Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The King Is Dead
No matter what the years ahead hold for me, I am fairly certain that in all my life to come, I will not likely make the passing acquaintance of a more singularly important person than William F. Buckley, Jr. WFB is a singular figure on so many levels, and yet, it would be an immense category error to praise him by saying that they broke the mold after making him. In fact, he is the archetype, the master copy from which one of the most important political movements of the 20th century was built. I had the pleasure of meeting him on several occasions at alumni events at our high school, and I will always remember his answer when I asked him what a conservative, encamped as I was within the heart of enemy territory, ought to do. "Counter-revolution," he said, with that inimitable panache and cheer.
Without Buckley there is no National Review, without NR there is no modern American conservatism, and without that there is no Goldwater and certainly no Reagan. After WWII, Western Europe was a shambles, Japan was under occupation, and Great Britain was heading into what would be a solid 40 years of decline before finding firm post-imperial footing under Thatcher. Buckley played a central role in creating and maintaining the anti-communist consensus at a time when it looked to many like a losing proposition, or worse still, the wrong one. If the Right seems divided and demoralized today, it need only look back to 1954 to see how much worse it could be. It is only against the sweep of a decade or more of history that a clear picture of the present truly emerges. The movement that Bill founded remains as vital and central as ever.
If there is any aspect of WFB that now seems anachronistic (well, besides that sonorous accent of his), it is that he counted among his friends the likes of Arthur Schlesinger, Joan Didion, Norman Mailer, and probably most of the profoundly left-wing intelligentsia of the upper east side of Manhattan. This was due in no small part to his charm, but also to the kinder sort of partisanship, particularly on the part of liberals, that prevailed throughout his time. To be sure, we have our Ann Coulters and Sean Hannitys, whose attack-dog antics operate on a level far below Bill's lofty erudition.
But even those good-humored, metropolitan, and ecumenical conservatives--Jonah Goldberg comes foremost to mind--are increasingly dismissed in the same breath. The present hour has its exceptional qualities, and the fact that both parties' presidential frontrunners are known for being willing to at least say nice things about the other team's mothers makes me hopeful that we will soon see an end to a solid decade of vitriol. For the Right, at least, we do not need to look far for an example to follow. ¶ 9:40 AM
No matter what the years ahead hold for me, I am fairly certain that in all my life to come, I will not likely make the passing acquaintance of a more singularly important person than William F. Buckley, Jr. WFB is a singular figure on so many levels, and yet, it would be an immense category error to praise him by saying that they broke the mold after making him. In fact, he is the archetype, the master copy from which one of the most important political movements of the 20th century was built. I had the pleasure of meeting him on several occasions at alumni events at our high school, and I will always remember his answer when I asked him what a conservative, encamped as I was within the heart of enemy territory, ought to do. "Counter-revolution," he said, with that inimitable panache and cheer.
Without Buckley there is no National Review, without NR there is no modern American conservatism, and without that there is no Goldwater and certainly no Reagan. After WWII, Western Europe was a shambles, Japan was under occupation, and Great Britain was heading into what would be a solid 40 years of decline before finding firm post-imperial footing under Thatcher. Buckley played a central role in creating and maintaining the anti-communist consensus at a time when it looked to many like a losing proposition, or worse still, the wrong one. If the Right seems divided and demoralized today, it need only look back to 1954 to see how much worse it could be. It is only against the sweep of a decade or more of history that a clear picture of the present truly emerges. The movement that Bill founded remains as vital and central as ever.
If there is any aspect of WFB that now seems anachronistic (well, besides that sonorous accent of his), it is that he counted among his friends the likes of Arthur Schlesinger, Joan Didion, Norman Mailer, and probably most of the profoundly left-wing intelligentsia of the upper east side of Manhattan. This was due in no small part to his charm, but also to the kinder sort of partisanship, particularly on the part of liberals, that prevailed throughout his time. To be sure, we have our Ann Coulters and Sean Hannitys, whose attack-dog antics operate on a level far below Bill's lofty erudition.
But even those good-humored, metropolitan, and ecumenical conservatives--Jonah Goldberg comes foremost to mind--are increasingly dismissed in the same breath. The present hour has its exceptional qualities, and the fact that both parties' presidential frontrunners are known for being willing to at least say nice things about the other team's mothers makes me hopeful that we will soon see an end to a solid decade of vitriol. For the Right, at least, we do not need to look far for an example to follow. ¶ 9:40 AM
