Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 29, 2008
George Will :: Townhall.com Columnist
Before Modern Conservatives, There Was Buckley
by George Will
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



WASHINGTON -- Those who think Jack Nicholson's neon smile is the last word in smiles never saw William F. Buckley's. It could light up an auditorium; it did light up half a century of elegant advocacy that made him an engaging public intellectual and the 20th century's most consequential journalist.

Before there could be Ronald Reagan's presidency, there had to be Barry Goldwater's candidacy. It made conservatism confident and placed the Republican Party in the hands of its adherents.

Before there could be Goldwater's insurgency, there had to be National Review magazine. From the creative clutter of its Manhattan offices flowed the ideological electricity that powered the transformation of American conservatism from a mere sensibility into a fighting faith and a blueprint for governance.

Before there was National Review, there was Buckley, spoiling for a philosophic fight, to be followed, of course, by a flute of champagne with his adversaries. He was 29 when, in 1955, he launched National Review with the vow that it "stands athwart history, yelling Stop." Actually, it helped Bill take history by the lapels, shake it to get its attention, and then propel it in a new direction. Bill died Wednesday in his home, in his study, at his desk, diligent at his life-long task of putting words together well and to good use.

Before his intervention -- often laconic in manner, always passionate in purpose -- in the plodding political arguments within the flaccid liberal consensus of the post-World War II intelligentsia, conservatism's face was that of another Yale man, Robert Taft, somewhat dour, often sour, three-piece suits, wire-rim glasses. The word "fun" did not spring to mind.

The fun began when Bill picked up his clipboard, and conservatives' spirits, by bringing his distinctive brio and elan to political skirmishing. When young Goldwater decided to give politics a fling, he wrote to his brother: "It ain't for life and it might be fun." He was half right: Politics became his life and it was fun, all the way. Politics was not Bill's life -- he had many competing and compensating enthusiasms -- but it mattered to him, and he mattered to the course of political events.

One clue to Bill's talent for friendship surely is his fondness for this thought of Harold Nicolson's: "Only one person in a thousand is a bore, and he is interesting because he is one person in a thousand." Consider this from Bill's introduction to a collection of his writings titled "The Jeweler's Eye: A Book of Irresistible Political Reflections":

"The title is, of course, a calculated effrontery, the relic of an impromptu answer I gave once to a tenacious young interviewer who, toward the end of a very long session, asked me what opinion did I have of myself. I replied that I thought of myself as a perfectly average middle-aged American, with, however, a jeweler's eye for political truths. I suppressed a smile -- and watched him carefully record my words in his notebook. Having done so, he looked up and asked, 'Who gave you your jeweler's eye?' 'God,' I said, tilting my head skyward just a little. He wrote that down -- the journalism schools warn you not to risk committing anything to memory. 'Well,' -- he rose to go, smiling at last -- 'that settles that!' We have become friends."

Pat, Bill's beloved wife of 56 years, died last April. During the memorial service for her at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, a friend read lines from "Vitae Summa Brevis" by a poet she admired, Ernest Dowson:

They are not long, the days of wine and roses:

Out of a misty dream

Our path emerges for a while, then closes

Within a dream.

Bill's final dream was to see her again, a consummation of which his faith assured him. He had an aptitude for love -- of his son, his church, his harpsichord, language, wine, skiing, sailing.

He began his 60-year voyage on the turbulent waters of American controversy by tacking into the wind with a polemical book, "God and Man at Yale" (1951), that was a lovers' quarrel with his alma mater. And so at Pat's service the achingly beautiful voices of Yale's Whiffenpoofs were raised in their signature song about the tables down at Mory's, "the place where Louis dwells":

We will serenade our Louis
While life and voice shall last
Then we'll pass and be forgotten with the rest

Bill's distinctive voice permeated, and improved, his era. It will be forgotten by no one who had the delight of hearing it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read George Will's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Henry George - second in ten

Bill Buckley is six of ten.

Anyone seeing a pttern here?

BUCKLEY NEVER DID LIKE THE SOUTHERNERS
I will always remember talking to Mr Buckley while he was briefly in Atlanta, Ga where he reminded me that the only reason he came to Atlanta was not because he enjoyed traveling to the South but because he absolutely had to.

BTW: He never did answer my question? I was joking with him and asked him if he was the editor of Review of the News and he turned about as Red as a Tomato and then I quickly said Oh no it was National Review...he replied that it was a terrible publication and I then asked him which one? Review of the News or National Review...???

BEFORE MODERN CONSERVATIVES THERE WAS:
TRUE CONSERVATISM OR CONSTITUTIONALISM. ROBERT WELCH WHO FOUNDED THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY AND WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY WERE ONCE GOOD FRIENDS ALONG WITH ANTI-COLLECTIVISM CONSTITUTIONALIST AYN RAND.

I was fortunate to have met Mr Welch along with John Birch Sr at a gathering before they died along with Nelson Bunker Hunt who is still living. I cannot remember how the entire story goes but William F. Buckley Jr broke with the Conservatives of that day and decided to embrace liberalism which he cleverly repackaged as contemporary conservatism. In fact, earlier I believe it was Robert Welch who actually took Buckley under his wing but Buckley had other plans obviously. Even Ayn Rand finally broke with Buckley. Later, Buckley would entertain the services of former communists and socialists at his magazine National Review.

This is the Tale of Two Rights....and the true legacy of a man who packaged liberalism into what today is known as contemporary conservatism. ....W.F.B. Jr R.I.P.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ns0NlUgcsY

reply to Steven
Times change, and with them so do the requirements for someone to be successful in ideological warfare, in this case, conservative ideological warfare against liberalism. Bill Buckley's most important accomplishment was to give conservatism intellectual legitimacy. He was a cheerleader for the gradual emergence of the Republican Right, which gave conservatism public legitimacy and started the rise of conservatism to dominance in American politics.

Today, conservatives don't need to engage in sophisticated arguments or show any signs of literacy. A Buckley reincarnated today among media conservatives like the Limbaughs, Coulter, Savage, and others would be dissed as a hopeless snob. All that conservative media figures need to do now is rant, smear, demean, and trash-talk. Conservatism is the dominant political position in our society; you guys are the masters, and all you need to do is crank up the volume and let insults fly in order to delegitimize your liberal enemies.

Conservatism no longer needs a real Bill Buckley; his work here is done, and his successors know that they need to capture the attention of the masses.

Will, Buckley's True Successor
The other day I read a tribute(?) to Bill Buckley written by Emmett Tyrrell wherein the latter annointed Ann Coulter as Buckley's true successor to lead what's left of the "conservative movement."

Coulter, conservatism's answer to Leona Helmsley? What an insult.

If ever there was a true successor, a most worthy heir to Buckley's mantle, it's George Will and nobody else.

It behooves a lot of conservatives to explain how the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, et al can even be mentioned!

Indeed, with Bill Buckley, conservatism lost much of its dour, cheap, meanspiritedness and reputation for backward thinking masquerading as "caution." Now that Buckley has died, it appears as if the "good old days" are on their way back.

Buckley will be no doubt be missed by all true conservatives who have the overall best interests of the nation and world at heart; not their personal and highly profitable ideological axes (columns and blogs) which they keep ever-so-sharp.

Good luck Mr. Will, Buckley's vulpine "followers" who call themselves "Reagan conservatives" will no doubt be hunting you down for every ideological "sin," no matter how mortal or venial. Heck, the more venial it might be, the merrier it'll seem to them.

A fitting tribute to
Mr. Buckley, George. And a most fitting end of life for him - at his desk at home. It was indeed a wonderful life that he shared with those of us who bothered to listen and/or read! He won't be forgotten.

W. F. Buckley, Jr.
What is forgotten about Bill Buckley is his intellectual roots. He was mightily influenced by Frank Chodorov, a conservative of the 40s who wrote Anaylsis and was a founder of Human Events, and contributer to the revived Freeman, founded originally by Albert Jay Nock and Francis Neilson, all followers of American economist Henry George. Bill Buckley also adhered to the Georgist philosophy. He wrote me some years ago saying how familiar he was with Henry George's proposal to only tax ground rents as the sole source of government revenue. Buckley's conservatism is really classical liberalism. It was rooted in the basic libertarian concept enunciated by Henry George in Progress and Poverty (1879) coupled with economic justice. Modern conservatives have lost their way. Do you homework. Get out Henry George and read him!

Why did Burke support Monarchy?

Buckley eventually purged from is presence those that argued on other than State's Rights regarding Civil Rights.

There are few times in history where the Federal Government had to legislate a contentious issue where we needed uniform treatment of a certain class of people. SOme that come to mind are women's ability to vote, the debacle of prohibition and civil rights.

If you answer the question, "Why did Edmund Burke support Monarcy in France", you can gleen why Buckley supported States Rights on that issue.

Anna
If you come back and check this thread, I want to say one more thing and call it quits.

The Federal Reserve is not a boogeyman. Regardless of the currency used, history has shown that control of it can be misused by an authority against the people, the common man. It does not matter what we use as a currency. What matters is that the expansion and contraction of the currency be done in relative accordance with the natural ebb and flow of naturally ocurring capitalism, the market, the economy.

That we have created a system somewhat independent of treasury functions and congressional taxing and spending is testament to our ingenuity. Are they perfect? No. Are we learning? Yes. We only just abandoned using colored stones a little while ago.

Anna
writes, "This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national scurity of our Nations. IT IS AN INFLUENCE WHICH, IF UNCHECKED, COULD ULTIMATELY SUBVERT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

America is finished. I expect the next president to preside over the end of our country as we know it. Everyone will be so surprised, including you I guess."

I believe this influence runs exactly with our long term national security. It is simple commerce. Some powerful guy in banking named Rockefeller recognized that capitalism will eventually become the de facto economic system world wide because it must. Socialism is a failed ideology. Interdependent world wide economies should be less likely to war against each other in theory. Giving up national sovereignty is an entirely separate and distinct matter.

The commies on the left and the liberals in the republican party probably wouldn't have a problem with that. I do.

Our constitutional order was trashed seventy years ago by a communist president named Roosevelt. It was all the rage among the intelligenstia at the time. Still is to many. That is what is subverting our constitution and threatens to destroy the nation not free enterprise among nations or some foreign relations organization trying to help implement the acceptance of capitalism around the world.

You idiots.
This is a eulogy to the memory of William F. Buckley, whose shoes most men weren't worthy to shine (though he'd have been the last to suggest such).

If you have no respect for the man, at least show some approiate decorum for the occasion, and keep your obnoxious self-absorbed blather to yourselves.

Mr. Will has proved himself a worthy Marc Antony upon the death of Caesar here memorialized. We don't need to hold auditions in the comments for Brutus.

William F. Buckley was the clearest voice for a vigorous and triumphant conservatism in this country in the last 50 years, ever, always, and without apology.

The human race, and this website, are much the poorer for the loss of his presence among us, and for the incomparable grace, wit, charm, logic, and eloquence he brought to any debate or subject.

Bow your heads. A great man has passed.

Hitchhiker...
You do know that the Fed is a private banking cartel right?

Jesse Helms-

This campaign against the American people-against traditional American culture and values- is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interests comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left. Among this group, we find the dept of state, the Dept of Commerce, the money center banks, and multinational corporations, the media (all major media CFR), the educational establishment, ... and the tax-exempt foundations.
Mr. PResient, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working to create what some refer to as a New World Order. Private organizations such a CFR, the the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference...and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic, and OFFICIAL circles...
The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national scurity of our Nations. IT IS AN INFLUENCE WHICH, IF UNCHECKED, COULD ULTIMATELY SUBVERT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

America is finished. I expect the next president to preside over the end of our country as we know it. Everyone will be so surprised, including you I guess.

Miss him
I remember watching him on Firing Line when I was growing up. He had an uncanny ability to make me understand what he was saying, even though I wasn't familiar with half the words he used. Maybe it was the annunciation and the wide-eyed exclamation points.

Hitchhiker
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Here is a quote from the Washington post...

"Trilateralists are not a three-sided people. They are members of a private, though not secret, international organization put together by the wealthy banker, D. rockefeller, to stimulate the establishment dialogue between Western Europe, Japan and the United States. But here is the unsettling thing about the Trilateral Commission. The president elect (Carter) is a member. So is the Vice President-elect Walter F. Mondadle. So are the new Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasure: Cyrus R. Vance, Harold Brown and W.Michael Blumenthatl. So is Zibigniew Brzezinski, who is a former Trilateral director and Carters' national security adviser, also a bunch of others who will make foeign policy for America in the next four years."

Every cabinet since Carter has been filled with CFR/Trilateralists. I am wearing a tin-hat because I think they would carry out the aims of the organization they espouse?

Goldwater put it this way in his book "With No Apologies", he termed the Trilateral Commission, "David Rockefeller's newest international cabal, it is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States." "What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of worldwide economc power superior to the political governments of the nation states involved..As mamagers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."

Rothschild said he didn't care who ruled so long as he had control of the money.

Anna
writes, "They are an anti-nationalist group. Their "new world order" is to use their wealth, concentrated in the hands of a few to rule the world"

Okay, now the tinfoil hat comes on. Don't get mad. I am not trying to be mean. Certainly, too much political power has been concentrated in too few hands. This is not a corporate or business issue. This is an issue of states rights and constitutionally limited federal government. The problem is simply one of too much taxing and spending goes on at the federal level that is unconstitutional and should be done by states.

Allowing worldwide free commerce is and should be completely different than so called sovereignty issues of money, immigration, national security, etc. If you only decried true national identity issues and left commerce alone, I could support you and not make tinfoil comments. The CFR does not control the world behind some curtain. They are an organization designed to generate thoughts about foreign policy. A think tank. Like Cato, Heritage, etc.

Preserve the constitution?
Brezinzski wrote..."people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations". He dismissed the constitution as "inadequate". (More an obstacle I'd say)

"the old framework of international politics, with their spheres of influence...the fiction of sovereignty...is clearly no longer compatible with reality," and proposed "the approaching 200th anniversary of the Decalartion of Independence could justify the call for the national constitutional convention to re-exame the nations formal institutional framework...to discuss the relevance of existing arrangements".

BTW Brezinzski has endorsed Obama.

Brezinzski is co-founder of Trilateral Commission with Rockefeller. CFR and Trilateral Commission espouse the same philosophies. The multinational bankers/corporations want to be free to rape and pillage the world. They want to eliminate the middle class in America and they will.

CFR was founded by Marxist Edward Mandell House.

No patriot or moral person would have anything to do with these organizations. They are EVIL.

WFB?
The constitution of the United States means nothing to a the policy makers/members of CFR/Trilateral Commission. It is an obstacle to what they want to accomplish.

They are an anti-nationalist group. Their "new world order" is to use their wealth, concentrated in the hands of a few to rule the world.

Bush is not a reluctant participant. It may be inevitable in the sense that one world gov is predicted in the bible and we know how that turns out. I would not carry water for the guys trying to make it happen.He has been working overtime to give away our sovereignty. I despise him now. No real Christian would say we all worship the same God. He is lying to the people of this nation every day.

Nafta super highway an urban myth? His summits on integration (SPP) without congressional oversight are about "jelly beans"? Turning the trucking industry over to Mexicans is going to create "opportunity and prosperity"? (Opportunity for Mexicans and prosperity for corporate interests!) Just another job Americans won't do? Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Why is he pushing L.O.S.T.? So many other things it's impossible to list them all.

Not to worry, he will be handing the country over to whoever wins to finish us off.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56 014
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 57228

Forget about insurrection, he has that covered too.


replies to Ransom and Logos
I know that lots of present-day conservatives love to say just how great they are on civil rights issues, but those of us who read "National Review" and followed conservatism in the 1960s know better. Both of you, consider:

1. The NR writers were opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education (school desegregation).

2. The NR crowd was opposed to all of the actions taken by the civil rights movement--the sit-ins, the protests, and the "freedom riders" (who were mostly doing black voter registration)

3.Buckley and his crew were opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act--and now, some truth in response to the comment on George Wallace. Barry Goldwater and a handful of other conservatives in the Senate voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, along with a host of Southern conservative Democrats. Yes, the Republicans were supporters of civil rights, for the most part, but the Republican party in those days had a moderate center and aliberal wing; it was not the predominantly conservative party it has become since those days. The Democrats were divided between (mostly) northern liberals and (mostly) southern conservatives; it had not become the largely liberal party it has since those days. So, get your history correct, please, on this issue.

4. The "states' rights" argument made by conservatives supported racial discrimination; it was racist in its impact. Conservative intellectuals were opposed to every effort made by blacks and their liberal supporters to get laws changed. This opposition supported racial discrimination; it was racist in its impact.

5. To speak conceptually: conservatives seek to maintain and defend a specific way of life they consider worth preserving. A part of the way of life whose preservation was sought by conservative intellectuals included racism, discrimination, and violence against blacks.

Anna
Sorry, but Boutte is barely coherent, and wrong.

Bush isn't a conservative, not an economic one anyway, and I think he considers globalism inevitable rather than preferable. However...

Interventionism for a great power is not incorrect and foolish, it's inevitable. How it's done is relevant. Prior to Bush it was primarily done either with respect to powers greater than us, after WWI with respect to other great powers, after WWII with respect to the Soviet Union, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, with general incompetence.

However, under a precident-setting Bush, prior to 9/11 it was done with a relatively coherent world view, whether you agreed with it or not. Most people in other countries didn't because it wasn't to their benifit. Liberals didn't because they listen to people from other countries. But it was to our benefit.

After 9/11 it became highly focused; no big surprise. And it has been intentional. Fortunately, Bush has made it stick with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq.

But Bush hasn't operated in WFB's tradition, merely taken advantage of a political movement built in large part by WFB to prevent the destruction of the constitution of the United States of America by the behemoth that held sway in America after WWII. We would have been much worse off by now without WFB.

Buckley
I was surprised to find out Buckley was a member of CFR. Sorry but Boutte is right.

Bush pretty much finished off the real conservatives. He is a globalist stooge and the GOP is controlled by the Rockefeller wing now. Good bye USA, hello NAU.

Goldwater BTW excoriated CFR.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44 841

There is a link to his writings on the subject in the above article.

Was he wearing a tin hat too? I don't think you can be considered a patriot and belong to an organization that considers national sovereignty an immature concept and that is working for one world gov. Bush said we would have the "idea of America". Isn't that special.

Think I read Will is a member too. But I wouldn't swear to that.

It occurs to me
for the first time how rare it is for such an inordinately active and effective mind to be paired with such great personal charm, both gifts directed to the enjoyment of life and the increase in that enjoyment to all he met. He was the antithesis of and antidote to the zero sum game.

Thank you for the column, Mr. Will.

Logos
excellent rebuttal to Gestell. Saved me the bother. Don't you just love how Gestell tries to blame bloated government on conservatives and libs just went along with it. How easily libs make the leap from supporting state's rights to thereby supporting anything and everything any state might do that one disagrees with.

I have to comment on this quote from Gestell:

"in my opinion, our country can ill afford another like him."

Pray, tell us why Gestell. Expound on this thought. Yes, no diversity of even thought allowed by the alleged diversity champions. So sad.

WFB, JR
Beautiful tribute. Beautiful writing. He would have liked it.

WFB
Much to my children's lament, National Review was the only magazine that entered our postal box. No slick or glossy photographs of puppies or brownies to be found there. Alas, they had to beg cast-off publications from the neighbors in order to complete their early elementary homework assignments.

Today all four are activist conservative Republicans who can spot hidden agendas or limpid liberal ideologies blindfolded, at 100 paces. Bogus ideas fostered upon us are ferreted out and depatched forthwith. Undeterred by the liberals at UVA or Columbia, they continue to shine forth with the conservatism of intellectually honest ideology that will long endure.

Today they also read National Review.

God bless this great man. WFB, RIP.

RE: Boutte and Gestall
But let me guess Boutte, Ron Paul is here to save us all! Here's a thought: that tin foil hat of yours is too tight. You need to loosen it up a bit.

And Gestall, another wayward lib, just remember that George Wallace came from the party populated today by American liberals. Al Gore's father (and Bill Clinton's mentor) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But a champion of state's rights like WFB was a racist? I know that most leftists today aren't too bright, but you're just making it too easy for us.

Give us some clear evidence of any Buckleyesque racism, or scuttle back to whatever Obama rally you crawled out of.

Words have meaning
Goodbye Bill. May God bless you.

Trustworthy
When I read Mr. Buckley's columns, I would have to read them over and over because he was so brilliant and I am not. It was always worth the effort. He was so consistent in his thought and trustworthy. I'm reading Blacklisted and was happy to see he jumped in to help McCarthy. He was over 30 years older than me and I looked to him as a teacher. I remember he had a suggested reading list. He made us smarter. Obviously he was naturally gifted but he was also a hard worker and full of faith and passion. The Tiger Woods of Thinking and Debate.

A great man of principles
EOM

It is a fitting tribute to Buckley and
all that he stood for that the lib wackos are nearly absent from any of TH's tribute articles.

Apparently they fear him as much in death as in life.

Intellect to baffonery
William F. Buckley attacked the argument, debated the persons argument not the person.

The current conservative talking heads, Fox, radio clowns, are just bomb throwing provocateurs that attack people. Shame we went from intellect to baffonery.

RIP Buckley, you had a way with words,

Boutte
All of the modern plagues that you attribute to: "...Buckley & Co's long march through conservatism, like Sherman's through Georgia, has wrought", is misplaced.

In fact, they can be directly attributed to the "Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963" and the "Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965". Note the years of enactment. Ronald Reagan wasn't even governor of California when these perniciously destructive legislations were enacted and began the destruction of this Republic. Shame on you for being so ignorant!

It wasn't "Buckley & Co's long march", but JFK's trip down road of good intentions that burden our nation today.

Buckley Critics
Please do logic, reason, thought, common sense, wit, bredding, etc. a favor. View a Firing Line debate with your favorite liberal icon. After cogitating its content, tell us calmly where there is agreement between Buckley and your spokesperson and then, tell us, pray, what the crux of disagreement might be. It is so much more rewarding to deal in actuality, or it should be. We would all do well to emulate WFB's discourse. Consideration of one another's ideas is the highest achievement of the human heart.

Shalom

PS George, Nicholson's smile looks more diabolic than engaging to some of us.

Gestell
However, Buckley and his group also defended states' rights and thus supported American racism. They did what they could to encourage the emergence of militant Christian conservatives, and passed off their ideology as something in tune with Christianity.
______________________________________________

To claim that Bill Buckley supported racism due to his support of states' "rights" is outrageous. Segregation was created and enforced by state laws, but they were not laws for which Buckley voted. Regardless, racism was an issue that had to be combatted within the framework of the Constitution...if that meant moving too slowly for you, then I'm sorry.

As for conservatives "expanding the government". Those expansions were at least constitutional (since they regard the legitimate role of the government to protect it's citizens). On the flip side of the coin, the federal welfare state was, is, and always will be unconstitutional...no matter hw many liberals you pack onto the SCOTUS.

Buckley: Conservatives; "Uncle Argyle".

I have always considered the film, "Braveheart", to be an allegory of America's postwar conservative movement. To the uninitiated, Ronald Reagan will appear to be Wallace. This is not so. No, the real Braveheart of the modern conservative narrative is really Barry Goldwater. And Reagan? His character and accomplishments are best represented by the once and future Scottish King, Robert the Bruce, who finally defeated the English (Russians?).

So where is William F. Buckley Jr. in this unlikely tale? His likeness is represented by "Uncle Argyle", the boy Wallace's scholarly and learned uncle, who taught the young Braveheart to think and speak Latin and French before he taught him the sword. Bill Buckley as well, compelled conservatives to ponder, intellectually, their politics and actions and, by doing so, restrained the sword and engaged their intellect.

Now the Berlin Wall is gone and communism has been relegated to the political crackpots from which it came. The Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan trinity was formidable , indeed. Now, we Conservatives can express a suitable goodbye in a manner suggested by "Argyles" spoken lines from Braveheart by: "...saying goodbye in [our] own way. Playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes." Rest in peace, "Uncle" Bill. You taught us a lot and showed us the way.

Boutte
Was that piece you just wrote a parody of paleo-conservatism or a serious attempt to espouse conservative principles?

Buckley succeeded
It's undeniable that Buckley did what all of his hagiographers say: he brought conservatism as an intellectual force into American politics. He paved the way for conservative politicians by doing his best to undermine liberalism. I started reading "National Review" back in the late 1950s. Buckley and the stable of writers gathered around him defended tradition, opposed any changes advocated by liberals, and, due to their resolute anti-Communism, wound up supporting the expansion of American government. Buckely understood this, and said so many times. He knew that at some point conservatism would have to attack the American Leviathan, but he believed a big, powerful government was necessary to protect the United States. As a liberal, I agreed with that.

However, Buckley and his group also defended states' rights and thus supported American racism. They did what they could to encourage the emergence of militant Christian conservatives, and passed off their ideology as something in tune with Christianity.

Buckley understood what, as far as I can see, no prominent liberal did then, or does now: that it is necessary to entertain in order to persuade. I sincerely hope Buckley has no successor waiting in the wings: in my opinion, our country can ill afford another like him.

When I was in the 8th grade...
...I was in my living room, moping around. On a side table was a paperback that had a cover showing a man in a three-piece suit driving a moped down Fifth Avenue. I was so taken aback by that juxtaposition that I picked it up, then put it back in its place only after reading the last page. I immediately went down to my father's office, barged into his room, threw the book down onto his desk, and demanded to know why he had never told me about this man.

The book was "The Governor Listeth"; the man, William F. Buckley, Jr.

The book and renaissance man shaped my life. It was an honor to meet him and Pat at NR's 20th Anniversary dinner at the Plaza, where he graciously accepted my invitation to come up to Harvard to speak to the George Washington Society.

Rest in peace, there with Jesus at the right hand of God, Mr. Buckley.

Best regards to all,
Tim Cranston

Except for a couple of idiots here
We all know that William F. Buckley Jr. was the father of modern conservatism and left a legacy that cannot be underestimated. He was a guidepost leading to the shining city on the hill.

When rampant liberalism threatened to monopolize political dialog, Buckley proved one did not have to be a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing stogy-puffer to be a conservative. He was an inspiration to the youth of the 70s and 80s by showing that one could be cool, and still be conservative.

His shoes are big, the threat as virulent as ever, and the challenge clear - can we meet the growing tide of populism, socialism and globalism? Thank God we have Bill, who showed us how to do it!

The Buckley smile always preceeded
and followed his calm skewering of anyone foolish enough to debate him. Of course those were the days when thought and logic had a place in debate.

Did Buckley Turn Conservatives Into....?
George Will, Buckley, Newt, Bush father, Barone, and McCain are a few of the names on the membership or attendance lists of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderbergs, not to mention the Trilateralists. Is it any wonder why we are so blessed with open borders, globalism, commercial interests above the interests of US citizens? McCain, if elected will pursue the same goals as Jorge Bush and the only thing he has going for him is the same as Jorge's -- the Iraq war, which is a stupid idea. I totally dislike it when writers link conservatism to "free" trade, TV-style religion as in Dobson, etc. Well said, Boutte.

classy article on a classy guy.
George Will has written an extremely nice piece on Bill Buckley.

In addition to Will's excellent article, Sam Tanenhous wrote a nice article on Bill Buckley for New Republic magazine, titled "Athwart History"(March 19, 2007). It is on the internet, and I would highly recommend it for those wanting to learn more of Buckley's position on Iraq.

Certainly by July 2004, Buckley had severe misgivings on Iraq. By then he thought it a mistake.

Insofar as the suggestion by some that Buckley advocates an aggressive, interventionist, neocon, messianic mission to reorder the world to more nearly comport with American ideals, the facts do not support it. In fact, Buckley specifically rejected that approach.

According to the article, Buckley's family even as far back as the 1940s was sympathetic to isolationist policies. Buckley's mom was a member of "American First Committee". His brother James was also a member of AFC.

I agree with most comments here. Bill Buckley was an incredibly gifted person, a renaissance man if ever there was one.

He will be missed.

Republicans are no longer conservatives
We need to have a REAL Conservative party. The Gingrich Revolution had offered so much promise, but then the dreaded disease, We'reinpoweritis, took hold of the party and resulted in spending exceeding what we thought a Democratic White House and Congress would do. Not to be deterred, it looks as though the "anointed one," the "messiah" will beat all previous records of government induced wealth distribution. Yea!

Where doth swell a kind heart?

Where doth swell a kind heart?

From where does such a man come?

He was forged among many.

He was well traveled and had at hand intellectual power houses. He had an education Henry Adams would have been impressed by.

He became convinced at an early age to act on the absurdity of man without panic.

I think I need go back and watch him so, Buckley adherents, son and family, please post on YouTube some of his more potent times. He had something that is missing right now, a steady heart.

Smiling when you're yelling Stop

The beauty of Bill Buckley was his ability to smile when yelling "Stop!."

William Buckley
Thanks to Buckley for his moral and ethical approach to political philosophy. Without him we may not have been blessed to have a President Reagan. And thanks to George Will for this memorable column.

A truly great American
We all will miss Bill Buckley. A great man who contributed so much to political discourse in this country. He was well respected by all elements of the political specrum, because he believed in the value of discussion and debate. Never afraid to challenge conventional wisdom on any subject, his program Firing Lines frequently included the best minds on the left and the right. All of the guests got a run for their money when they tangled with Bill.


Apollo Speaks...
...you are a moron,and I would no more go to your site than have a tooth filled without novocaine.

Congrats
Excellent George, Excellent

George Will has ...
...always come the closest to Bill Buckley's intellect for me.I first read Will in National Review many years ago and I am glad Buckley picked him up.They are both the most educated columnists who ever wrote for popular consuption.And now we are down to one.

I am profoundly
happy for him.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.