William F. Buckley, Jr. is dead, and modern American conservatism has lost its chief intellectual spokesman and leader.
Buckley is one of the main reasons that I became a conservative. It wasn't just the influence of God and Man at Yale, Buckley's first and seminal book that made the case that Yale had abandoned its conservative Christian roots. Buckley had the novel idea that private colleges don't belong to their administration and faculty; these are the employees. Rather, colleges belong to the students who pay the tuition and who are there to learn. They along belong to the alumni, the living body of graduates who represent what the institution has produced; alumni also largely fund their alma mater and thus maintain their ties even when they have left.
I learned all this from Buckley, and our renegade newspaper The Dartmouth Review was patterned on Buckley's National Review. But there was more to Buckley than his books and writing. Interestingly Buckley never produced an important book after God and Man at Yale. His real influence was in who he was and what he represented. He was a suave, erudite and generous man, and he represented a conservatism that was witty, iconoclastic and fun. In my teens I had envisioned conservatives as stuffy and narrow-minded businessmen who upheld the status quo. Buckley showed me an irreverent conservatism that enjoyed life and fought to change the liberal status quo, especially on the college campus.
Before Buckley, there was no conservatism in America. The literary critic Lionel Trilling once famously remarked that America has a single political tradition and it is liberal. Conservatism, to the degree it exists, is only reaction. The conservative is not a man of ideas but simply twitches and barks in response to the inexorable march of liberal change. The conservative is against progress. Buckley himself played with this idea, and once described the mission of National Review as one of "standing athwart history, yelling Stop!" With this remark Buckley appeared to confirm the stereotype while in fact exploding it. An unthinking, unimaginative conservative would not have devised such a pithy, witty formulation.
Buckley may not have single-handedly invented modern intellectual conservatism, but he certainly made it respectable. He became the chief intellectual spokesman of the movement that culminated in Ronald Reagan. I never knew him well, although every few months I received an autographed Buckley book--typically about spies or sailing--in the mail. When Alan Wolfe launched his pompous and ignorant fusillade against my book The Enemy at Home, even suggesting that I was not a real conservative, Buckley rushed to my defense, noting that he was a far better authority on conservatism than Wolfe. In the end, it is these little kindnesses that you remember the most.
Today modern American conservatism is at the crossroads, and it's not clear what it's future will be. Oh, if only there were another young Buckley to gallantly lead the intellectual brigade. Still, what Buckley's movement accomplished, both through its intellectual and political successes, is nothing less than the transformation of American politics, even world politics. Buckley's life proves that ideas have consequences, and many of us continue to walk in the path that this far-seeing man cleared for us.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
How William F. Buckley Changed America
Posted Feb 27th 2008 1:11PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Breaking News
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Observant on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- FAA To Push for Stricter Requirements for Pilot Licenses
- House Panel Passes Bill That Would Require College Football Playoffs
- Obama in Oslo -- Half Dove and Half Hawk
- Sarah Palin's Value-Added Spin on Climate Change: 'Boycott Copenhagen'
- McCartney's Meat Free Mondays: Letting a Few Bad Apples Kill the Entire Tree
- From Chicago to Oslo: Michelle Obama's First Year
- Big Majorities Believe Senate Health Bill Would Increase the Deficit and Taxes
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 13)
76. Andrew - you're right. my mistake!
Tim at 11:02AM on Feb 28th 2008
77. Attention. Attention.
John Adams was a Unitarian.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
Linda at 11:12AM on Feb 28th 2008
78. brian, the word you are looking for is :
course, not coarse.
web jones at 12:34PM on Feb 28th 2008
79. SOMBER, You are dead on!!!
For Brian who constantly quotes how christians are such do gooders. Brian, look up how the christians treated Native Peoples in both North and South America. Look at what Reverend Colonel Major Chivington said before he slaughtered a peaceful village of Cheyenne and Arapaho, " Kill them. Kill them all because nits make lice." Notice, Brian, the appellation Reverend. Good Christian people forcibly removed Indian children from their homes and took them to boarding schools where they refused to allow the children to return home. Beat them for speaking their own language. Denied them the right to worship their religion, or practice their own culture. Good christian men would go on Indian Hunts,killing as many Indians as they could, Saturday nights then go to church on Sunday
Look at how good Christians treated Black Americans. They were such good christians they burned crosses in people's yards. They lynched black people for the slightest incident or just because they felt like a little fun. KKK homegrown terrorists.
Heck, Brian look at the Bible and read about the Genocide that the Hebrews committed against other nations. But, I guess that's okay since GOD said they could do it.
Look at how christians treat their neighbors. Look at how christians call for the death of gays. They hold banners saying "God hates fags." Thought God was a God of Love. Yes, Brian, gay people are your neighbors.
What would Jesus say about all of the above situations. Would he applaud these acts? Would he deny that these acts occurred?
Yes, Brian, democrats are for people being able to live with dignity and respect without hate being directed at them. What's wrong with that? Are those not christian values?
Why is it that christians and conservatives are the first to scream about their rights being taken away when they are usually the first to take away the same from others who live, believe, think differently?
Judy at 12:43PM on Feb 28th 2008
80. All right brian, fair enough.
First off, the government doesn't promote abuse of its programs. The government finds itself in a catch-22, either end the program and get rid of the safety net all together, and potentially make millions destitute and unemployable and homeless or not pay for excess children, which could place thousands of families at risk for failure, or pony up the extra money. There are suggestions for how to aliviate this... but many are unconsitutional, like forcing women on welfare to take birth control, have tubal ligation, or to force men on welfare to have vacestomies. Other solutions would be to have government groups like the CCC or CCW back in the depression to give impovrished people a job taking care of and improving the community. Contractor lobbies oppose such programs as they would rather no work be done than work being done and them not paying for it. The liberal solution is education, community involvement, and community enrichment... in short the government gives people the means to better themselves and improve their economic environment. But to quote an adage: they can lead a horse to water but they can't make it drink. So given a choice between slashing programs and punishing people who are victims of poor circumstance or choices, and paying more to hopefully improve some to become productive members of society, the liberal chooses the latter because she recognizes that punishment without purpose is pointless and sadistical.
The solution is found in helping those in poverty while exersizing personal standards in our media and social discourse. I teach, and one of the things I have noticed is the "funnybunny" effect. For those who don't know, funny bunny is a brand of clothes and school supplies that have a cute pink rabbit making selfish, sarcastic, and snide remarks like: "you don't get it, it really is all about me." and "Do you realize how boring you are?" Pre-emptive snarkiness that enourages insolence and rudeness. And it's not the kids that buy it. It's the parents. Do I think there should be a national funnybunny ban? Of course not. I think that parents need to realize just what kind of children they are creating by caving in to their insatible appetites to consume.
Do you understand it's not liberalism to blame nearly so much as rampant consumerism, inattention, and a small percentage that exploits the programs for their own benefit?
Somber at 12:55PM on Feb 28th 2008
81. Somber, it's good to hear from you. You are so eloquent, yet clear in your posts.
Does anyone think about the 80% (or more) Christian Democrats who believe the values of helping others, especially the sick and poor?
When did that stop being a Republicanist value?
I'm sick and tired of 2 ways to look at everything, and that's it. there are so many shades of understanding. We will never move forward unless we can understand each other.
Linda at 1:07PM on Feb 28th 2008
82. William F. Buckley was a real Conservative, and modern Republicans are big government Liberals.
http://www.jeffwartman.com/2008/02/modern-analysis-of-sharon-statement_6096.html
Jeff Wartman at 1:46PM on Feb 28th 2008
83. "my wife teaches special ed. most of her students come from a housing project. most of the students don't know their dad. the mother has 2,3,4 kids byu different men all to get a bigger check, how responsible is that? the goverment promotes it. the kids suffer, not becomes they are dumb but because their home life is so horrible. special ed kids trouble is 99% home-life"
brian, I would like to point out a common misconception in your comment, a misconception that is widespread and rather important.
You are making a judgment by what you observe: you observe women having children they can't afford by multiple fathers, and you assume they are "doing it for the check". This could not be further from the truth.
Since 1981 I have managed the office of a OBGYN in a major US city. 100% of his patients are, as you would put it, "on the dole". Are they having children out of wedlock? Often, yes. Are they having children they cannot financially support? Certainly. But they are not doing it for the check. I have seen the same scenario over and over, often several generations, so let me enlighten you.
Picture a young girl. She grows up neglected and unloved. Maybe she never had a father. Maybe her mother is a substance abuser. Maybe she is abused herself. It doesn't matter what "caused" her: the fact is, she exists. No one has ever praised her, or shown her any attention. Now she reaches puberty. Boys are now giving her the attention she has never had; attention she is starving for. Could she use birth control? Yes, but she has witnessed something even better. Some of her friends have become pregnant. They have adorable babies, and when those babies were born, those girls were the STAR. For the first time in their lives, they are the center of attention, and everyone fawns over them. And on top of that, they have a beautiful tiny human being who is completely focused on them for love and support.
So our girl has a baby...but babies grow up. Soon that baby is a toddler, developing a sense of self. It is no longer "all about mom". And that crowd who hung around to see the cute baby? They have moved on to the next girl and the next cute baby. Our girl misses all that attention, and misses that unconditional love. She wants it back. So, she has another baby. And another. And often another. And the toddlers grow into children, and the children are neglected...and the cycle begins again for the next generation.
Trust me, brian, these women would still be having babies even if you didn't pay them a dime. They would get the money somehow, even illegally. The desire to have children, for whatever reason, does not wax and wane dependent on one's income level. It is pure biology, from a time when money did not even exist.
We live in a free society. This means we cannot dictate morals to people, and we cannot forcibly regulate who has children and who does not. People are free to have all the children they want, even if they can't afford them. And society has a choice of whether to ensure that these children have minimal funding to support them, or whether they wish these children to just go begging (or stealing) in the streets. As bad as we think things are in the US, it could be a lot worse...look at India as an example.
brian, the final point I would make is that people who complain about "supporting all those welfare cases" usually don't realize that all social programs combined (not including all aspects of Social Security) comprise less than 2 cents of your tax dollar. If welfare disappeared tomorrow, you would not notice it at all on your paycheck, but you might notice it elsewhere...perhaps as a rise in crime in your area, depending on where you live.
Sorry this rant it so long, but this misconception is a pet peeve of mine.
Queen of the Hoover Dam. at 1:46PM on Feb 28th 2008
84. I hate to interrupt the usual debate of this site of atheist vs christians but we need to get back to the subject of william Buckley. How anyone can praise them as their hero and claim that he was a good man is beyond me during his career he made may racist statements even claiming that the south had complete right to aggresively put down protesters. IN a quote from his paper he wrote "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 where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” in the August 24, 1957 edition of the National Review. I think this alone is enough to stop him from being anyones hero espeacially Dinesh. Since if he thought its okay to discriminate against blacks he certainly would discrimnate against people from india
Tegan Jenkins at 2:02PM on Feb 28th 2008
85. sorry about spelling was typing in a hurry
Tegan Jenkins at 2:05PM on Feb 28th 2008
86. Loving all the John Adams quotes. Thanks for that last one, Linda. Makes me wish he were around today to talk some sense into our current leaders. It's a shame we can't as a society be as eloquent with discussion, debate, and expression of thought as they were.
And yet they had the equivalent of a 6th grade education??
Strados at 2:05PM on Feb 28th 2008
87. Right on, Tegan.
Linda at 2:42PM on Feb 28th 2008
88. #80
"Of course not. I think that parents need to realize just what kind of children they are creating by caving in to their insatible appetites to consume."
Somber, where do you think that parents are getting the idea that caving in to a child's demands is okay ? Is it a case of parents just giving in to maintain some semblance of peace and quiet or have the parents adopted some ideas about parenting that do not work ?
M2D5 at 2:46PM on Feb 28th 2008
89. How did Buckley change America? Well, Im sure McDonalds profits soared through the roof everytime he went through the drive through.
jeff at 4:12PM on Feb 28th 2008
90. Farewell Bill – Although the name ‘American conservatism’ sounds as intellectual as can be, it always confused me…When I study the brass tacks and bolts of this society, the past that the ‘American conservative’ longingly speaks of , seems to me an idea laic path of consequences only ever existing in the Conservatives own intellectually phobic minds! This includes you DINESH! What sir are you conserving?
swells at 3:26PM on Feb 28th 2008