A Conservative Profile in Courage
Even though I always thought that William F. Buckley, Jr. had a first-class temperament but a second-class intellect, and even though I know little of what his son Christopher has accomplished and/or written over the years at National Review, the magazine his father founded, I was somewhat surprised to learn of the reaction he got from its readers (and its editor, Rich Lowry) yesterday, after endorsing Obama on his website.
Not only can't young Buckley deserve the reaction he got; the conservative movement doesn't deserve it, either. Not all TPM readers will agree with me, but America needs a better conservatism than this. It certainly deserves a better conservative spokesman than David Brooks, who, as I've noted here, hasn't shown half of Buckley's character in this time of national crisis.
I am sorry, but what America deserves is the total, permanent repudiation of the conservative movement. Conservatives are now and always bad for working people and America. They serve no useful purpose and we are better off without them.
October 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that Abe Lincoln was such a tool. Ike was a bastard too. Don't confuse neoconservativism with true conservatism. The modern incarnation of the republican party is worthy of derision, however, it has little to do with the actual historical place that conservative views have had with respects to our country's development.
October 14, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither TR nor Ike were conservatives at all.
TR was a liberal and Ike an unreconstructed New Dealer.
"Conservatives" have always been the swine they are today. It's just that they used to have better manners. Nowadays they don't bother with trying to make people think that they are either intelligent or refined.
October 15, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This comment shows zero historical knowledge or context. You should read something other than Wikipedia.
Look up the definition of conservative: marked by moderation or caution; tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions. Just because the last 40 years has seen the party taken over by neoconservatives doesn't all of a sudden erase history.
Woodrow Wilson beat the republicans by accusing them of being socialists, which makes your whole argument more historical revisionism from the cheap seats.
October 15, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Woodrow Wilson beat the republicans by accusing them of being socialists, which makes your whole argument more historical revisionism from the cheap seats."
Huh? Wilson's accusation support the idea that TR wasn't conservative, which thereby undercuts your argument not those to whom you replied.
October 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it highlights the fact that the original definition of conservative is much more inline with TD and Ike and Abe than the current republican party can claim.
They are neoconservatives and social conservative, not true conservatives in the model of the presidents I mentioned. Just because the definition has changed, doesn't make the past associations disappear.
October 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Dick,
isnt't that just what we're seeing, a repudiation of the Reagan "Government is the problem" mantra?
Welcome to the America's second revolution.
October 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree - when you make a list of conservative ideas or people who have done good. The list of bad things, ideas, and proposals is far bigger. Maybe that is why so many are trying on the populist hat.
October 14, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christopher Buckley.
October 14, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. Sorry. Mea culpa.
October 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd fire him for the hat alone.
October 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Within hours of my (Obama) endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands... next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor...
Wingnuts say the troops are fighting and dying in Iraq to protect our freedoms, which would seem to include diversity of viewpoints at the National Review. The dittoheads handle dissent with the tolerance of a Saddam or Joe Stalin.
October 14, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Freedom" is a very elastic word and that's why it inspires such awe: everyone reads into it all sorts of vague nonsense.
Buckley had the freedom to endorse Obama and National Review had the freedom to fire him. So what is the problem?
You have the freedom to call NR a Stalinist organization and I have the freedom to write this little jab.
Rumsfeld (gosh I miss that guy!!) famously said--upon hearing that the museums and banks were being looted when Baghdad fell--that it was natural for people to loot rob steal and rape when they are free and you know what, I dare you to find fault with his particular inference as to what "freedom" means.
Ah but you will say: “Your freedom to do x should not negatively affect other's freedoms to do y” as if people living in society are not inextricably bound with each other. And as if in the end it is not often a zero sum game.
The notion that if we could just get rid of those pesky conservatives we would live in utopian bliss is crazy.
Fight them tooth and nail, but they represent elements of human nature itself and those are not going away anytime soon.
October 15, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatism is a philosophy that begs for Emersonian compensation, as does Liberalism. Pragmatic, wise management and governance must reconcile both of these opposites. Neither of these approaches is complete within itself, and when elevated to the level of an apriori absolute, become silly and even downright stupid in their excessive one sidedness. But Chris Buckley seems to have some principles beyond blind loyalty to the tribe that spawned him--and I guess he represents a form of evolution.
October 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss Bill Buckley dearly - an old friend of mine used to sell him meth. I never agreed with him, but damn, the man could make a good argument. He had a lot of class, in my estimation.
So Chris may have it wrong. Dad may not be rolling over in his grave. But isn't is ironic, these great souls are trying to revive paleoconservatism. This is Jurassic Park stuff, folks.
October 15, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we need a principled conservative opposition to liberalism. It seems to me that both sides need to have "push back" from the other, but in civil and intellectually honest ways. It makes both sides stronger because we have to defend and justify our positions. It also helps to temper the worst excesses of both political philosophies. I think that this gives us our best chance to get the best of both viewpoints, which is ultimately best for our country. I know that we have not had that type of relationship with the neoconservatives who are in the final days in power and the country is the worse for it.
William F. Buckley was the type of conservative who made liberalism better because of his intelligent critique. I do not know much about Christoper Buckley, but I am sorry to hear that he was subjected to the bum's rush at the National Review. It says more about the current state of conservatism than it says about Mr. Buckley.
October 14, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heard on talk radio:
Conservative's relationship with the Republican party is going south because:
1) the party having an Affair with liberalism (John McCain)
2) the party is Addicted to deficits (George Bush), and
3) the party is Abusive (the Constitution).
Absolutely! Time to divorce 'em! Stay home Nov. 4 and teach 'em a lesson!!
October 14, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OR join us over on RepublicansforObama.org - we are not staying home on 11/4!
October 14, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool,
But if these folks just take themselves out of the process, that's OK too.
October 15, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would have a beer with any conservative who flipped the bird at the GOP ticket.
October 15, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you be at all surprised by the reaction he got from the readers of the National Review???
It seems like one of the most predictable things to have happened lately.
October 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Jason Everett Miller that the Republican Party is not what it was. While today, the words Republican and conservative are inseparable, and often interchangable, there was a time when being conservative was an respectable trait.
That was back when conservative was an adjective. Back about 40 or so years ago yes I'm that old, those who were conservative played an important and even vital role in government and society. They functioned as the hand on the brake, arguing for deliberation and caution to keep our country from going off the rails.
As for Teddy Roosevelt, I think Jason you might agree that he would be viewed by the modern Republican Party as liberal due to the reforms he introduced during his public service. But it was a different Republican Party then. TR was not acting as an automoton, programmed by ideology. He saw what was needed and he took action.
If the Republican Party is to survive past this election (and I'm not a member or a fan btw), Republicans need to stop worshipping Reagan and start modeling the party after Teddy Roosevelt.
October 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You get it exactly. I agree that TR would be drummed out of the modern republican party. As would just about any republican president prior to Nixon. Our view of history in this country is about an inch deep. Welcome to the United States of Amnesia.
October 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not all TPM readers will agree with me, but America needs a better conservatism than this."
The irony of folks on the left disagreeing with this is not lost on me, and I appreciate the thrust of what you're saying. We have a wonderful country, and while there are more States on my "To Visit" list than on my "Been There, Going Back Soon" list, I dare say that many who would disagree with your sentiment (and many on the other side of the looking glass) would do well to travel more. Our political discourse has been weighted down with shorthand labels, caricatures, and catch phrases: San Francisco, Massachusetts, Liberal, Conservative, Reagan Republicans, Bible Thumpers, Godless heathens, and on and on and on. And to be sure, in a country this big, you can find plenty of people who are happy to live up (or down) to these and other political stereotypes. But the more I travel, the more I realize that the nuance "intelligent" folks claim to want in their politics and their politicians is present in so many of our people... America does need a better conservatism than we've seen on display thus far. It deserves a better liberalism too. I sincerely hope we're going to see strong signs of a sweeping turn for the better on November 4th...
October 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Use attributions - "as Oliver Wendell Holmes said of Teddy Roosevelt, a first class temperament and a second class intellect."
October 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh crap, here we go again! That's where the bastards always retreat to! "Conservatism" just means cautious, or moderate, or traditional. Look in the dictionary!" Whatta buncha crap. No matter what the dictionary says, in America conservatives are in favor of plutocracy, the combining of church and state, and lately, a big helping of military adventurism, along with reduced civil rights in the "homeland". Or will we be calling it the "Homelessland" soon?
They always retreat to the dictionary definition of "conservative" as a way of not facing up to what they have done. And they always point to all the little people and their conservatism to avoid specific indictments.
Furthermore, for a lot of the more influential people among the "conservatives" it really doesn't matter what they call themselves. Any accounting of the past eight years will show their true descriptor is "criminal" and "traitor".
October 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And above all, they've got to obscure the essential difference between the two; that liberalism is based on doing what can be done for all, in order of need, and conservatism is based solely on individual aggrandizement. At others expense.
There simply is no gainsaying that.
October 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And very soon we end up accepting that conservatism can never fail (how could it? it's just a poor, inoffensive word!), it can only be failed. So we shouldn't be afraid of conservatives, or conservatism, only this particular blighted, benighted crop of them.
Screw that. If I need a conservative point of view, I'll find a cautious liberal, and ask him. That'll be fine, thanks.
October 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone else having trouble with their avatar shrinking? I can now see only half of mine.
October 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if we say, as liberals, that conservatives shouldn't be angry at him, we should refrain from criticizing Joe Lieberman. This is something that I absolutely refuse to do. Liberals should applaud him, but not be surprised at the anger from the right.
October 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink