr. RIP



## KenCPollock (Dec 20, 2003)

I understand that he passed away this morning. Not only a trad icon, but he was a real gentleman, brillant thinker and writer. One of my favorites. Rest in peace.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I just saw the headline a few minutes ago. _God and Man at Yale_ had a profound impact on me when I read it in college. I actually got to meet and interview WFB at the National Review offices for my senior thesis. We also exchanged a few letters. He was a great man and will be missed.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Yes, it is true. A real shame since there are so few political commentators/pundits/writers who use logic and debate like he did. I did not always agree with his views, or even always understand them, but you had to respect his intellect.

https://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE4NGRlOGM1NmYxYjdmNjk1MjliOTE2MTYxOWZkZjc=


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I just saw the headline a few minutes ago. _God and Man at Yale_ had a profound impact on me when I read it in college. I actually got to meet and interview WFB at the National Review offices for my senior thesis. We also exchanged a few letters. He was a great man and will be missed.


Very cool. If you would be willing to share any impressions or exchanges, I am sure many of us would love to read them.


----------



## ProvidenceFriar (Nov 27, 2007)

Wow. An American legend. I'm not a conservative but I have great respect for WFB on a few levels. RIP.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Wow, a sad day indeed 

Brian


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

deleted


----------



## Nathan Detroit (Oct 12, 2005)

I started reading NR in 1978 (I was 14) and stayed with it through the early 90s... He gave me a lot, not so much his own take on the world, which I rejected for the most part, but the movement he created and the writers who would be almost unknown but for him (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Thomas Molnar). 

It seems to me an open question whether there would be any postwar American conservative movement, worth speaking of, that is, without him and his magazine. He dragged the American Right, kicking and screaming, out of the fever swamps of Birchism and other cranky obsessions. 

Without Buckley, would there have been a Reagan? Would we still be in the Cold War? Would America be a big Sweden? 

Requiescat in pace!


----------



## Clovis (Jan 11, 2005)

*WFB*

Regardless of whether or not you agreed with WFB politically I think everyone has to agree that he had a great deal of integrity which is something which seems to be sorely missing in much of the political climate today.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Nathan Detroit said:


> ...the writers who would be almost unknown but for him (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Thomas Molnar).


I _love_ EvK-L!

By the way, I'm moving this thread to the Interchange where it actually belongs.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

What a loss!


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

Great pic from Drudge:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

It is a great picture. I did so much reading early on about Buckley during his Yale and early NR days it was hard for me in many ways ever to think of him as old.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Buckley always defined for me what it was to be a conservative. Although I knew him only from television and his writing, he always struck me as at once serious and witty, religious and anti-theocratic, intellectual and engaging, partisan and friendly. 

I loved the fact that he could debate strongly with the likes of Schlessinger and Moynahan and then enjoy them as friends. He always seemed to enjoy those who could challenge him more than sycophants who would agree with him. He gave intellectual weight to conservative philosophy at a time when it needed it and then held it's feet to the intellectual fire when it turned silly. He wasn't always right, but he was right most of the time.

He will be missed. There are certainly other intellectual conservatives today, but none with the "Renaissance Man" appeal of Buckley. I remember his quote when asked what he would do if he were elected mayor of New York: "I'd demand a recount."

RIP.


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

An amazing man who will truly be missed. "Conservatives" of today who are concerned about abortion and gay marriage don't hold a candle to this guy's flawless logic.

As a kid I remember watching "Firing Line" (?). At the time I found his poor posture and lock-jaw strangely fascinating. Daddy certainly knew best, as I have grown to greatly admire old Bill.

Please post if you know of any tributes or public funeral events in the NYC area.

RIP


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> Buckley always defined for me what it was to be a conservative. Although I knew him only from television and his writing, he always struck me as at once serious and witty, religious and anti-theocratic, intellectual and engaging, partisan and friendly.
> 
> I loved the fact that he could debate strongly with the likes of Schlessinger and Moynahan and then enjoy them as friends. He always seemed to enjoy those who could challenge him more than sycophants who would agree with him. He gave intellectual weight to conservative philosophy at a time when it needed it and then held it's feet to the intellectual fire when it turned silly. He wasn't always right, but he was right most of the time.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have said it better myself. RIP.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

wessex said:


> An amazing man who will truly be missed. "Conservatives" of today who are concerned about abortion and gay marriage don't hold a candle to this guy's flawless logic.
> 
> RIP


For the record. WFB Jr. was concerned about abortion and gay marriage. He opposed both.

That aside, he was a genuinely important figure in the second half of America's 20th Century. An exceptionally lucid thinker and notably gifted writer, he was a conservative stalwart by any measure. Yet, he favored liberalization of drug laws simply as a prudential matter and was willing to alter his opinions as his fertile mind required -- abortion, indeed, being an example. He originally understood the question as a moral one grounded in religious conviction (explaining why he originally was unenthusiastically pro-choice) and later understood the question as a moral one grounded in natural law, much like slavery (explaining why he became enthusiastically pro-life).

And as mentioned above, he was the consummate wit. Two examples come to mind.

First, when running for mayor of NY, he was asked what his first official action would be if he won. His response -- "Why demand a recount, naturally."
Second, when it was noted many years ago that all the members of his extended family were committed practicing Catholics, he was asked what he would do if one or more of his children or other family members should choose to leave the Church. His response -- "Why I'd pray for them, of course."

I miss him already.


----------



## hbs midwest (Sep 19, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> For the record. WFB Jr. was concerned about abortion and gay marriage. He opposed both.
> 
> That aside, he was a genuinely important figure in the second half of America's 20th Century. An exceptionally lucid thinker and notably gifted writer, he was a conservative stalwart by any measure. Yet, he favored liberalization of drug laws simply as a prudential matter and was willing to alter his opinions as his fertile mind required -- abortion, indeed, being an example. He originally understood the question as a moral one grounded in religious conviction (explaining why he originally was unenthusiastically pro-choice) and later understood the question as a moral one grounded in natural law, much like slavery (explaining why he became enthusiastically pro-life).
> 
> ...


Me too. 

Memory Eternal!

hbs


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

He was the quintessential intellectual conservative - Heaven knows we could use some of those again! He'll be missed indeed.

When I was a kid my mother (an economist and politics junkie) and I used to watch his show "Firing Line" on PBS, and I used to do an imitation of him slouching over in a chair and speaking in his distinct "Ivy League mutter" as I like to think of it. He was cool because he just *didn't care* - he was all about his ideas and convictions, nothing else.

So who's the last sensible conservative? George Will I guess? The standard has been passed...

DCH


----------



## Nathan Detroit (Oct 12, 2005)

*Paul Fussell on Buckley...*

From, _Class_:

Al Haig's class stigma is the gaping jacket collar, always a prole giveaway. Here, the collar of the jacket separates itself from the collar of the shirt and backs off and up an inch or so: the effect is that of a man coming apart. That this caste mark is without specifically reactionary political meaning is confirmed by a photograph of Richard Hoggart, the British radical critic and Labour Party enthusiast, used to promote a recent book of his: his jacket collar is gaping a full inch at the rear, ample indication that jacket gape afflicts the far left as well as the far right. What it betrays, indeed, is less the zealot than the stooge. Like the poor chap interviewed on TV recently by William F. Buckley. He was from Texas and wanted to censor school textbooks to repress, among other evils, pro-mis-kitty. (As gently as possible, Buckley corrected this mispronunciation of promiscuity so that the audience would know what the poor ass was talking about.) But even if the Texan had not, with complete confidence in his unaided powers, delivered repeatedly this prole mispronunciation, his perceptiveness and sensibility could have been inferred from the way his jacket collar gaped open a full two inches. Buckley's collar, of course, clung tightly to his neck and shoulders, turn and bow and bob as he might. And here I will reject all accusations that I am favoring the rich over the poor. The distinction I'm pointing to is not one between the tailored clothes of the fortunate and the store clothes of the others, for if you try you can get a perfectly fitting suit collar off the rack, or at least have it altered to fit snugly. The difference is in recognizing this as a class signal and not being aware of it as such.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

I got to see WFB at a talk he gave at my college in the '90s and actually got to ask him a question and respond to a statement he made. 

WFB was not my cup of tea politically, but I have tremendous respect for him. May he rest in peace.


----------



## Falstaff (Oct 18, 2007)

AlanC said:


> I just saw the headline a few minutes ago. _God and Man at Yale_ had a profound impact on me when I read it in college. I actually got to meet and interview WFB at the National Review offices for my senior thesis. We also exchanged a few letters. He was a great man and will be missed.


That's incredibly fortunate. I would love to have had the same experience. We will miss him. A day of mourning for me and my dog.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The self destructive polarisation of America into 'blue- red' or any other self imposed limitations is a little scarier with his passing. We need dialog, not demagods.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> The self destructive polarisation of America into 'blue- red' or any other self imposed limitations is a little scarier with his passing. We need dialog, not demagods.


demagogs, even?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> demagogs, even?


"Demagod": a person popularly viewed as half-god half man who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.

Seems perfect to me, Kav. I like it. I'll mention it to the Clinton campaign.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> "Demagod": a person popularly viewed as half-god half man who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
> 
> Seems perfect to me, Kav. I like it. I'll mention it to the Clinton campaign.


er, not exactly:

Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public - typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> er, not exactly:
> 
> Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public - typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.


Well, we all know what a demagogue is, now don't we. What I was proposing was that Kav, presumably unintentionally, has created a useful new word -- "demagod" -- combining elements from "demagogue" and "demigod". I apologize if I was less than clear.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-buckley28feb28,1,4091138.story


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Buckley spoke at the memorial service for Al Lowenstein, a committed liberal and close friend of Buckley's. The words he offered then seem appropriate now, in reference to Buckley's life.

"How did he live such a life, so hectic with public concern, while preoccupying himself so fully with the individual human being? His rhythms were not of this world. His days, foreshortened, lived out the secular dissonances. . . . Who was it who said that Nature abhors a vacuum? Let Nature then fill this vacuum. That is the challenge which, bereft, the friends of Allard Lowenstein hurl up to Nature and Nature's God, prayerfully, demandingly, because today, Lord, our loneliness is great."

A fitting benediction and postlude


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> "Demagod": a person popularly viewed as half-god half man who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
> 
> Seems perfect to me, Kav. I like it. I'll mention it to the Clinton campaign.


That would be "demigod" then.

Demagog or demigod. Demagod is not a word.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, we all know what a demagogue is, now don't we. What I was proposing was that Kav, presumably unintentionally, has created a useful new word -- "demagod" -- combining elements from "demagogue" and "demigod". I apologize if I was less than clear.


No, we do not know what 'a demagogue' is. 

To demagogue; A demagog.

And no; he didn't create 'demagod'. It's a very common mistake. Far too common.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Al Haig's class stigma is the gaping jacket collar, always a prole giveaway. Here, the collar of the jacket separates itself from the collar of the shirt and backs off and up an inch or so: the effect is that of a man coming apart. That this caste mark is without specifically reactionary political meaning is confirmed by a photograph of Richard Hoggart, the British radical critic and Labour Party enthusiast, used to promote a recent book of his: his jacket collar is gaping a full inch at the rear, ample indication that jacket gape afflicts the far left as well as the far right. What it betrays, indeed, is less the zealot than the stooge. Like the poor chap interviewed on TV recently by William F. Buckley. He was from Texas and wanted to censor school textbooks to repress, among other evils, pro-mis-kitty. (As gently as possible, Buckley corrected this mispronunciation of promiscuity so that the audience would know what the poor ass was talking about.)


Very few people seem to know that, despite his Yale/Skull & Bones/European education/uber-Tradly Tradliness, Buckley's family was from Texas. His grandfather was Sheriff of Duval County, and his father was a Texas lawyer-turned oilman who made his career in dealings in and with Mexico. He had some incidental connection to the Wilson Administration's occupation of Veracruz (one of the many, many instances of American government lying its way into an unnecessary war for cheap oil ... that's Progressives for you). With his vast oil fortune, he married an urbane girl from New Orleans, raised their multilingual children in the northeast and Europe.

I only mention this because I have a special affinity for South Texas, the oil business, the potential (often dashed) for vigorous trade with Mexico, New Orleans and being expected to learn Spanish and French as a child. I did not learn that these were facets of WFB's life and family until only a few years ago, and I found them interesting since they seem so much at odds with the famous Connecticut-intellectual persona he acquired in only a single generation. His family history illustrates an aspect of life in South Texas that few people outside of the region seem to know much about.

In any event, I can only hope that his political opponents write obituary columns for him that are more civil and less insulting than the one he wrote on the death of Murray Rothbard.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No, we do not know what 'a demagogue' is.
> 
> To demagogue; A demagog.
> 
> And no; he didn't create 'demagod'. It's a very common mistake. Far too common.


Yes, quite correct -- demagog. And yes, I said the use of the pseudoword "demagod" was presumably unintentional. That does not mean it is not useful, especially in light of the godlike adoration certain presidential candidates receive and have received. I just thought the pseudoword was amusing, that's all. Almost as amusing as the failure of this thread's posters to grasp my observation.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> That would be "demigod" then.
> 
> Demagog or demigod. Demagod is not a word.


You missed the point completely. My definition was crafted to define the pseudoword "demagod" by taking elements from both "demagog" and "demigod".


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Phinn said:


> In any event, I can only hope that his political opponents write obituary columns for him that are more civil and less insulting than the one he wrote on the death of Murray Rothbard.


Yes, true. In his last 20 years Buckley allowed NR to become a shadow of its former self to the point that the only similarity with the original magazine is the name. My old boss Russell Kirk warned Buckley when he founded NR not to base it in NYC as the city would have a corrosive influence over the long term. Alas, he was a Cassandra and it all came to pass.

Still, Buckley did much good and many of his failings were those of old age.

The Buckley family also maintained a residence in Camden, SC for many years, and his brother Reid (I think) lived in SC permanently.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

"In any event, I can only hope that his political opponents write obituary columns for him that are more civil and less insulting than the one he wrote on the death of Murray Rothbard."

Everything WFB wrote about Rothbard in that obit was true, in my view. That said, it was uncharacteristically unkind to air Rothbard's deficiencies in such a context. An obituary is a forum suitable to display charity and respect for all but true villians. For all his faults or limitations, Rothbard was certainly not a villian. He was a serious and important thinker within libertarianism, and quite influential. I agree with Phinn that the obit was unfortunate.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I apologize for disrespecting the prescriptive grammar of some members via the invention of a non word. I did it on porpoise, a wet process.I think WB's dry humour would have appreciated my effort.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Very few people seem to know that, despite his Yale/Skull & Bones/European education/uber-Tradly Tradliness, Buckley's family was from Texas. His grandfather was Sheriff of Duval County, and his father was a Texas lawyer-turned oilman who made his career in dealings in and with Mexico. He had some incidental connection to the Wilson Administration's occupation of Veracruz (one of the many, many instances of American government lying its way into an unnecessary war for cheap oil ... that's Progressives for you). With his vast oil fortune, he married an urbane girl from New Orleans, raised their multilingual children in the northeast and Europe.
> 
> I only mention this because I have a special affinity for South Texas, the oil business, the potential (often dashed) for vigorous trade with Mexico, New Orleans and being expected to learn Spanish and French as a child. I did not learn that these were facets of WFB's life and family until only a few years ago, and I found them interesting since they seem so much at odds with the famous Connecticut-intellectual persona he acquired in only a single generation. His family history illustrates an aspect of life in South Texas that few people outside of the region seem to know much about.
> 
> In any event, I can only hope that his political opponents write obituary columns for him that are more civil and less insulting than the one he wrote on the death of Murray Rothbard.


I always thought he was born in Mexico, never knew where his family was from. I have his bio, I suppose I should read it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> I apologize for disrespecting the prescriptive grammar of some members via the invention of a non word. I did it on porpoise, a wet process.I think WB's dry humour would have appreciated my effort.


Well, Kav, I appreciated it. I even tried to give your new word an amusing and sensible definition. WFB loved words, and I suspect he smiled down upon your effort.


----------



## A. Clay-More (Dec 5, 2007)

*WFB RIP - sort of...*

Pompous and overrated. I used to see him at St. Catherine's and he was indeed very Trad.
While his passing will be mourned by some, let's not forget that WFB presided over the transformation and disintegration of the "conservative movement" he claimed to have founded. 
Especially over the issue of mass immigration, WFB's views were contemptible.
The best commentary I've read yet is Peter Brimelow's:

https://www.vdare.com/

"...those of us who live by opinion must be prepared to die by opinion."


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A. Clay-More said:


> Pompous and overrated. I used to see him at St. Catherine's and he was indeed very Trad.
> While his passing will be mourned by some, let's not forget that WFB presided over the transformation and disintegration of the "conservative movement" he claimed to have founded.
> Especially over the issue of mass immigration, WFB's views were contemptible.
> The best commentary I've read yet is Peter Brimelow's:
> ...


"It seems to me that the idea traditionally defended of endeavoring to maintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn't work any more."

It was this statement by Buckley that was the subject of Brimelow's commentary. Personally, I think that it is the defense of existing ethnic balances that is contemptible. If such a defense is integral to the conservative movement, then such movement is worthy of disintegration. But it is not integral to conservativism properly understood. A Mexican can immigrate to France, but will never truly be French; a German can immigrate to Japan, but never truly be Japanese; but a Frenchman or Japanese or Mexican or German can immigrate to America and become an American. That is the genius of America, and no true conservative would deny that in favor of maintaining "existing ethnic balances," which is largely a euphemism for other pretty nasty impulses -- impulses that the late Mr. Buckley rejected, to his eternal credit.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Yes, true. In his last 20 years Buckley allowed NR to become a shadow of its former self to the point that the only similarity with the original magazine is the name. My old boss Russell Kirk warned Buckley when he founded NR not to base it in NYC as the city would have a corrosive influence over the long term. Alas, he was a Cassandra and it all came to pass.


It was beyond Buckley's ability to prevent it from happening. For every true conservative the world is filled with thousands of borrow-and-spend neocons. Just as for every true liberal the world is filled with thousands of tax-and-spend socialists.

Buckley was my hero, not because I agreed with him on every issue but because he thought opinions through for himself and not for any given political party. Like nearly all true conservatives we rarely saw him on Fox News, and the few times he did appear he was obviously displeased at being there.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> For every true conservative the world is filled with thousands of borrow-and-spend neocons.


I tend to think of them as borrow-and-inflate-and-inflate-some-more-and-tax-and-spend neocons.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

Falstaff said:


> A day of mourning for me and my dog ...


.. who is up in paws about the demadogs (sic 'em!)

.


----------



## A. Clay-More (Dec 5, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> It was this statement by Buckley that was the subject of Brimelow's commentary. Personally, I think that it is the defense of existing ethnic balances that is contemptible. If such a defense is integral to the conservative movement, then such movement is worthy of disintegration. But it is not integral to conservativism properly understood. A Mexican can immigrate to France, but will never truly be French; a German can immigrate to Japan, but never truly be Japanese; but a Frenchman or Japanese or Mexican or German can immigrate to America and become an American. That is the genius of America, and no true conservative would deny that in favor of maintaining "existing ethnic balances," which is largely a euphemism for other pretty nasty impulses -- impulses that the late Mr. Buckley rejected, to his eternal credit.


Buckley and his "conservative" followers lost their nerve and surrendered to those "nasty impulses," i.e. mass immigration, diversity industry, multiculturalism, balkanization, etc..

WFB has left a deplorable legacy. The pathetic state of the "conservative movement" today is more than enough proof of it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

A. Clay-More said:


> Buckley and his "conservative" followers lost their nerve and surrendered to those "nasty impulses," i.e. mass immigration, diversity industry, multiculturalism, balkanization, etc..
> 
> WFB has left a deplorable legacy. The pathetic state of the "conservative movement" today is more than enough proof of it.


And with that bit of unconditional patriotism and love, I'll bid final farewell to AAAC. It's gotten to the point where even casual reading of this board (let alone participation) is more irritation than it's worth.

Thanks for the glimpse into the very essence of Satan, and making me understand why an eternal hell might really exist, and why it really is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

I know, I know, don't let the door etc. Best of luck to everyone.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

A. Clay-More said:


> Buckley and his "conservative" followers lost their nerve and surrendered to those "nasty impulses," i.e. mass immigration, diversity industry, multiculturalism, balkanization, etc..
> 
> WFB has left a deplorable legacy. The pathetic state of the "conservative movement" today is more than enough proof of it.


Wow, only 15 posts and you have already proved your posts are not worth reading. Good job.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A. Clay-More said:


> Buckley and his "conservative" followers lost their nerve and surrendered to those "nasty impulses," i.e. mass immigration, diversity industry, multiculturalism, balkanization, etc..
> 
> WFB has left a deplorable legacy. The pathetic state of the "conservative movement" today is more than enough proof of it.


The diversity industry and multiculturalism certainly are corrupting social influences in many ways, but for the most part they are not grounded in any nasty impulse -- just muddle-headed thinking and naivety with some garden variety self-righteousness thrown in for good measure. But defending existing ethnic balances is another thing altogether. And apparently to some folks the failure to defend existing ethnic balances is tantamount to supporting mass immigration, the diversity industry, multiculturalism, and balkanization of some kind or another. How amusing.

Buckley took the measure of the latent and not so latent racists, bigots and nativists who called themselves conservative, and vomited them out of the NR. He was a great American, but a serious Catholic and Christian first. He will be missed by true conservatives, even if he isn't by doctrinaire libertarians or narrow-minded nativists.

Finally, George F Will was close to the truth. Without Buckley, no Goldwater; without Goldwater, no Reagan; and without Reagan, no Soviet collapse. Buckley, like Reagan, opposed evil and respected self-interest; and both also understood the proper relation between the two.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> The diversity industry and multiculturalism certainly are corrupting social influences in many ways, but for the most part they are not grounded in any nasty impulse -- just muddle-headed thinking and naivety with some garden variety self-righteousness thrown in for good measure. But defending existing ethnic balances is another thing altogether. And apparently to some folks the failure to defend existing ethnic balances is tantamount to supporting mass immigration, the diversity industry, multiculturalism, and balkanization of some kind or another. How amusing.
> 
> Buckley took the measure of the latent and not so latent racists, bigots and nativists who called themselves conservative, and vomited them out of the NR. He was a great American, but a serious Catholic and Christian first. *He will be missed by true conservatives, even if he isn't by doctrinaire libertarians or narrow-minded nativists.*
> 
> Finally, George F Will was close to the truth. Without Buckley, no Goldwater; without Goldwater, no Reagan; and without Reagan, no Soviet collapse. Buckley, like Reagan, opposed evil and respected self-interest; and both also understood the proper relation between the two.


Which, I might add, comprise just a small minority of the population...except on the internet.


----------



## A. Clay-More (Dec 5, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Finally, George F Will was close to the truth. Without Buckley, no Goldwater; without Goldwater, no Reagan; and without Reagan, no Soviet collapse. Buckley, like Reagan, opposed evil and respected self-interest; and both also understood the proper relation between the two.


WFB was a fame-seeking opportunist and a media hound.

I give him credit for helping defend the West from Soviet tyranny, but he did nothing to stop the US from becoming a third world country, which arguably is a far bigger disaster to befall us. In fact he helped enable the transformation.

The American "conservative movement" is in disarray. NR, staffed by little kids and frat boys, has become a thin shadow of its former self. It is barely readable.

It's a shame that so many otherwise good people got side-tracked and hoodwinked by this guy. What a waste of time and talent.

Just my .02 worth.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Okay, let's all behave ourselves in this thread, which is in memory of a man who has just passed.

I have my own disagreements with WFB, particularly in recent years, but let's not let this thread get out of hand.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

A. Clay-More said:


> WFB was a fame-seeking opportunist and a media hound.
> 
> I give him credit for helping defend the West from Soviet tyranny, but he did nothing to stop the US from becoming a third world country, which arguably is a far bigger disaster to befall us. In fact he helped enable the transformation.
> 
> ...


Speaking of "opportunists" - bashing a recently deceased man?

What is a shame is: that you waited to confront him until after his demise. I'm sure you could have told him a thing or two! LOL

Then he could have "socked you in the @#$(&[email protected] face and you['d] stay plastered" too! To quote the man himself.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I apologize for disrespecting the prescriptive grammar of some members via the invention of a non word. I did it on porpoise, a wet process.I think WB's dry humour would have appreciated my effort.





Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, quite correct -- demagog. And yes, I said the use of the pseudoword "demagod" was presumably unintentional. That does not mean it is not useful, especially in light of the godlike adoration certain presidential candidates receive and have received. I just thought the pseudoword was amusing, that's all. Almost as amusing as the failure of this thread's posters to grasp my observation.





Mike Petrik said:


> You missed the point completely. My definition was crafted to define the pseudoword "demagod" by taking elements from both "demagog" and "demigod".


Oh! I apologize for misunderestimating your collective strategeries.

For myself, Mr. Buckley's Word of the Day was one of my first favorite stops on Algore's internets.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

A. Clay-More said:


> Pompous and overrated...


Funny, I was just thinking the same about you...


----------



## Good Old Sledge (Jun 13, 2006)

May he rest in peace, indeed.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

A. Clay-More said:


> WFB was a fame-seeking opportunist and a media hound.
> 
> I give him credit for helping defend the West from Soviet tyranny, but he did nothing to stop the US from becoming a third world country, which arguably is a far bigger disaster to befall us. In fact he helped enable the transformation.
> 
> ...


Assuming what you say to be true, the conservative movement, as you call it, before WFB was populated by many anti-semites, segregationists, and other fringe factions. WFB spoke against much of that (it took him a little while to find his voice on segregation). Ronald Reagan certainly thanked WFB profusely for leading the movement into the mainstream. If the movement lost steam, I am not sure it was WFB's fault.

I have to admit that I am not really a conservative, so I do not much care. I do admire someone who spoke 3 languages fluently (English was his third language), wrote 50 books, served in the CIA, etc.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*1981 60 Minutes piece on Buckley*

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/national/main3882495.shtml

Though some of you might enjoy this vintage gem.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Thanks, ce. The man was indeed quite a breadth of fresh air.


----------



## Alexander & Overcharge (Feb 20, 2008)

Tom Buchanan said:


> ... [In the 1950s and '60s] the conservative movement, as you call it, before WFB was populated by many anti-semites, segregationists, and other fringe factions.


True. Such paramilitary groups as the Christian Defense League and the Minutemen (not the same as today's Minutemen) had their heyday back then.



Tom Buchanan said:


> WFB spoke against much of that (it took him a little while to find his voice on segregation).


Also true. Back then, WFB was rather ambivalent --to put it kindly-- about the civil rights movement.

.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Buckley, Kirk, Rothbard and Vdare on a clothing forum thread! Only Ayn Rand is missing from that list. WFB published Whittaker Chambers' notorious review, or rather hatchet job, of "Atlas Shrugged". I loved the old NR but now prefer the "American Conservative" and "Chronicles".


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*NY Times*

The NY Times obituary was, to say the least, gracious.

Although I disagreed with his politics and religion, I admired his intelligence and wit. I learned a great deal about argumentation watching Firing Line.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> The NY Times obituary was, to say the least, gracious.
> 
> Although I disagreed with his politics and religion, I admired his intelligence and wit. I learned a great deal about argumentation watching Firing Line.
> 
> ...


Buckley has claimed that his greatest accomplishment was the founding of National Review. Probably true. It provided a forum for a variety of conservatives to engage in dialogue and debate. In an effort to reveal the unity of the many parts of that one particular body, it actually revealed the many ways that conservatives disagree with one another--often passionately. (The Chambers review of the Rand book is an example). Can libertarians, traditionalists, Tories, evangelicals, neocons, and paleocons get along? A yet unanswered question.

What can be said for certain is that the flowering of the conservative movement has changed the Republican party--for better or worse, depending upon your vantage point. The moderate-to-liberal Republicans of bygone days emphasized discipline both in terms of foreign and domestic affairs: a commitment to containment, and an eagerness to maintain balanced budgets. Remember that one such Republican--fellow named George H.W. Bush--once referred to Reagan's supply-side, "trickle-down" economics as "voodoo economics"?

Which party is known (nowadays) for such discipline?

Recently an old line liberal Republican (Lincoln Chafee) fled the party and endorsed Obama. Lots of other Republicans--and I here speak confessionally--have done likewise. Which returns me to the point: the flowering of the conservative movement has changed the party throughout the past few decades. Some of us think for worse.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Harris said:


> Buckley has claimed that his greatest accomplishment was the founding of National Review. Probably true. It provided a forum for a variety of conservatives to engage in dialogue and debate. In an effort to reveal the unity of the many parts of that one particular body, it actually revealed the many ways that conservatives disagree with one another--often passionately. (The Chambers review of the Rand book is an example). Can libertarians, traditionalists, Tories, evangelicals, neocons, and paleocons get along? A yet unanswered question.
> 
> What can be said for certain is that the flowering of the conservative movement has changed the Republican party--for better or worse, depending upon your vantage point. The moderate-to-liberal Republicans of bygone days emphasized discipline both in terms of foreign and domestic affairs: a commitment to containment, and an eagerness to maintain balanced budgets. Remember that one such Republican--fellow named George H.W. Bush--once referred to Reagan's supply-side, "trickle-down" economics as "voodoo economics"?
> 
> ...


You should have preceded that with some kind of warning. I just spit coffee on my monitor. The close was perhaps the most honest 'confession' I have ever read by a Republican. You are to be commended.

Surely WFB succeeded in temporarily hijacking a liberal party. I think it's more true that the bygone days are because Mr. Buckley and his surrogates did so by getting a majority to support their policy views without understanding the intellectual foundations. Ronaldus Maximus was what allowed movement-conservatives to shortcut the long educational process of millions of moment-conservatives (intuitively vs. intellectually). I think this is demonstrated by the fact that GHWB and not Reagan was viewed as the peak of WFB's success. Yet, WFB juxtaposes GHWB as "being conservative" while Reagan was "a conservative." I think a sad recognition that movement-conservatives failed to achieve any lasting success because the vehicle of anti-communism was rendered useless more quickly than WFB ever imagined and the convenient vehicle of charisma over ideology was viewed as temporary. I think it's interesting to ask did Reagan know and did he discuss this with WFB? Reagan's practical knowledge and prior experience with small-p politics must have made him aware of what WFB perhaps would not admit at the time and what we are seeing in say Obama today on the socialist-agenda front - that a movement-conservative has not yet succeeded solely on the basis of the intellectual arguments. WFB recently said Reagan was NOT the fulfillment of the dream. I'm not quite sure he held that view at Reagan's innaugural.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Where are the other WFBs? After ~50 years, where are the other movement leaders he left behind? Surely not Limbaugh & Hannity, but also just as surely not Rich Lowry & David Keene. While WFB's influence is and will be felt for generations to come, who can continue to carry his mantle forward? Perhaps that was his one human failing. I am not in a position to say, but I wonder if perhaps he enjoyed being the only one a little too much at times.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Harris said:


> Can libertarians, traditionalists, Tories, evangelicals, neocons, and paleocons get along? A yet unanswered question.


No. The Conservative movement is hopelessly split. Even WFB finally tired of the neo-cons who ruined National Review.

The paleo-cons and traditionalists can get along with the paleo-libertarians on LewRockwell.com, Takimag.com and in the Ron Paul campaign. The neo-cons and evangelicals are happy waging war on the Muslims. The beltway libertarians in Cato and Reason are increasingly embracing the Democrats.

Of course, the split may be, in part, healed temporaily to get McCain elected. But President McCain will split the movement even more than the spendthrift, deficit addicted, war-mongering Bush-Cheney adminstration.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> No. The Conservative movement is hopelessly split. Even WFB finally tired of the neo-cons who ruined National Review.
> 
> The paleo-cons and traditionalists can get along with the paleo-libertarians on LewRockwell.com, Takimag.com and in the Ron Paul campaign. The neo-cons and evangelicals are happy waging war on the Muslims. The beltway libertarians in Cato and Reason are increasingly embracing the Democrats.
> 
> Of course, the split may be, in part, healed temporaily to get McCain elected. But President McCain will split the movement even more than the spendthrift, deficit addicted, war-mongering Bush-Cheney adminstration.


Eh...To assume that the conservative movement is split, is to assume it was ever unified. It, like the liberal movement, is and always has been a coalition. The fact that Buckley and his small government/anti-communist conservatives always had more in common with the evangelicals on the social side and the anti-communist liberals (i.e. the "Neo-Cons") did not mean that they ever were "unified" in my view, any more than the black church, the unions and the environmentalists were unified on the left.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> Eh...To assume that the conservative movement is split, is to assume it was ever unified. It, like the liberal movement, is and always has been a coalition. The fact that Buckley and his small government/anti-communist conservatives always had more in common with the evangelicals on the social side and the anti-communist liberals (i.e. the "Neo-Cons") did not mean that they ever were "unified" in my view, any more than the black church, the unions and the environmentalists were unified on the left.


Hey! If they weren't unified how do you explain the VRWC?


----------



## forestcarter (Feb 11, 2007)

AlanC said:


> Yes, true. In his last 20 years Buckley allowed NR to become a shadow of its former self to the point that the only similarity with the original magazine is the name. My old boss Russell Kirk warned Buckley when he founded NR not to base it in NYC as the city would have a corrosive influence over the long term. Alas, he was a Cassandra and it all came to pass.
> 
> Still, Buckley did much good and many of his failings were those of old age.
> 
> The Buckley family also maintained a residence in Camden, SC for many years, and his brother Reid (I think) lived in SC permanently.


Yes, Reid was and editor at Southern Partisan Magazine in Columbia for awhile, and they usually have a tent at Carolina Cup.

I agree with you that National Review isn't what it used to be. I have a great deal of respect for Buckley, but this talk that he never sacrificed his principles seems a bit lacking for those who have had a bit of experience with National Review.


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

AlanC said:


> I just saw the headline a few minutes ago. _God and Man at Yale_ had a profound impact on me when I read it in college. I actually got to meet and interview WFB at the National Review offices for my senior thesis. We also exchanged a few letters. He was a great man and will be missed.


I also had a chance to meet and interview WFB many years ago for my college radio station, and he was very nice and engaging. I would have to say it was one of the most interesting conversations I have ever had. Too bad Cardinal Egan refused him a Latin Requiem Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, I would have liked to have gone to the Mass. As it was, I believe his service was private.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

forestcarter said:


> Yes, Reid was and editor at Southern Partisan Magazine in Columbia for awhile...


Yes--I had forgotten that. I have some various ties to SP.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Here's another view, lately submitted*

Not endorsing or denying, just putting it out there in the mix:

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080320_gore_vidal_speaks_seriously_ill_of_the_dead/


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Not endorsing or denying, just putting it out there in the mix:
> 
> https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080320_gore_vidal_speaks_seriously_ill_of_the_dead/


As if Gore Vidal could worsen his own reputation or impune WFB's. Not just a coward, but a jerk and a coward.

Did someone actually print that or is that just some kind of blog? Certainly even the NYT wouldn't print that!

Newsflash: WFB wasn't perfect. However, he usually confronted his adversaries face-to-face.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> As if Gore Vidal could worsen his own reputation or impune WFB's. Not just a coward, but a jerk and a coward.
> 
> Did someone actually print that or is that just some kind of blog? Certainly even the NYT wouldn't print that!
> 
> Newsflash: WFB wasn't perfect. However, he usually confronted his adversaries face-to-face.


In the case of Gore Vidal they were face-to-face and WFB called the adversary a name and threatened to hit him.

I enjoyed the Gore Vidal article. I'll probably buy a couple of the autographed books.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> In the case of Gore Vidal they were face-to-face and WFB called the adversary a name and threatened to hit him.
> 
> I enjoyed the Gore Vidal article. I'll probably buy a couple of the autographed books.
> 
> ...


Well, IMHO there is nothing wrong with what WFB did when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal if he called him a crypto-Nazi again; in fact I consider it honorable compared to the article by Gore Vidal after WFB's passing. If Gore Vidal wanted to fight with WFB he had his chance, while WFB was alive, and passed.

An analogy would be if when George Foreman dies I might write an article saying how I never thought he was all that tough and I wish he quit dodging me and taken the fight.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Well, IMHO there is nothing wrong with what WFB did when he threatened to sock Gore Vidal if he called him a crypto-Nazi again; in fact I consider it honorable compared to the article by Gore Vidal after WFB's passing. If Gore Vidal wanted to fight with WFB he had his chance, while WFB was alive, and passed.
> 
> An analogy would be if when George Foreman dies I might write an article saying how I never thought he was all that tough and I wish he quit dodging me and taken the fight.


Well, actually, threatening to hit someone who calls you a name is not, in my opinion, OK. Moreover, Vidal wasn't challenging a dead person to fight, he was saying unflattering things about him. As far as verbal sparring, I am sure Mr. Vidal was happy to engage Buckley when he (Mr. Buckley) was alive.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Well, actually, threatening to hit someone who calls you a name is not, in my opinion, OK. Moreover, Vidal wasn't challenging a dead person to fight, he was saying unflattering things about him. As far as verbal sparring, I am sure Mr. Vidal was happy to engage Buckley when he (Mr. Buckley) was alive.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I think you conveniently restated my point and the facts incorrectly.

Clearly, verbal sparring is something neither man would shy away from, but GV crossed that line then and he is crossing it again now.

GV didn't just engage WFB in 1968, he insulted him. Yes, WFB threatened and insulted him back. GV decided he didn't want a piece of WFB and stood down.

Now that WFB is dead, GV has resumed insulting him. That's the act of a coward IMHO.

One can disagree with WFB and not act like a coward or call him a slur. I've read several posts in this very thread along those lines. That is a respectable position. WFB was afterall engaging in verbal combat too. WFB never cried about it he just threatened to bend GV's nose a little. No big deal in 1968.


----------

