William F. Buckley Jr. dies at age 82

Whether one embraced or rejected his ideas, few had the impact on modern political thought of William F. Buckley Jr., who died at his home last night.

William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right’s post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82. […]

Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of “Firing Line,” harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor’s race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent’s discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

“I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition,” he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. “I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?’ I couldn’t think of anyone.”

I would, of course, quibble with such an assessment, though I would gladly concede that few were as influential serving as a mentor to generations of conservative thinkers. Buckley was, when it came to modern political thought, a true leader.

What’s more, to his enormous credit, there was never anything even remotely hackish about Buckley’s work. Too often, there are those who start with the answer and work backwards. Buckley always seemed to find that intellectually lazy, and continued to think politics and policy through, even in his twilight.

TNR pointed to this fine piece from Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of The New York Times Book Review, on Buckley during the Bush years.

The war that has unhinged so many has curiously revitalized Buckley, not as the administration’s most eloquent defender but as perhaps its most forceful in-house critic. Untethered to the Bush team–the only insider he knew was Donald Rumsfeld, whom Buckley suggested should consider resigning following the Abu Ghraib scandal–he is also detached from its outer ring of ideologues and flacks. He is, instead, a party of one, who thinks and writes with newfound freedom. While others, left and right, have staked out positions and then fortified them, week after week, Buckley has been thinking his way through events as they have unfolded, looking for new angles of approach, new ways of understanding, drawing on his matchless knowledge of modern conservatism and on his 50-year immersion in the American political scene. It is one of those late-period efflorescences that major figures sometimes enjoy–and, in Buckley’s case, it is marked by an unexpected austerity. Like Wallace Stevens’s snow man, he has developed a “mind of winter” and, as he scans the bleak vista of the Iraq disaster, “beholds nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.” And it has been instructive to observe.

And Rick Perlstein’s thoughts today were also worth reading.

He did the honor of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie. A remarkable quality, all too rare in an era of the false fetishization of “post-partisanship” and Broderism and go-along-to-get-along. He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire. […]

The game of politics is to win over American institutions to our way of seeing things using whatever coalition, necessarily temporary, that we can muster to win our majority, however contingent—and if we lose, and we are again in the minority, live to fight another day, even ruthlessly, while respecting our adversaries’ legitimacy to govern in the meantime, while never pulling back in offering our strong opinions about their failures, in the meantime. This was Buckleyism — even more so than any particular doctrines about “conservatism.”

Buckley’s place in history is secure. My condolences to his friends and family.

…few had the impact on modern political thought of William F. Buckley Jr…

So this is one of the geniuses we can thank for the current destruction of our Constitutional Republic? Good riddance.

Also looking forward to the eventual deaths of George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller as well.

  • There’s plenty of areas where we disagree with Buckley, but there are a couple of good things which I did note about him upon hearing the news of his death. Buckley did build conservatism as an intellectual force while isolating kooks like the Birchers. (In contrast my post at Liberal Values includes a link regarding Glenn Beck acting as if the Birchers have legitimacy).

    Buckley also gives credit for acknowledging that Iraq was a failure.

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2970

  • My dad is probably shedding a tear as I write this, since he was a huge WFB fan.

    WFB could be an irascible asshat, and many of his ideas have been shown useless in reality over the past several years. But the one thing you could say about him was that he was, at the very least, an intellectual.

    His party has now become one full of folks who brag about their mediocrity, see intelligence and learning as somehow negative, make up their own facts when reality is inconvenient, and care less about actual governance and more about gaining power for power’s sake.

    In other words, the anti-intellectual party.

    I wonder if, at some point, Buckley ever thought he was to blame for any of that (after all, he did threaten to punch Vidal in the face), or if he was heartbroken at the end at what his party had become.

    Regardless, condolences to his family … although I do hope that Neoconservativism soon meets the same fate.

  • He was one of the few conservatives I could listen to or read without hesitation.

    Now we see the uber-conservatives beating a path to take on his mantle which if they would think it through, as Buckley would have, is putting on the mantle of denouncing George Bush and the Iraq war, abiding by a strict interpretation of the constitution and a whole host of other truly conservative ideas, such as ending the war on drugs.

    On Firing Line I once saw Buckley speak of his “white-powder” theory. That is anything that is refined to a white powder is not good for one’s health such as refined white sugar and refined white flour were not as healthy as honey or whole wheat flour. This theory led Buckley to believe that natural drugs, which included marijuana and coca leaves should be legalized but not refined drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

    A very interesting theory from a very interesting man who was full of surprises

  • So this is one of the geniuses we can thank for the current destruction of our Constitutional Republic? Good riddance.

    That-a-way JKAP! Dance on that grave! You look just great doing it.

  • My condolences to his family as well. Bush’s few remaining backers would do well to read this:

    One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed…

    …different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_25_06_WB.html

    Some kudos for being realistic at the end of his life, even though the dirty hippies he so loved to loathe saw the reality many years earlier than the “highly intelligent” WFB.

  • Don’t you have some Global War On Terror vanity license plates to be buying about now, JRS, Jr.?

    Nah, just a bumber sticker that reads “Annoy a Liberal like JKap… Work Hard and Be Happy!”

  • Say what you will about him (as I probably have on countless occasions), but he could at least argue an issue with a sense of sanity. He quipped more than once that he liked an argument—especially if he won—but he also liked the ones he lost, if they were lost in the spirit of true political discourse. I’ve often wondered where conservatism would be, if there were a few more Buckleys, and a few less Becks in the world….

  • The “crypto-Nazi” is gone. And he never punched Gore Vidal. Has there been a battle of intellects as compelling as Buckley and Vidal in 1968?

    Not lately.

  • Let’s not forget the many wonderful things Buckley had to say about the civil rights movement.

    “Why the South Must Prevail,” National Review, August 1957

    “The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

    “National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct… It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”

    “The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class… Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.”

  • 12. On February 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm, Mudge said:
    The “crypto-Nazi” is gone. And he never punched Gore Vidal. Has there been a battle of intellects as compelling as Buckley and Vidal in 1968?

    Not lately.

    Didn’t you see the “debate” last night? I’m told it was a compelling battle of intellects. The Democrats have two “terrific” candidates.

  • @4:
    But the one thing you could say about him was that he was, at the very least, an intellectual.

    Yes, indeed. Buckley’s wide-ranging mind made the current crop of conservative “intellectuals” (snort) look like genetically challenged ass clowns. He came from a generation of conservatives that A.) could actually write; and B.) could debate an issue in civilized, measured tones. Both virtues seem to have fallen by the wayside in the rightwing realm.

    Finally: William F. Buckley was a funny, funny man with a deadpan delivery. He played his own pompousness for laughs. (His son Christopher is a funny man in his own right.) I can’t think of any younger conservative that can come close to filling Buckley’s shoes in this regard. The conservative with a sense of humor may have died with Mr. Buckley.

  • It is a pity that so many people posting comments show how stupid the left can be.

    WFB was a decent man. Sure he made mistakes, we all do. Sure we disagree with him about a lot of things. But we agree with him on a lot of things too.

    I hate it when people I basically agree with act like idiots and give ammunition to people on the other side of the argument.

  • Nice to see that, after a lifetime spent working toward the goal, William F. Buckley, Jr., has finally become a “good Republican.” As in “the only ‘good Republicans’ are pushing up daisies.” Although I am sure Mr. Buckley would prefer the opportunity of fertilizing a more expensive flower as befits his status of “Gentleman of Private Means.”

  • Tommy Boy, you really need to get some new material. Between the repeated reliance on the “frontal lobe” and “pushing daisies” references, one wonders how you are a professional writer.

    Oh that’s right.. you’re a writer, just clearly not a good one. Hence your reliance on your fellow successful union members to negotiate contracts to keep you out of the gutter.

  • I saw WFB speak when I was in graduate school. Very smart man, though I remember that for the first ten minutes, I couldn’t understand him because of his peculiar enunciation. 🙂

    To those who show no class by rejoicing in the man’s passing, I would say that you deserve to be frustrated by all that the right throws at us. Despite priding yourself on being “open-minded”, you in fact harbor a desire that those who disagree with you be erased from the political landscape. That makes you no different from the Bushies; you just root for a different team.

    So let’s all root for superficial diversity — people of all colors welcome, as long as they subscribe to a progressive agrenda! The rest…well, we’ll dig your graves for you if you agree to just go quietly.

    I realize that probably doesn’t represent most people who post here, but I think it’s ridiculous how many people have expressed such disrespectful sentiments. The guy was a conservative commentator, not a mass-murderer.

  • But the one thing you could say about him was that he was, at the very least, an intellectual.

    Okay, we’ll play it your way:

    An intellectual racist.
    An intellectual homophobe.
    An intellectual advocate of denying minorities and the poor the right to vote.

    I can do this all day…

  • “I realize that probably doesn’t represent most people who post here”

    Nah, just about half though

  • WFB was a decent man.

    Racists and homophobes should not be accorded such repect in a civil society. They should be rightly shunned, and should go to their graves unmourned.

    But the hand-wringers here are afraid someone might think them disrespectful. You are disrespectful – of the victims of racism and homophobia, victims Buckley so ineloquently reviled as subhuman. Go ahead and lionize him. But don’t accuse me of “acting like an idiot” because I can see the man for who he really was. He didn’t “make mistakes.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and he never apologized for it.

    Forgive me if I’d rather not queue up to kiss his ass.

  • I once saw a show of his where he devoted the entire thing to the truth of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. I also learned the word “tendentious” watching the same show.

    He was an erudite whack-o and compared to modern wingnuts he was Karl Popper.

  • Frankly, it is something of an indictment of our nation’s culture that he was admitted into polite company.

  • Im always saddened when anyone passes on..

    Im really sad for Everyone of us that has or will pass on since 2/24/2008 when Hillary Clinton Proclaimed to the World that God is Dead…there is No God.
    There is No Heavenly Light that will ever shine down on America or any of us …dead or living.
    There aren’t gonna be any Celestial Choirs singing now or after life in heaven..

    There isn’t any Heaven..
    According to Hillary Clinton. And she knows everything better than anyone.

  • To this day I’m disturbed by the image of Buckley, leaning back in his chair on Firing Line, long after the end of the Vietnam war, speaking in sanctimonious tones of “the freely elected government of South Vietnam.” I wish that I could forget; but I’m afraid that I’ll take the image to my own grave.

  • I’m always saddened when anyone dies, just like Trenton, although not for the same reasons. I figured out long before Clinton “proclaimed to the world that God is dead*” that no matter what happens in the afterlife, in this life the dead have no further chance to learn, and no way to atone for the mistakes that they made.

    No matter what kind of person he was, there is always a chance that a living William F. Buckley, Jr. could learn from the mistakes of his past and work to change the worst of them. Dead, Mr. Buckley has no chance of reforming.

    But the part of this thread that disgusts me more than anything are the “good riddance, now the rest of them can follow” comments. That’s called eliminationism, and it’s poisoned our political discourse more than Mr. Buckley ever could.

    Work to change a person’s mind.

    Work to get the truth out to the world.

    Work to make the world a better place.

    But never, ever, wish an opponent dead. That’s the worst that the right, and now I find the left, has ever had to say, and it saddens me to see it here of all places.

    *By the way Trenton, why do you invest Clinton with so much power? Does it really matter to your faith whether or not she says “God is dead?” And if it does, why do you have so little faith?

  • omg, WFB is SO going to hell! (good riddance to the longest living example of conservative ‘intellectual’ masturbation…it was sooo entertaining to hear him wax poetic wid all dem big words to describe his regressive, homophobic, xenophobic, narrow-minded bullshit! What a waste of how many perfectly good trees and ink used in the publishing of his many volumes of nonsensical garbage…just one more conservafuck in hell, I say!)

  • Comments are closed.