William F. Buckley Dies

[filkertom]

A respectful bow of the head: Author, columnist, and conservative commentator William F. Buckley has passed away at the age of 82.

It's funny. I didn't agree with the guy on much of anything, and he was often, let's be charitable, an object of caricature. That was how I first really got him in my head, in fact: Robin Williams, on his first comedy album, Reality - What A Concept, did Buckley reading the story of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears".

But he was thoughtful and passionate and bloody effing smart, and he at least seemed to be listening some of the time when someone confronted him head-on. And, unlike many who pass themselves off as "conservative" these days, he mostly stuck with his principles. And he was a hell of a wordsmith. So, fare well, sir. Thanks for making it interesting.

What do you think embodies "true" conservatism (as opposed to the radical version currently in favor since the Newt Gingrich years)? And can you think of anyone who follows it, let alone makes it seem an appealing philosophy?

Comments

[kilbia.livejournal.com]

Another reason for you to admire him: The obituary said he could occasionally craft a column in about 20 minutes. So he was the world's fastest at his game too. =)

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

I am with you 100% on Buckley. He was a man who was well-educated and did not scorn "egg-headedness", as so many of the neocons do. His arguments were always well-reasoned, insightful, and above all, CIVIL (unlike clowns such as Limbaugh & Cunningham).

[wcg.livejournal.com]

What do you think embodies "true" conservatism

Barry Goldwater's book, The American Conservative, is still the best treatise on what it means to be a (thoughtful) conservative in the US.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Goldwater, of course, is dead.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Thankfully so. If he saw what passes for conservatism in America today, it'd probably kill him.

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

I rarely agreed with him, but always like to hear what he had to say. The world's a lesser place with out him.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

He and I rarely saw eye to eye, but I appreciated his willingness to engage in serious debate; he confronted issues and reasoned logically. It's a shame that can't be said of ANY leading conservative (or any current self-proclaimed conservative of whom I'm aware, unless you count John Cole).

[sdelmonte]

Your words capture how I feel about Mr. Buckley to a T.

I will add that he was a pretty good pulp fiction spy novelist as well. The Blackford Oakes books are not perfect, but they are fun.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

PNH's take on it is very close to mine. Admiring a man for sticking to his principles, when those principles included uncompromising evil, is not much of a recommendation.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

You can be unwavering and devoted to a wrong cause too. Just because one is smart and dedicated, that doesn't make one worthy of respect or admiration. A certain religious bigot recently passed away, and he too was smart and dedicated. One must do more than simply badmouth others before I consider one noteworthy.

Conservative and Liberal - there is some good and bad in both viewpoints. The "true direction" lays between them somewhere. Not that you'll get either side to admit that their excrement smells like anything but lilac, which is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in today.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Buckley was a class act. You could disagree with him completely yet still have a civil and enjoyable discussion. There used to be some like him in congress and holding high positions, but they've all been driven out by the Gingrich type of neoconservatives.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Conservatism used to mean a desire to maintain the status quo.

Now it means calling everything you don't personally like or agree with "liberal".

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

I like that definition. Thank you.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Bite me, furry!

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Liberal! :)

[catalana.livejournal.com]

I've always liked Buckley. As you say, I don't always agree with him. But he at least tended toward rational arguments rather than emotional rhetoric - and I believe he may have actually used his brain some times when reaching his conclusions. (Yeah, so my standards are fairly low for politicians and journalists.)

[sethb.livejournal.com]

He had sensible opinions on drug laws.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

For me real and abiding conservatism means not wasting taxpayer monies and having only those things that the country needs.

For example: rather than spend millions of dollars a year studying cow farts (I kid you not. That actually is one of the things that gets earmark money) we should use that money to find a way to provide health care for citizens that can't afford it.

True conservatism means working in the best interests of ALL the people. It means talking and debating ideas, not attacking someone because they think differently than you. It means believing in the totality of the Constitution and the iron clad definitions of all of the ammendments.

It means being able to talk reasonablly with people and work on the level of the people to affect change; because just changing a law won't do anything to change people. It means finding real common sense solutions and not just using a feel good solution.

I can't think of anyone that really embodies all of that. I'd say myself but even I fall short from time to time.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Much agreement (although I'm curious as to the real purpose behind that "cow fart" research -- there's been some very interesting and useful stuff lately regarding methane processing, not to mention that some anti-environmentalism types actually blame cow farts for global warming in an effort to minimize human responsibility, and this could be part of the effort to prove or disprove that).

But I will point out that, in a lot of ways, the major differences between all the various political philosophies can be summed up by how they define "in the best interests of ALL the people".

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

some anti-environmentalism types actually blame cow farts for global warming in an effort to minimize human responsibility

Even if it's true (at least in part)...cows, as domestic animals, eat what we give 'em, and diet is going to have a significant impact on output; it's bean known for some time that garbage in -> garbage out. ;)

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

it's bean known

Yet another source of methane.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I will point out that, in a lot of ways, the major differences between all the various political philosophies can be summed up by how they define "in the best interests of ALL the people"

Especially as regards to defining "interests" and "people". (The latter definition has in effect changed radically, at least twice, in the history of the US.)

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

... some anti-environmentalism types actually blame cow farts for global warming in an effort to minimize human responsibility ...

Which always makes me ask why there might be so many cows in the first place. Yeah, I'm almost a carnivore and that's not going to change by choice, but even if the "cow farts" are a problem, the cows are here in such numbers are ultimately a human responsibility.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well. Cause and effect are not necessarily the biggest agenda items for some of our modern punditry.

[arakasi1.livejournal.com]

There has actually been a lot of research in India on using composting cow manure as a power source (http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/methane.htm) (rule of thumb seems to be 1lb cow manure = 1 ft^3 methane) Maybe those millions are being used to close the cow fart gap.

(A brief discussion of a pilot program in Vermont can be found here (http://www.biomasscenter.org/reports/vmpp.html) )

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

rather than spend millions of dollars a year studying cow farts (I kid you not. That actually is one of the things that gets earmark money)

I haven't seen the detailed proposal for the study you mentioned...but there is no research program (or proposal) that can't be trivialized by a proper choice of descriptive phrase. (I can think of at least a couple of good reasons to intensively study cow emissions.)

Judging research (or other) projects on the basis of sound bites about them--good or bad--is rarely appropriate.

(This is not a defense of earmarks; that's an entirely different matter.)

Farewell Mr. Buckley...

[msgeek.livejournal.com]

I happened to like him, even though I disagreed with him all the time. Unapologetically smart, even during the two great periods of conservative anti-intellectualism. An old school, "government should keep their nose out of my business" kind of conservative. He even believed in ending the drug war! He was an advancer of religion, and an advocate of religion in the public square, but he was a Thomist Catholic who believed you didn't check your brains at the door of the church. He was a Reaganite, and a personal friend of Reagan, but was legitimately horrified of the George W. Bush carnival of errors.

He was the last of his kind. A reasoning, and reasonable, conservative. The troglodytes, war mongers and Jeezo-grovelers who wear the label now weren't fit to shine his Brogans.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned, the Ann Coulter version is "true conservatism". And yes, this means that conservatism is incompatible with learning, civility and human decency--and aggressively proud of it. This is why a lot of people who used to call themselves conservative just because they(like, most liberals) didn't like paying high taxes and had respect for the rule of law, are now discovering themselves to be more liberal than they'd thought.

Definitions change over time. 50 years ago, the Democratic party was the racist party, and it was possible to be both a Republican and a scholar. Not any more. I remember Barry Goldwater coming to Clinton's defense in a 1995 interview, and the Newtists denouncing him as a damn liberal. Really.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Ann Coulter and her flying howler monkeys are the voice of conservatism today, yes. I blame Limbaugh for that. Without the Jerry Springer of political commentary, Coulter wouldn't have a job.

Most people find themselves growing more conservative with age, not more liberal; that the reverse has occurred means only that "center" has shifted toward the right.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

Michelle Malkin, who is not unwilling to play the race card when she gets challenged, is probably the most embarrassing alum of my alma mater in recent years.

I (as many) used to describe myself

[capplor.livejournal.com]

as an economic conservative and a social liberal. Economic conservative is small government, free market, don't tell people what to do, don't redistribute wealth -- the rich deserve what they can get, and keep the budget balanced. Social conservative is nuclear family, one true way to live, WASPs are best but others are allowed to exist, Men support families, etc.

Odd that those all went into the same package.

I'm not sure if I still believe as an economic conservative, but I'm quite sure the current government does not.

--R

[darrenzieger.livejournal.com]

Fascinating man, WFB. I lost a little respect for him in recent years when he went though all sorts of intellectual contortions to justify the behavior of the Bush administration, which, as has been repeatedly observed, shared none of Buckley's genuine conservative values.

Still, a brilliant mind. Wrong about almost everything, but only because his fundamental premises were off the mark. From that point on, his reasoning was always rigorous and insigtful. Repudedly a fine novelist as well, though I can't claim to have read any of his fiction.

For real entertainment, search YouTube for the Buckley/Gore Vidal debates. Vidal (who I fear we are likely to lose soon as well, not so much for his advanced age...I'm just thinking of that bit in The Dark Crystal where each time a Skeksis dies, it's opposite number among the good creatures whose name I forget would disappear)...where was I...seach YouTube for the Vidal/Buckley debates. Clash of the freakin' titans.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Buckley serves as a cautionary tale: Be careful what premises you accept.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

I mostly remember hanging out on the Netizen back in 1997ish, about the time Jon Katz' book responding to Buckley came out.

NPR is doing a feature on Morning Edition these days concentrating on the conservative viewpoint, but I confess I still don't understand it, for all I try. I do to a point--I totally get fiscal conservativism and smaller government and all that. It's social conservatives I can't wrap my brain around. :(

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Of course you can't wrap your brain around it -- social conservatism as a political movement (as opposed to the private practice of socially conservative mores) contains a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, it incorporates the standard pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps conservative rejection of government paternalism; on the other hand, it goes running to the government for favors and preferences in the form of "social policy" legislation.

Really, if it weren't for their capacity for doublethink, politicized social conservatives would collapse into a smoky heap, like a planet-controlling computer after a conversation with Captain Kirk.