End of an era. I've respected Buckley for his intelligence and wit. He was one of those people one is glad to have as an adversary, even while almost never agreeing with him.

Reading Andrew Golis’s comments I can’t help but think of that great line from the movie, Chinatown: “Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."

I don’t have the time, but perhaps someone can do some research on the long list of racist, classist, homophobic and sexist writings that characterized Buckley’s writing until the end of his life.

My favorite, and the one that is perhaps best known, is the 1957 editorial in favor of segregation: “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 predominate numerically.
The sobering answer is YES — the white community is entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

It’s been a long time since he publicly defended segregation, but not that long since he called for the government to mark those with HIV with tattoos for easy identification.

Yes, he was witty and smart and charming. Amongst liberal peers of his class he was no doubt an excellent dinner companion. His intellectual influence on the conservative movement was profound (indeed, he represented one of the most important intellectual movements in the 1950s and 60s—the rise of right-wing Catholicism). He was the closest thing we had in the U.S. to a Catholic fascist ideologue. Perhaps he exercised “basic decency even toward those with whom he disagreed,” but there was nothing decent or humane about so many of the positions that he espoused throughout his life.

Buckley was a witty and urbane figure, and certainly Firing Line set a strong standard for sophisticated and civil political debate. It would be great to see more shows like that these days.

However, I think that once the recollections and retrospectives begin coming in, many younger progressives who may have acquired an erroneously softened impression of Buckley as a respectable old lion of conservatism in winter will receive a shock as they become acquainted for the first time with some of Buckley's more odious, hateful and contemptuous utterances over the years.

I'm sure we'll all get a chance to view the famous Buckley-Vidal dust-up from 1968, which is worth it for the sheer entertainment value.

From the CNN.com release:

"He died while at work," said Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of the National Review Online, in a written statement. "If he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas."

Is this really where the right wing is? Rather than a marketplace of ideas, we have a "war" of ideas?

What's the underlying point -- that the strong ideas kill or subjugate the weak ones and enforce their will?

What is with the right that makes everything about violence?

I couldn't agree more with you Cranky Historian!

I am always sorry to see someone die. It is a sad moment for them and for their families. Nonetheless, the fact is that William F. Buckley established the foundation for corrupting and undermining whatever was civilized and decent in the Republican Party that once existed, his retrograde thinking provided a foundation for some of the most extremist right wing elements in our society to build upon and gain respectability whereas 50 years ago they were pariahs.

It is always difficult for me to comprehend why otherwise intelligent people choose the dark side of intellectualism that is essentially anti-
Democratic, excuses the excesses of power and privelege and advocates the continued suffering and marginalization of those who have the least and are most exploited. Buckley is the prototype for every creepy, horrible, vengeful right wing "intellectual" we now endure. He provided intellectual cover for some of the most uncivilized, abusive, and immoral actions that have taken place in the world since World War II. As a staunch Catholic right winger he often created elaborate defenses of the most unChristian of acts, policies, and beliefs.

Buckley's life work has brought a pox upon our nation. I doubt that history will look kindly upon his contribution to American civilization.

Finally, it seems to me Andrew that it is precisely because of your youth that you hold such an admiring and respectful view of this mean, vindictive, and callous man. You don't remember this man in his fullthroated bigotry and hatred for the poor, the nonwhite, the liberals and so on. Those of us a little longer in the tooth recall the things that Cranky mentioned above and are neither willing nor able to forget about them and Buckley himself did little or nothing in his life to give us reason to forgive him for same. In death, we can mourn the loss of his life and the pain it causes his family, but we should not allow time to hide the ugliness of much of his work and thought and the aide and comfort this provided to the barbaric, authoritarian individuals and groups that now threaten our democracy. Never forget that in many ways it was Buckley who spawned every Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Kristol, Falwell, Robertson, Helms, Santorum, and Dubya and all the negative, deleterious effects they have had on our great nation and people.

I am with you Cranky Historian. I mean no disrespect to the Buckleys in this time of mourning. But I am having a hard time with the romanticized views of WFB that I am reading and hearing today. The man came out in favor of segregation. Is that forgivable? Enough said.

A brilliant mind (and decent harpsichordist) who went to the Dark Side. Imagine all the good he could have accomplished as a Progressive Dem.

I believe it was J. K. Galbraith who wrote once that Buckley was the perfect debating opponent, because (I'm paraphrasing from memory) he was eloquent, unyielding, gracious, unflappable, acutely intelligent and invariably wrong.

My only contact with Buckley came when he gave the undergraduate commencement address to my class a generation ago. In it, he reminded the assembled graduates that he had called, years before, for the use of nuclear weapons against North Vietnam.

Certainly he spoke his mind.

dar,

I agree, but I wonder if that's because when intelligent liberals look on Buckley as an adversary--say, in comparison with Limbaugh, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, or virtually any right-wing hack today--they admire his culture, intelligence, and civility; say what you will about the man, he never resorted to sound-bites; he argued from principle as opposed to spouting mere party-ideology, and he was disarmingly gracious.

Sorry to see him go.

On second thoughts, I'm glad he's gone.

And I wish him greater clarity of intellect next time around.

Prisoners often use the phrase "a man is more than the worst thing he has ever done." I think that idea can apply to most of us, as I think it does with Buckley. Yes, he had a history of supporting some reprehensible ideas (segregation, homophobia, etc.) but he also later disavowed many of those ideas when their folly was revealed to him and was willing to compromise his stance - something many today (including the WH) are unable to do.

Was the man perfect or perfectly evil? Far from either I think - no matter what your perspective. But I do admire two things about his life; 1) he tried to have a philosophical basis for his beliefs rather than just being reactionary, and 2) he was almost always willing to engage the other side in debate. That, fellow citizens, is how workable compromises are attained and what takes democracy from functional to flourishing.

As with most things in life, I think the truth of Buckley's legacy lies somewhere in the middle of all these opinions. I disagree with a great many things he believed in, but I'll miss having a grown up in the room who helped me understand the other side's reasoning.

An important question we should be asking is; who steps in to replace his voice? Because if it is the screaming ideologues, the conservative movement will be next to impossible to deal with on any level.

My $.02

I remember his televised debate with Reagan over the Panama Canal Treaty. When Reagan wondered why Buckley hadn't "seen the light", Buckley responded, "If you were any closer, my illumination would blind you."

wj, perhaps you could relate the full Buckley quote? its' salvation-through-violence meme really makes his statement hi-larious!

...I'll save you the trouble:
"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered"

threatening violence displays neither wit nor panache.

To the argument I am reading--Dickerson puts it well--where Buckley was a moderating influence/not as bad as strength-of-will neoconservatives/calm and courteous:
"Nuke Vietnam"

I am sorry; even if someone gets a little more mellow after creating an institution to continue their screwy efforts to justify imperialism, they still deserve nothing more than contempt.

Whatever tiny fraction of legitimacy and class (or at least good prose) the postmodern conservative movement could ever claim died with William F. Buckley.

Buckley was a smooth talking patrician who advanced the cause of the extremely wealthy. He covered this up with his eloquence and his dramatic gestures. Read Paul Kgugman's CONSCIENCE OF A LIBERAL to see just how pernicious an influence Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW was from its inception.

Buckley was racist pure and simple. His 'magazine' in the 1960s and well into the 1970s warned of the evils of giving 'Negros' their full civil rights.

There were usually pedigreed sociologists who warned of the evils of 'race mixing'.

Moreover, his magazine widely criticized the 1965 Immigration Act that eliminated the quota system that favored white Europeans and allowed more Asians into the country.

We can forever be grateful that his slimly, vile, petty, spoiled racist brat had little power in the 1960s.

There is nothing like a "good" dead conservative when they drop dead.

Bully Buckley was the most disrespectful person I
have ever seen. If you didn't agree with him or
say something he didn't like, he would get physical
and start punching.

Hope he took all his garbage with him.

Good riddance!

Constitution

Wow, these comments have opened my eyes!

I am going to look at the vintage clips of him on YouTube now.

He was on tv when I was young but then I had no idea that he was such a force for evil. I did know that I liked Gore Vidal much better. I will weep when Mr. Vidal leaves this veil of tears.

I mostly remember Buckley talking about his sister who died young of a brain tumour.

Ladies and Gents,

As a matter of political jujitsu, but far more importantly, as a matter of human conduct, we--as progressives--should be expressing only gratitude for the life of Bill Buckley.

WFB, as shown by Rick Perlstein, gave an ample and fair hearing--even the gift of friendship--to liberals. In this sense, he honored disagreement and debate, respecting the marketplace of ideas while elevating the inquiry for truth over the machinations of political battle.

This legacy of giving us--the American Left--a full say in the realm of public discourse is an immense and immeasurable gift. Would that any other Republican/conservative/neocon/pundit/talk show host could display even a fraction of that kind of generosity. If the Bush Administration merely gave the Left and all dissenters a fair hearing--regardless of whether they swayed the administration on its policy stances--that act alone would have produced considerable social benefit to our country.

I don't think we realize, in our 24/7 media culture of today--fed by the Internet and other nascent technologies as it is--how important it is to simply have civil, extended, unencumbered adult conversations... regardless of who wins the political skirmish or electoral battle. Merely having the kind of debate Bill Buckley created and sustained in American life--on FIRING LINE and PBS, no less--was a gift to America, and recapturing it in future years would, by itself, do much to heal and renew our country. The ability and, moreover, WILLINGNESS to give opponents a fair hearing and generous treatment will be WFB's greatest legacy, and a significant one at that.

As for all of his ugly and erroneous positions over time, let's put them in perspective... not to excuse them, but to shed light on them in a fuller human context:

1) Buckley is no worse than the rest of us, in that he failed to do what so many of us fail to do--namely, grow beyond our formative environment.

WFB had a conservative Catholic oilman father, and was surrounded by wealth while being involved in the military. Even a towering intellect such as Bill Buckley will, by virtue of being human--with all its attendant limitations--possess a limited frame of reference. Sure, there were views Buckley never did attain, views that we as progressives would have considered to be enlightened. Buckley was wrong on a number of historical counts, but that doesn't make him any worse than the rest of us. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, to reference the Gospels.

2) If WFB held a position, he--more than any other conservative in the 20th century, with the possible exception of Goldwater--attained that position because he sincerely and intellectually felt the position to be accurate, in line with the truth, and the legitimate end result of substantial and rigorous intellectual examination. Much like his civility, WFB's sincerity and intellectual honesty were, are, and will be enormous--nay, incalculable--gifts to our country's public and political life.

It's a lot like torture, folks: we would want our opponents to treat us humanely when we're oppressed or in the minority; similarly, we should treat our opponents with graciousness when we find ourselves with the leverage and the upper hand. Whether or not today's (neo)conservatives treat us with kindness, we ought to take a cue from Bill Buckley and treat conservatives with decency and respect... not in submitting to their policy proposals, but in terms of treating the individuals in the arena. It would be a great way to repay him for the kindness he showed progressives as individual persons.

3) Finally, it must be remembered that WFB favored the legalization of marijuana. He came out strongly against the Iraq War about two years into it, proof that WFB had an open mind and a journalist's willingness to be educated by the course of events and their attendant facts. He stood against the John Birch Society, and viewed George W. Bush (in a 2006 interview) as NOT a true conservative.

Did I disagree with him on 98 percent of issues? Sure. But was a disagreement with Bill Buckley ever something contrived, false, politically convenient, or commercially beneficial to the conservative icon? Never!

Bill Buckley saw Catholicism very differently from the way I, as a progressive Catholic, view the faith. He came to conclusions very different from mine, but not for lack of curiosity or insufficiency of effort.

His greatest sin was that he was wrong a lot. But when you think about how different each human person is, being wrong really isn't much of a sin at all.

Life--like the legacies of the people who endure it--is complicated. Therefore, it can be said that the man with many ugly views who formulated errant policy recommendations is the same man who improved our political discourse while showing immense personal generosity to friend and foe alike.

Does the wrongness on many issues outweigh the personal civility and generosity? I don't think so.

This was, indeed, a good and decent man. We really need to think about human lives--and the God who created them--in a much larger context.