# William F. Buckley is dead **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 27, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392 "2008-02-27T17:20:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/41 "2008-03-01T02:37:35Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] I’m sure he was liked by many and will be missed by some, but had there never been a Buckley, there would have been no loss to American society or culture. [/QUOTE] I think you’re wrong in this. His influence was considerable - in the 1950s and early 1960s the primary battles he was fighting were on the right - with John Birchers and Ayn Randians. He essentially laid out the philosophical parameters of modern conservatism, along with Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers and a few others. And in doing so, he left the isolationist and anti-Semitic loons deliberately outside of the movement, so that the small bunch left could grow in a productive direction. Now, since I generally consider the modern conservative movement to have had a generally healthy effect on society, his role here can’t be underestimated. As a liberal, you might decry some of these results, but an honest evaluation shows the hand of Buckley on much of what has happened since 1980. Everything from tax cuts to the end of the Cold War were things he fought hard for. So you’re wrong - had he never been around, it would have been a great loss. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/42 "2008-03-01T03:46:53Z")
I do disagree with the conservative agenda, but I think that’s beside the point. What I think is a mistake is that someone who is basically an opinion mongerer is in the American system little more than a dilettante. Nothing Buckley did – whether it was writing books or articles or columns or associating with muckety mucks on the right – actually had any tangible influence on the “conservative movement” as a real political power. Buckley wasn’t an official, a politician, a campaign worker, a grass-roots organizer, an advertiser. He wasn’t anybody who actually created any policy or implemented any policy or who had any kind of power or authority over anybody who could. To the extent that Buckley’s writings persuaded anybody that his side was right – well, I’m skeptical that anyone actually makes up their minds on matters like this just by reading something by someone who has nothing more than an opinion. Or if there are any such people, that they constitute a rarefied intellectual class that actually has scant impact on the broad movements among voters. Goldwater, Reagan, Atwater, Ailes, Gingrich … dozens of people who ran for office or worked on campaigns or actually created or implemented strategies or policies … those are the people who were responsible for creating and moving the conservative movement. They’re the ones who actually did things. Buckley sat back and had drinks and wrote his little articles. You say Buckley “did battle” with segregationists and John Birchers, etc. I find almost inconceivable the notion that Buckley, sitting in his ivory tower, could come anywhere near such people or anywhere near such a battle, or could have done or said anything that could possibly move the people that matter … the common voters. They are the ones that had to be moved for the conservative movement to have any kind of success and Buckley sitting back and writing his opinion about stuff is so far removed from moving actual voters that it might as well have been in an alternative reality. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/43 "2008-03-01T16:25:44Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Now, since I generally consider the modern conservative movement to have had a generally healthy effect on society, his role here can’t be underestimated. As a liberal, you might decry some of these results, but an honest evaluation shows the hand of Buckley on much of what has happened since 1980. Everything from tax cuts to the end of the Cold War were things he fought hard for. [/QUOTE] As a liberal, I feel the same way (I think it’s fairly obvious that The New Deal and The Great Society won the Cold War, though, but that’s an argument for a different thread). I’m not so arrogant as to believe that everything I support is the correct policy. What Buckley did was demonstrate that conservatism was an intellectual approach to politics. It’s hard to believe now, but at one time that a radical notion. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/44 "2008-03-01T16:46:32Z")
Buckley was a master of erudite but logically flawed arguments. Elegant sophistry, I guess, might be a suitable term. Virtually always disagreed with him, but sometimes liked his writing. Now we’re left with dullards and slackwits like William Kristol. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/45 "2008-03-01T17:40:20Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] It’s very jarring to read that in 2008, but I suspect it didn’t sound too out of place in 1957. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say on the subject in 1967. [/QUOTE] A quick Googling does not show anything where he recanted or reconsidered. It would be relieving to know he did. There’s one fewer smug ideologue in the world now. I think we’ll survive. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/46 "2008-03-06T18:08:17Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] [Here is the whole editorial.](http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html) It sounds like what might charitably be called “enlightened superiority”. It’s very jarring to read that in 2008, but I suspect it didn’t sound too out of place in 1957. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say on the subject in 1967. [/QUOTE] I just listened to _Fresh Air_’s replay of Terry Gross’s 1989 interview of Buckley. She read this quote to him and asked him about it. You can listen to it [here.](http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=02-28-2008&view=storyview) Paraphrasing, Buckley’s answer began with a kind of resigned regret that the U.S. Constitution allows one to produce prostitution (You can have two people on stage having sex with each other so long as you pay them minimum wage, or some such saw). In the same way, he said, southern states were empowered by the constitution to prevent blacks from voting. It’s the constitution, he seemed to say, whatever can one do? The implicit issue, of course, is that in putting on a pornographic play, one is not interfering with someone else’s constitutional rights but preventing blacks from voting does interfere with someone’s constitutional, indeed, some might say, fundamental rights. This issue seemed to be addressed in the interview when Gross asked him about his language regarding “advanced civilization.” Well, Buckley said, obviously southern whites were more advanced or else you wouldn’t need a group like the N.A.A.C.P. (which Buckley himself apparently contributed to financially) in order to “advance” colored people. (My thought was that the organization was primarily devoted to “advancing” them from the legal and societal constraints imposed by the majority, not to civilizing them.) Buckley added that, well, you know, it’s regrettable (although constitutional, apparently) that blacks were kept in a backward state by the majority through, for example, sub-standard educational opportunities. But, regardless of the reason for their backwardness, they were still backward, and, thus, whites were justified in preventing them, as backward people, from voting. Gross then asked whether he believed in universal suffrage, and Buckley basically said no, implying that he believed that there should be some kind of educational or intellectual test for voters, but he didn’t really expound on this point, so I’m not sure what he thought should be the standard for allowing someone to vote. My reaction is, of course, that without the vote, an individual or group is denied the political power to seek to achieve other kinds of advancement. I see the right to vote as fundamental, the basis for ensuring that one may exercise other kinds of freedoms. I take it Buckley didn’t see it this way. Gross also asked him briefly about his thesis in “God and Man at Yale,” and Buckley said (again I’m paraphrasing) that he believed that educational institutions ought to be inculcating moral and intellectual judgments. In other words (to use his own example), students should be taught that _Das Kapital_ is not a valid statement of history, economics, philosophy, whatever. So, Buckley seemed to be in favor of the proposition that “our” philosophy (I’m not sure whether he means Western society in general or Roman Catholic morality or Judeo-Christian values or capitalism or liberal democracy or whatever – probably some combination of them) is correct and should be taught as being correct. I am assuming that he would use the words “liberty” or “freedom” or “free society” in some way to describe his politico-social philosophy. But, he seems to hold the view that development of an independent intellectual mind is not part of that. Freedom of intellect, which to me is one of the cornerstones of education, seems to be anathema to Buckley. Altogether, I think this interview confirms for me my evaluation of Buckley as an intellectual dilettante. Oh, and of course he mentioned the John Birchers as one of his antagonists in the conservative movement. I still fail to grasp what possibly Buckley might have done to minimize the influence of John Birchism on the right. To the extent that John Birchism didn’t triumph as a guiding principle of conservatism (and I think the point is somewhat arguable), it’s because not enough individual voters (very few of whom are influenced directly or indirectly by people like Buckley) found it attractive enough and voted for other kinds of candidates and policies on the right. Buckley was really irrelevant to the matter. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/47 "2008-03-06T18:31:48Z")
[David Icke](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_icke) has personally seen Buckley turn into a humanoid lizard. I wonder what form such a being assumes after death? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/48 "2008-03-27T20:42:56Z")
I’m bumping this to give a link to Vidal’s [obitchuary](http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080320_gore_vidal_speaks_seriously_ill_of_the_dead/) of Buckley. He came to piss on the grave of Buckley, not to praise him: Highlights: > [@](#): > > Although Buckley was often drunk and out of control, he was always a spontaneous liar on any subject that his dizzy brain might extrude. > > … > > Buckley was a world-class American liar on the far right who would tell any lie he thought he could get away with. Years of ass-kissing famous people in the press and elsewhere had given him, he felt, a sort of license to libelously slander those hated liberals who, from time to time, smoked him out as I did in Chicago > > … > > The current editors at Newsweek appear to have listened eagerly to his son Christopher\*, who is guiding them to a benign view of what had been a most hysterical queen (WFB), much admired by a media that takes everyone at his own evaluation of himself > > … > > RIP WFB—in hell. > > … > > \*_who GV referred to as Buckley’s “brain dead son” earlier in the article._ Not all of its as affectionate as the above. Uncle Gore holds a grudge. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392/49 "2008-03-27T21:10:46Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] Yet another Gore Vidal foe gone… coincidence? [/QUOTE] Yet another Lyndon LaRouche foe\* gone . . . coincidence? - At least as perceived by LaRouche, who has on occasion called Buckley a “pot-puffing fop.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/william-f-buckley-is-dead/439392.md?page=2)