Contemplating the Former Brilliance of Bill Buckley

posted by John Nichols on 02/27/2008 @ 3:45pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (58)

Subscribe Now

Much attention has been afforded in this presidential campaign debating season to the attempts of the various contenders to utter memorable lines, most of which have ended in forms of failure perhaps best summed up by Hillary Clinton's stabs at biting humor in her last two debates with Barack Obama. Only Democrat Joe Biden's putdown of Republican Rudy Giuliani's disaster-mongering campaign theme ("a noun, a verb and 9/11") came close to making the mark.

But there really have been no 2008 equivalents of Ronald Reagan 1984 mockery of Walter Mondale's "youth and inexperience" or Lloyd Bentsen's devastating "you're no Jack Kennedy" line in his 1988 vice presidential dust-up with Dan Quayle.

And there certainly has been nothing so delicious as William F. Buckley's best line from his 1965 New York mayoral campaign debate with memorable Republican John Lindsay and forgettable Democrat Abe Beame.

Buckley, the veteran National Review editor, PBS "Firing Line" host and author of everything from ideological tomes to spy novels who has died unexpectedly at age 82, was known for more than a half century as one of the republic's abler practitioners of the English language and polemicist's craft.

But never were his skills so amply on display as during Buckley's sole foray into electoral politics.

Heading the metropolitan ticket of New York State's Conservative Party, which had been created three years earlier to challenge the liberal Republicanism of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Congressman Lindsay, Buckley mounted his unlikely campaign as a no-hoper. He acknowledged as much at the time of his announcement – which roughly paralleled his relocation from his home in suburban Connecticut to a proper voting residence in the city he sought to lead – when the conservative commentator was asked what he would do if he was elected to lead the liberal city. "I'd demand a recount."

Perfect response.

Almost as perfect as Buckley's zinger in that televised debate with Lindsay and Beame.

Even against the charismatic Lindsay, it was Buckley who owned every platform on which the candidates appeared. His confidence as a debater thrown up against two more experienced political campaigners was startling, and yet entirely appropriate.

Offered an opportunity during a key debate to use time that had been allotted him to present a rebuttal, Buckley did what no politician has the courage or the wisdom to do. He turned the moment with microphone down. Instead of repeating points he had already made, Buckley said, "I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my own former brilliance."

During the many years of our acquaintance, which began when I was researching a book on writers in politics, Buckley and I spent a good deal of time dissecting that 1965 campaign, which saw the commentator-turned-politico secure a credible 13.4 percent of the vote. Buckley argued that his ideas had touched a chord with disenchanted electors in the overwhelmingly Democratic city. And, surely, some of his ideas were appealing. While Buckley preached some standard tough-on-crime lines, he also criticized what would come to be described as "the war on drugs." He proposed congestion fees to keep cars off crowded Manhattan streets. At his best, he offered a rare mix of libertarian idealism and pragmatic common sense that had appeal far beyond the closed quarters of a conservative movement that had just lost badly with 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.

With the movement he did so much to shape on its heels, Buckley was more intellectually bold and ideologically adventurous in those mid-1960s than he would be later in a life when his would come to be known as a defining voice of modern conservatism. His ideas were dynamic in those days, much more so than when he found himself trying to describe the stumbles of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as pirouettes.

But the real appeal of that 1965 campaign, which Buckley chronicled with arch wit in a brilliant political book, Unmaking of a Mayor (Crown: 1966), was found in his smart wordplay and flamboyant style. Candidate Buckley was slyly self-deprecating and yet lavishly self promotional – often at the same time. Even those who might never have considered supporting the Conservative candidate relished his debate appearances and hung on his every word in television interviews.

Buckley was, as he suggested in one of the finer debate performances ever seen on an American political stage, "satisfied to sit back and contemplate my own former brilliance." So were the rest of us when Buckley was alive. So we shall be now that that the commentator who has left such a rich legacy of written and recorded work – and political playfulness -- has passed.

Comments (58)

"At his best, he offered a rare mix of libertarian idealism and pragmatic common sense that had appeal far beyond the closed quarters of a conservative movement that had just lost badly with 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater."

Seems the Left Blogosphere (from the perusing I've been doing) ...isn't aware of that. Some of them even think Buckley was a "neo-con" and still supporting the war in Iraq!

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:04pm
Well Mask, now our conversation is relevant to the thread subject.

Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/27/2008 @ 3:59pm

(Do some on the RIGHT seem to forget Buckley's view on Iraq, too?!?!?)

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 4:05pm

Well, that's no fun.

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/27/2008 @ 4:07pm

Okay, fair enough. Why was he "dumb" on that one issue?

Don't mean that disparaging, of course (since I agreed with him)...but you granted him the title of "giant intellect".

What makes a person of his intelligence take an OPPOSITE view of the situation in Iraq, exactly?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:26pm
I don't think this is really that good of an argument. Do you think Christopher Hitchens is smart? I'll bet you find much in common with his criticisms of religion, but would equally be willing to bet that you disagree with him about Iraq.

Posted by Thrawn at 02/27/2008 @ 4:34pm
Posted by THRAWN 02/27/2008 @ 4:34pm

Ahh, but Christopher Hitchens is hardly the "Godfather of Liberalism" is he? Okay writer I suppose, and typically a socialist atheist booster...but hardly that influential outside of here and a few talk shows.

Buckley, even by his opponents' admission, was a leader of the conservative movement that emerged in the 60s and dominated the Republican Party. (Hitchens couldn't get calls returned from Walter Mondale, I'd bet).

He certainly could out-think Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, O'Reilly or likely Dubya, even Dick....why did he come to the realization that Iraq should be (and this IS a Buckley quote) "acknowledged as a defeat" (2006)?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:38pm
I'm struck by the contrast between the kind admiration and respect in the words of John Nichols and those in the Comment section below. It seems to be a sign of the decline of courtesy in these times.

While I am not a conservative, I admired and respected William F. Buckley, Jr. early on in the 70s for his erudite and professional sense of decorum in debates on Firing Line. It is so rare now to see anything like that in the public arena anymore. The world has lost another great intellectual, and I wonder who could take his place.

Posted by Severian at 02/27/2008 @ 4:42pm
John, normally I disagree with most -- hell, all -- of what you write, but I must say you did a wonderful piece about WFB. It was professionally written and fully engrossing. Thank you for writing an eloquent, funny and informational tribute.

Posted by dzia at 02/27/2008 @ 4:44pm
"He certainly could out-think Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, O'Reilly or likely Dubya, even Dick...."

Posted by MASK

That's not saying a whole hell of a lot. I've owned dogs that could do that much.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/27/2008 @ 5:24pm
buckley died? aw man. he was always fun to watch, listen to, read, even if i disagreed. now he's in that great country club in the sky...

i'll spill a little of my 40 oz malt liquor for him and re-read that book of his i have somewhere.

nobody lives forever...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 5:25pm
"The Beatles are not merely awful…. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic." - William F. Buckley, Jr., 1964

I went to a Buckley speech once. He definitely had ideas and an interesting way of expressing them - and even now and again, he was even right...but not about the Beatles.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/27/2008 @ 5:38pm
Perhaps the best thing that can be said about Buckley is that no one would have had to tell him what the word "adscititious" means.

Posted by Adscititious at 02/27/2008 @ 5:42pm
Bet most of the lefties here don't even know that Bill Buckley was an advocate of legalizing marijuana......To me, his most memorable quote was,

"Although liberals talk a great deal about listening to other points of view, it sometimes amazes them to learn that there ARE other points of view..."

Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 7:09pm
But Kudos to Nichols for a rare tribute to an idealogical opposite...

Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 7:10pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/27/2008 @ 6:47pm

Mexican oil. The NTY obit has the details.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/27/2008 @ 7:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/27/2008 @ 5:16pm

But THAT article is from 2004....what was Buckley saying in 2006, LVLIB?

Hint---National Review - February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m. "It Didn't Work"

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 7:40pm
Who knew? Nichols might even has it within him to be a decent writer if he leaves his politics behind and just write!

Good job, Mr. Nichols!

Posted by Happy at 02/27/2008 @ 8:29pm
Buckley - wicked smart, verbal 10th degree black belt, humor drier than a popcorn fart (but stilletto sharp), excellent representative of conservativism (but not a successful role model, much to the detriment of the country) and someone who will be missed.

Posted by Turk33 at 02/27/2008 @ 10:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/27/2008 @ 8:44pm

Well, I went and read the whole article. Still no ringing endorsement for the war...merely a statement that the Congress will have to step up and vote the way they see fit.

I also read this from April 2007 from Mr. Buckley--

"General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can't see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters?

General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort."

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

Agree?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 10:35pm
Wasn't William Buckley, like many similar intellectually capable conservatives, a closeted gay man? I always found his affect to be very gay, in a North-East upper class style that is. That is why I find the exchange with Gore Vidal so emblematic of "it takes one to know one". It is interesting, if my inkling is correct, that despite the fact that gays as a group tend to be liberal, their intellectual contribution to the conservative movement seems to outdo their impact in liberal thinking overall.

Posted by azighelb at 02/27/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by AZIGHELB 02/27/2008 @ 10:36pm

Bizarrely homophobic...or just plain bizarre.

Buckley was a "closeted gay man", because he had an "affect"...ergo, he was. Ergo, closeted gay men fomented the conservative movement. Countering their out-of-the-closet contributions to liberalism?!?!?!?

Seriously, can't tell if he's a left-winger who's gay bashing....or a right-winger who's PROUD of the fact that his mentors (he thinks) were secret homosexuals?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 11:07pm
Like many here, I always loved watching and listening to Buckley, even when I disagreed with him. Wow, people can disagree without being disagreeable.

What's sad is that his legacy, in part, will be carried on by boobs like Lowry and Goldberg (who can barely think his way out of bed in the morning).

Posted by Rintrah at 02/28/2008 @ 02:37am
RIP, William. You will be missed by many on all sides of the political spectrum. It is too bad that someone like you, and not the Rush Drug addicts and shrill coulters got so much air time and so many sheep followers and pushed the cons into fantasyland ideologies. I guess you were just too "gay" for the right. Big words and nuanced statements don't fit well in sound bites and fear based campaigns.

A fine intellect, truly marvelous speaker and writer who saw much right in the end (spec. Iraq). His biggest failing recently was retaining Rich Lowery on the payroll.

Is there anybody that didn't just love to hear him speak?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 07:26am
The right should have listened when he warned about the "war on drugs". What another wasteful war. What a waste of taxes.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 07:28am
Bet most of the lefties here don't even know that Bill Buckley was an advocate of legalizing marijuana...... SLEEPYDAVE

A pint says just as many cons, or more, wouldn't know that.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 07:30am
Oh, did the "right" run around screaming about Bills ego when he ran for mayor? Were they afraid of someone speaking their mind in opposition to a party gone wrong?

Ancient Ones, do ya'll recall/

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 07:33am
JOHN NICHOLS

An excellent article and tribute. Love Liberty probably summarized it best back at the top.

Chip

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/28/2008 @ 07:49am
Posted by AZIGHELB 02/27/2008 @ 10:36pm

"Wasn't William Buckley, like many similar intellectually capable conservatives, a closeted gay man? I always found his affect to be very gay, in a North-East upper class style that is."

His affect was different because English was not his first language; Spanish was, French being second. He was taught English in London at the age of seven.

Posted by Severian at 02/28/2008 @ 08:43am
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."

"It had all the earmarks of a CIA operation; the bomb killed everybody in the room except the intended target!"

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 09:35am
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 09:35am

I got a couple examples of posters around here who fit THAT bill!

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 09:43am
A pint says just as many cons, or more, wouldn't know that.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/28/2008

Crabbie, you're probably right, but any regular National Review reader would.....

Posted by TransitDave at 02/28/2008 @ 09:45am
And this one drew a laugh even from my very Liberal friend Stuart, ....."And then there was the reader who cancelled her subscription after receiving a letter from our circulation department franked with an FDR stamp...(And quite right)"

From the Best of Bill Buckley

Posted by TransitDave at 02/28/2008 @ 09:51am
"The question is whether racism defined Buckley, and the fact that he and his magazine were capable of changing their tune - when many still have not - indicates it wasn't a central feature of his thought."

No, it does not indicate any such thing. It only indicates that he was embarrassed into dropping racial superiority as a public stance. Neither WFBuckley nor his magazine ever turned around and supported civil rights.

Moreover class superiority always remained central to his thought & public performance.

Posted by sloper at 02/28/2008 @ 12:13pm
I vaguely remember Mr Wiliam f Buckley. When he ran for political office , I was 15 yrs old. But last night when I watched clips of him on ABC's nightly news, I was impressed. Not only did he have command over the english lanquage, he commanded the attention and awe of everyone listening. Even when he was angry and cussed, he was eloquent.

Posted by Valerya at 02/28/2008 @ 12:23pm
Crabbie, you're probably right, but any regular National Review reader would.....

Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/28/2008 @ 09:45am

A regular reader of NR would think the war in Iraq was a raging success and that Saddam was a genuine immenent threat. Unless one paid attention to the old fart in the front office, which most no longer did.

I truly miss the Old Guard cons, they make our American Taliban look like, well, ... Taliban without burkhas. I heard some interviews on NPR today with some "real conservatives" saying that from their biblical view we "have to have a male in charge". A women said basically the same thing. Really, really sick and twisted.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 12:53pm
I think the career of Willam Buckley is instructive for progressives. He started National Review in 1955 when conservatism seemed to exist neither as a coherent ideology or a coherent movement. He kept at it despite the electoral annhilation of Goldwater in 1964 and was still running in 1980 when Reagan was elected.

Posted by brunowe at 02/28/2008 @ 1:24pm
WFBuckley kept NR alive through the decades thanks to his great inherited wealth. He bought himself a platform & maintained it. Without the family money, NR would have folded in the 50s.

Posted by sloper at 02/28/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by SLOPER 02/28/2008 @ 1:36pm

From the wikipedia article--

"The magazine stays afloat by donations from subscribers and black-tie fundraisers around the country. The magazine also sponsors cruises featuring National Review editors and contributors as lecturers."

Hmmm?...that sounds oddly familiar? Doesn't it, Ms vanden Heuvel?

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 1:51pm
grrrrrrr,

cruises!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 4:10pm
cruises!

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 4:10pm

heheh....hey, and guess what? Most of the Air America Radio guys are on one...right now!

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 4:20pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/28/2008 @ 4:26pm

So let me get this straight...."Demoncrats" oppose civil rights...

but are about to nominate a black guy as their Presidential nominee?!?!??

ROFL!

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 4:35pm
Of course what Rio Bravo ignores is that it was LBJ who pushed through the Civil Rights Act and conservative Barry Goldwater who ran against it. The Republicans were subsequently able to play the race card and initiate the long process of gaining the South.

Posted by brunowe at 02/28/2008 @ 4:58pm
Barack H. Obama, January 2008:

'... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America .... He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing....I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. ...

I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom....'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/28/2008 @ 5:46pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/28/2008 @ 5:46pm |

LIARCONSERVATIVE, do you see the phrase "...party of good ideas anywhere in there? Thay had a couple. but they also:

Supported Saddam Hussein

Usama Bin Laden

Ran up huge debt

And, heee heee , Reagan tapped into feelings wo oh oh, feeellings...

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 6:20pm
Did you bring enough meth for the whole class?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 6:22pm
oops, that last was for RIO

Posted by crabwalk at 02/28/2008 @ 6:23pm
Mr. Buckley was the incarnation of wit and charm. His utter disdain of ignorance was and still is confused with racism and other sins. He was one of the very few conservatives worth listening to. There are many reasons that he embraced liberal thinkers and was in turn, embraced himself. In the arena of political discourse, there was no finer opponent.

Posted by kelpcowboy at 02/28/2008 @ 6:36pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 02/28/2008 @ 4:58pm

RIO ignores quite a bit. Anything that doesn't square with his world-view where the Democratic Party and liberals are the Forces of Evil...even when it contradicts the other things he believes.

He's poor ol' cowboy who probably thought the Reagan Revolution was going to last forever...then "the hippie adulterer" Clinton came along and "ended" it (even though he didn't)....then when Bush came along, he believed Rove when he said they'd have a "permanent majority"...

now due TOTALLY to Bush and the Republicans, the "Demoncrats" are poised to take it all back.

He lashes out, flails, screams, growls, and foams at the mouth...and will til the day he dies.

Sad really.

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 8:07pm
Most of the Air America Radio guys are on one...right now!

Posted by MASK 02/28/2008 @ 4:20pm

dolts.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 9:41pm
I watched many of his debates on firing line and was always delighted by the inclusiveness of the forum. He was clever, smart, and entertaining in the use of the language...but I would not go as far to call him an intellectual giant which he was not.

Posted by kevin99999 at 02/28/2008 @ 9:45pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 9:41pm

Heheh...call in FZ....1-866-303-2270. Ask the call screener of ANY show if you can ask ANY host if they "bought off the cruise's carbon footprint with credits"...or even complain about it.

You'll never get on the air.

Some free speech is freer than others!

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 10:04pm
Posted by MASK 02/28/2008 @ 10:04pm

not just the carbon........

think of all that poo..........

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 10:25pm

Atleast the National Review guys on a cruise aren't hypocrites, huh?

Posted by Mask at 02/28/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by MASK 02/28/2008 @ 10:36pm

they relish the destruction.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 11:05pm
Eric Alterman is flogging his new book, claiming that 'liberals' who call themselves 'progressives' have wimped out in the face of rightist smears. He forgets those to his left, who shy away from the label used in the '60s by those who championed the Vietnam war and turned Fannie Lou Hamer away from the 1964 Democratic convention.

We now have a new reason to disown the lib label: pundits who are more in love with their 'craft' than with justice. The litmus test is the humidity of their eyeballs upon hearing of the too-long-awaited death of a prole-hating, fascist-loving rat.

If you feel a little wistful about the Buckleys of the world--and make no mistake, they're legion; even his fingerprints weren't unique--dig out Dylan's "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll." Imagine William Zanzinger with a keyboard instead of a cane. Yeah, that's him.

ethan young

Posted by Ethan Young at 02/28/2008 @ 11:51pm
I found Buckley to be a condescending prig. I also found that he rarely addressed an opponents argument head on but retreated into BS side issues. The first time I saw Buckley on the television I was probably 12 or 13 years old and I could tell that he was disingenuous at least and a liar at worst.

I won't miss the condescension of Bill Buckley, nor his poorly thought-out and defended arguments propped up by pointlessly over-flowery language as obfuscation.

Bill Buckley was a overly dressed up BS artist.

Posted by brantl at 02/29/2008 @ 09:47am
Buckley never repudiated his early racist missives. Was Buckley educated? Yes. But nontheless, still a racist. Here is an except from an unsigned 1957 National Review editorial attributed to Buckley:

"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

Posted by bobforer at 03/03/2008 @ 02:56am