Some Thoughts On WFB

He proved that, even in late 20th century, ideas matter and can change governments, minds and history; he produced the intellectual fertilizer that grew the conservative movement from Goldwater to Reagan; He was astonishingly gracious for a man of his position, intellectually honest to a fault; if you are a liberal you should acknowledge his contribution to at least the basic structure of politics. He came to oppose the Iraq war, he was noticably more sympathetic to gay people (and perhaps to civil unions) as he grew older; he believed that conservatism under George W. Bush had lost its way; he was humble enough to allow his magazine to prosper under editors who thought differently. His was a conservatism of doubt.

Comments

Also, he was a racist.

Posted by Duvall | February 27, 2008 12:03 PM

>

Andrew is going to like that.

Posted by Tom Enever | February 27, 2008 12:05 PM

I'll give him one thing. Today's Republicans make him look like a saint on comparison(despite his earlier racist beliefs).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 27, 2008 12:31 PM

To say nothing of the fact that, earlier than most, WFB recognized drug Prohibition for the abject failure that it is.

And that's more than I can say for many, perhaps most, Democrats!

Posted by DSG | February 27, 2008 12:59 PM

I know this might sound bad considering that the man has only just passed away, but can we all stop pretending that Buckley was some kind of intellectual giant?

Buckley was very, very smart. But not intelligent. Let me put that another way: his was a debater's mind, not a true thinker's mind. If you go back and look at the arguments against liberalism in his most famous books (e.g. "Up from Liberalism"), you'll find that they're ridiculous. The seemed unable to detect any difference--in theory or in practice--between New Deal liberalism (what the political philosophers call "egalitarian liberalism") and Marxian socialism. No one who fails to see such things should be taken all that seriously. No matter how quick they may be with memorable witicisms.

Buckley was massively influential. But not because of the soundness of his arguments.

Posted by Jim | February 27, 2008 2:04 PM

"The seemed unable to detect any difference--in theory or in practice--between New Deal liberalism (what the political philosophers call "egalitarian liberalism") and Marxian socialism. No one who fails to see such things should be taken all that seriously."

I guess you don't take seriously F.A. Hayek, Mises, Oakeshott, Kekes, Scruton, etc. - a large part of the intelectual giants of the past century.

Posted by Peterfromtexas | February 27, 2008 4:18 PM

"unable to detect any difference--in theory or in practice--between New Deal liberalism (what the political philosophers call "egalitarian liberalism") and Marxian socialism."

Now that you mention it: what is the difference? If you take a look at Marx's writings on the *procedures* regarding the implementation of socialism (such as, the Communist Manifesto and the Critique of the Gotha Program), they sound indistinguishable from modern, New Deal liberalism. From the nationalization of industries to an increasingly progressive income tax to Marx's concept of justice ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.") the line between welfare state liberalism and socialism is rather vague.

Posted by ProfNickD | February 27, 2008 6:47 PM

WFB RIP, a true conservative both ahead and behind the times as well. He could live well, laugh at himself, and persuade others thru discussion and socratic methodology...not just lying thru your teeth as so many do in the public eye.
He will be sorely missed by a nation drowning in mediocrity as well as falling headlong for demagogery.
Duvall, quite whinning about race, commited men like Ghandi and MLK fought and died for your freedom; so cowboy up and get on with it. Excuses for cultural failure are pathetic...so much for up from slavery...

Posted by Russ Ramey | February 27, 2008 10:16 PM

"...Let me put that another way: his was a debater's mind, not a true thinker's mind."

You miss the point ENTIRELY. To quote Bill Kristol: "Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate."

For that reason alone, I would choose Buckley's "debater's mind" over your (so called) "thinker's mind" any day of the week...and twice on Sunday.

Posted by John in Texas | February 28, 2008 2:02 AM

Bill Buckley, a practicing Catholic, is going to have some wrangling to do at the pearly gates. Partly because Jesus was a left-wing anti-establishment peacenik. But on a serious note: As one who enjoyed his friendship, loyalty and generosity of spirit for nearly four decades, I count myself blessed to have met him.

To those who would cast damning aspersions on him before he's even in the grave, I can only say they didn't know him very well. Like any human, he had imperfections, but he was seldom a fan of ignorance or inhumanity. I hope they can say the same with their knee-jerk judgments.

Peace,

Chuck Culhane

Posted by Chuck Culhane | February 28, 2008 10:28 AM