[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here is the whole editorial.
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.
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.