R.I.P., W.F.B.

William F. Buckley, Jr., has died. He was 82.

Buckley was, of course, the founder of the National Review. More broadly, he was sometimes described as the "father of modern conservatism." Or, as George F. Will once put it, "Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind."

I love the lede in the New York Times obit: "William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn." (What witty remark would Buckley make if he could respond to the New York Times praising him? Heh.)

Buckley remained a National Review contributor right to the end, as can be seen here. Indeed, after he was found dead at his desk, his son said, "He might have been working on a column." Buckley also continued to make headlines, such as when he criticized the Bush Administration in 2006 for displaying "the absence of effective conservative ideology."

It was National Review's The Corner that first broke the news of his passing this morning, and of course there are now a whole bunch of WFB tributes on the site from different Corner contributors.

And here's what some other bloggers are saying about his passing.

Frequent Irish Trojan contributor Texasyank writes:

The case can be made for Buckley as the most influential journalist of the second half of the 20th century. He was most responsible, first, for separating conservatism from the outright bigots and John Birchers, and second for making the defeat of imperial communism seem achievable--which, in the end, it was. When the cracking of the Soviet Empire finally occurred in the 1990s, when what Buckley had envisioned as far back as the 1940s finally happened, it happened with such a thoroughness and such a repudiation of the past that many were drawn to believe it was inevitable. It was not. The defeat of the Warsaw Pact happened because men like Buckley were able to give voice to an idea, and because men like (to list a partial honor role) Eisenhower, Dulles, Kennedy, Rusk and Reagan put that idea into action.

Personally, when I think of William F. Buckley, Jr., I always think of three classic WFB witticisms that my dad always used to quote when I was growing up. One is Buckley's famous line: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." The other two lines come from a debate when Buckley was running as a third-party candidate for mayor of New York City. Asked what would be his first act upon being elected mayor, he replied, "Demand a recount." And asked whether he wanted to make any further remarks, he quipped, "I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my own former eloquence." (My dad -- and subsequently I -- have often misquoted this as "I prefer to contemplate the eloquence of my previous remarks." But I assume the Wikipedia version is accurate. Anyway, same basic idea.)

Anyway. Rest in peace, Mr. FuBuckley.*

*My dad -- who, it should be noted, has greatly admired the man since his (i.e., my dad's) days as a young Goldwaterite -- often calls him "William FuBuckley," pronouncing the "F." as part of his last name. No idea why, but I like it. [UPDATE: Maybe this is why?]

UPDATE: In comments, my dad points out that "Fuhbuckley" is the more appropriate spelling. :) He also reminds me of another of his favorite legendary Buckleyisms, which I neglected to mention but which is perhaps the best of all, reproduced here, from a  letter to the editor published in the National Review:

          Dear Bill:
Three cheers to Dr. Ross Terrill. He slashed you to bits as you have been doing to yourself for the past year. Cancel my subscription.
Wm. W. Morris
Green Valley, Ariz.

             Dear Mr. Morris:
Cancel your own goddam subscription.
Cordially, WFB

Heh.

Comments

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

R.I.P. WFB

[JT]

I wonder if Gore Vidal will shed a tear.

[Joe Mama]

A great man whom we are worse off without.

[Joe Loy]

Yes, That is why, Brendan :}. Lily Tomlin as Ernestine ("Is this the party to whom I am speaking?") the Telephone Operator. Bit before yer time, old kiddoe :}. Btw it's better rendered as "Mister Fuhbuckley". Fuh; not Fu as in Manchu ~ but that's before your time tu too. :}

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A truly great man gone. / Probably like many WFB fans, I'd been expecting this for some time, considering his declining health; but still it comes as no less Heavy a blow. I actually saw the headline someplace online before you'd Posted it here, and even before the story got picked up by my Cablenewsies (Fox was first, I believe :) ~ perhaps it had just Broken ~ and my 2nd Thought (the First being unprintable :) was to hurryup and Guestblog it myself. But ~ I couldn't.

Thanks for the good writeup & links. / I can't really Add anything to the Bigpicture stuff that's already been written & said ~ namely that Bill Buckley was the driving force behind the postwar resurrection of American intellectual conservatism, and remained continuously its godfather & guide as the movement he had personally rescued from oblivion rose to philosopic preeminence in the political thought of our time.

He was also funny as all hell when he wanted to be :). From the linked AP piece:

Buckley so loved a good argument — especially when he won — that he compiled a book of bickering in "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription," published in 2007 and featuring correspondence with the famous (Nixon, Reagan) and the merely annoyed.

"Mr. Buckley," one non-fan wrote in 1967, "you are the mouthpiece of that evil rabble that depends on fraud, perjury, dirty tricks, anything at all that suits their purposes. I would trust a snake before I would trust you or anybody you support."

Responded Buckley: "What would you do if I supported the snake?"

hee hee hee hee... :}

I treasure the memory of meeting Chairman Bill, when he was (naturally) the keynote speaker at the 1967 National Convention of Young Americans for Freedom (aka YAF) (I was but a lowly Chapter Chairman and Delegate :) in Pittsburgh. Yes, we shook hands on board the Riverboat during the veryexclusive YAFers' Sunset Cruise :> at the Confluence of the Allegheny & the Monongahela. WFB always enjoyed a good Party :} and so did all us young Barry'sboys. (Hm? Well of course we made sure to sneak some Democratic girls aboard. We were the Intelligent conservatives, remember. :) Btw Buckley had Invented YAF just 6 or 7 years previously. On his Front Lawn. Literally. :> Sharon, CT has witnessed no assemblage so Counterrevolutionary before or Since. :}

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
It was less than a year ago that Bill lost his magnificent wife Pat. I can't imagine that this didn't hasten his own decline. / May the almighty Lord Whom this devout man so loved throughout all his long earthly life, now receive his soul, forgive him his sins, reunite him with his dear departed partner, and keep them together in Life Everlasting.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh. I had forgotten all about "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription," but of course that was another of your oft-quoted Fuhbuckley favorites. :)

[Condor]

Buckley did the funniest thing I've ever seen a participant in a debate do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

It's at 2:41

[Condor]

By the way, Chomsky is a much greater mind than Buckley, although sometimes you'd never know it from his political writings. Unfortunately, pretty much anyone can understand Buckley, but not everyone can understand Generative Linguists or the Minimalist Project.

[Brendan Loy]

Chomsky is a much greater mind than Buckley

Uh-oh. Them's fightin' words. I predict this thread will asplode in 5... 4... 3...

[Condor]

Chomsky invented a science; Buckley founded a magazine. You be the judge.

[Bea]

Condor, maybe your political persuation colors your views of Chomsky as a genius, don't you think? And by political I am being more broad than whether you are a democrat or a republican. I am not going to defend WFB over Chomsky on this thread, or at all on this blog, but, uhm, I just hope you have a better argument than science v magazine for your point.

[Joe Mama]

WFB hardly needs defending against Condor's charge. But I like how Condor simply assumes that if you don't share the opinion that "Chomsky is a much greater mind than Buckley," then you're just too stupid to understand the former. Figures.

By the way, if you think all WFB did was "found a magazine," then you've gone a long way in disproving your own assertion that "pretty much anyone can understand Buckley."

[Condor]

"But I like how Condor simply assumes that if you don't share the opinion that "Chomsky is a much greater mind than Buckley," then you're just too stupid to understand the former."

That's a ridiculous charge. I don't think that at all.

"Condor, maybe your political persuation colors your views of Chomsky as a genius, don't you think?"

It shouldn't matter, but I much don't agree with any of Chomsky's political work. And I've argued with enough Europeans to think that it's actually quite harmful to the US (although not as harmful, and much more reasoned than Michael Moore).

The point is, politics aside, Chomsky is a scientist of great accomplishment. He's basically founded a whole science himself (linguistics). But if you guys insist on comparing Newt Gingrich to Plato, then I think you guys need to come out of the cave.

[L. Ron Hubbard]

I am a much greater mind than Chomsky.

[Joe Loy]

Condor, Newt Gingrich is a very smart man but, on Several levels, he's No Bill Buckley. / And Neither of those two worthies purports to be Plato.

You are trying to trump Apples with Kumquats, here, Condor, and then lobbing in a Georgia peach & a Partidge in a Pear tree for to further muddle the goldwaters :}. Of course Chomsky is a scientist of far greater accomplishment than Buckley is, particularly since Buckley neither Is a scientist nor Pretends to be one. Buckley, for his part, is a political thinker of incalculably greater importance than Chomsky ever could be even if he were ~ as he Does pretend to be ~ a political Thinker at All. ;]

The Columbia Encyclopedia aptly records that:

...Chomsky is a prolific author whose principal linguistic works after Syntactic Structures include Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964), The Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle, 1968), Language and Mind (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972), and Knowledge of Language (1986). In addition, he has wide-ranging political interests...Chomsky’s controversial bestseller 9-11 (2002) is an analysis of the World Trade Center attack that, while denouncing the atrocity of the event, traces its origins to the actions and power of the United States, which he calls “a leading terrorist state.”

Keep the Day job, Perfesser :).

" Unfortunately, pretty much anyone can understand Buckley..."

"Unfortunately," indeed :>. Yes, it was exactly that Common Touch that got Good Ol' Billy elected Mayor of New York City in a mighty landslide back in The '65 ~ God how they Loved his speeches in Brooklyn ;} ~ but Unfortunately the plainspoken simpleton did such a crappy job at City Hall that soon he was obliged to leave Office and resume his career as Backup Kidspeaktalker on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

:)

[Joe Mama]

Well struck, Joe L.

I would also add that in addition to being an inapt comparison, Condor's whole "my guy is smarter than your guy" schtick is no less juvenile than "my dad can beat up your dad," especially when it's brought up out of the blue on the day of WFB's death.

[Condor]

You have little understanding of the argument.

[texasyank]

I hope we're limited to just three days of the Condor.

[Joe Mama]

Your argument isn't hard to understand, just hard to be convinced by, Condor.

[Condor]

"Of course Chomsky is a scientist of far greater accomplishment than Buckley is, particularly since Buckley neither Is a scientist nor Pretends to be one. Buckley, for his part, is a political thinker of incalculably greater importance than Chomsky ever could be even if he were."

I really only want to defend Chomsky's ideas on linguistics. But as for Buckley "being political thinker of incalculably greater importance than Chomsky ever could be even if he were," this is patently false. Noam Chomsky is probably the most quoted person alive, and the eighth most quoted person in the arts and humanities right in front of Hegel and Cicero. Granted, he probably has less political influence than the Bible, but then again, the Bible is up three spots from him at number 5. Only in a small world would Buckley have more political influence. If your world includes places like South America, Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia, Chomsky is much more influential.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4120040,00.html

[Condor]

" Unfortunately, pretty much anyone can understand Buckley..."

"Unfortunately, pretty much anyone can understand Buckley, but not everyone can understand Generative Linguists or the Minimalist Project."

That's a bad sentence on my part. The "unfortunately" was meant to apply the fact that Chomsky's linguistics aren't much read, not that Buckley IS read. It's unfortunate that Chomsky's ideas in linguistics aren't more popularly accessible(although Steven Pinker has written some good pop-books explaining the project).

[Andrew]

Condor, you're really outdoing yourself here. You cannot judge the historical impact of a man's ideas simply by how many of his contemporaries cite his work. The simple fact is that Chomsky spews the same conspiratorial left-wing crap that dozens of others have been spewing the past few decades; politically, he revolutionized nothing in the realm of ideas. He's simply a popular mouthpiece for a regretable point-of-view for whom you can easily substitute Gore Vidal, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, Edward Said, or Robert Scheer. WFB, on the other hand, only reinvented conservatism and made it relevant enough in the West that it indirectly played a major role in the winning of the Cold War.

Beyond the content of his writings, WFB also contributed a unique, intellectually rich rhetorical style that was brilliantly evident whether the words were coming from his fingertips or his mouth. While I happily concede Chomsky's contribution to empirical science, on just about every other subject, his writings are trite and uninteresting. Unlike WFB, he has a repetitive and unimaginative rhetorical style that relies on the passive voice to make his conspiratorial ramblings sound more substantiated than they are. For example:

Take a look at Chomsky's 1979 After the Cataclysm:

If a serious study…is someday undertaken, it may well be discovered…that the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive response…because they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.… Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken.

Reflect that it was published three full years after the Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime. But it gets worse. Go back to your Nation of 1977, and consider the paragraph:

...there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing.

Of this, [an emailer] writes:

Sounds very impressive, does it not? If... entirely respectable magazines denied the accusations that the Khmer Rouge had committed vast crimes... we cannot take seriously these allegations.... There must be some substantial evidence, presented by these magazines, that shows or strongly suggests that the refugees tales of terror were nonsense, right?... He claims that these are "conflicting reports" that justify disbelief in the alleged crimes of the Khmer Rouge....

In the case of the Economist, there are no [such] articles.... Presumably [Chomsky] refers to a letter to the Economist ... a letter replying to an entirely accurate article.... [T]his letter was indeed... ["provided"] by the Economist, but it is misleading to invoke [its] authority... the Economist opposes Chomsky's claims.

In the case of the Far Eastern Economic Review, the review did indeed publish an article that said almost, but not quite, what Chomsky represents it as saying.... Nayan Chanda (Far Eastern Economic Review, October 29 1976) does indeed doubt the refugees are telling the truth... but he... [presents no] evidence contradicting their stories. He does indeed say "thousands"... he does not say "at most in the thousands"... [he says] "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate."... Chomsky presented the Far Eastern Economic Review as confidently denying the possibility that the killings were vastly higher, but Chanda specifically denies such knowledge and confidence....

Chomsky lies by misdirection....

And this leads me to my final point: Whatever your philosophical disagreements with WFB and his politics, nothing he expounded is anywhere near as outrageous and morally obtuse as what Noam Chomsky regularly shits out in his writings. That Condor would even suggest WFB and Chomsky are in the same ballpark in historical importance is just utterly sickening and indicates a severe deficiency in moral and philosophical judgment on his part.

[Condor]

"That Condor would even suggest WFB and Chomsky are in the same ballpark in historical importance is just utterly sickening and indicates a severe deficiency in moral and philosophical judgment on his part."

Say what you will, I will not be responding to this post.

[Andrew]

Say what you will, I will not be responding to this post.

I wish you would've come to that wise conclusion at, say, 4:16PM rather than 10:54PM.

Good, don't.

[Joe Mama]

For the record, and at the risk of eliciting even more ridiculous comments from Condor, I have no idea what "funniest thing" he is referring to at the 2:41 mark of that WFB-Chomsky debate.

[Condor]

Say what you will, I will not be responding to this post.

I wish you would've come to that wise conclusion at, say, 4:16PM rather than 10:54PM.

I will still be responding to this thread. I just won't be responding to any kinds of posts that call my reasonable suggestion that "Noam Chomsky is more politically influencial in the world than William F. Buckley" (based on the fact that Chomsky is almost cited as much as the Bible) "utterly sickening." I won't be responding to posts that say my claim "indicates a severe deficiency" in my "moral and philosophical judgment."

If people want to debate the issue, fine. But, for obvious reasons, I won't be responding to posts that attack my character.

[Andrew]

I'm scratching my head as to how one could attack something that doesn't appear to exist....

Go take your arguments propping up Chomsky to the Democratic Underground, you might find a more receptive audience.

[Condor]

It's more around 2:49, Joe Mama. He says, that he can pursue that point, makes the gesture of a pursuing man with his hand, and then winks at Chomsky.

[Condor]

I'll let the readers decide whose got character here and who doesn't.

[Joe Mama]

Oh.

[Joe Loy]

" I won't be responding to posts that say my claim 'indicates a severe deficiency' in my 'moral and philosophical judgment.' " ~ Condor

"Why does baloney reject the grinder?" ~ Wm F Buckley Jr (4th paragraph :)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Uh-oh. Them's fightin' words. I predict this thread will asplode in 5... 4... 3..."
~ Brendan Loy, Blogmeister

"Ya got That right, old Kiddoe." ~ Joe Loy, Recovering Republican & ex-chairman, Georgetown University YAF :>

[Leanna Loomer]

I only once had the pleasure of hearing William F. Buckley in live debate, at Trinity College in Hartford CT. His adversary was a Dr. (I am sorry I do not recall his first name) Wrong.

You can't make this stuff up.

[Condor]

" I won't be responding to posts that say my claim 'indicates a severe deficiency' in my 'moral and philosophical judgment.' " ~ Condor

"Why does baloney reject the grinder?" ~ Wm F Buckley Jr

I'll be happy to take any quote leveled against Bobby Kennedy, even one which doesn't address any of my arguments and calls my position "baloney."
This time, I'm afraid, the baloney's in eye of the beholder, or perhaps in the tissue composing the beholder's brain.

[JT]

"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.” - Buckley

Yes, this sounds like the words of a great man to me too. Perhaps Gore Vidal was right to call him a proto-fascist.

[Joe Mama]

I wonder why he said the answer was "sobering?" JT doesn't seem as curious.

Also, saying that the white community is "for the time being, ... the advanced race" in the South in the 1950s seems more a matter of historical record than a racialist statement about whether whites have more instrinsic worth than the blacks. If a Martian landed in the South in the 1950s and saw how much of the white community subjugated blacks and did their best to keep blacks ignorant, would they not conclude that the former was more advanced than the latter?

But why go through all that tough thinking, when it's so much more satisfying to just decry someone as a "proto-fascist", racist, etc. when you're uncomfortable with what they have to say.

Yet another example disproving the assertion that "pretty much anyone can understand Buckley."

[JT]

Joe Mama - He was speaking in support of continuing segregationist policies aimed at continuing to subjugate the blacks and continuing to keep them ignorant.

How did you read the statement that white people are entitled to take measures to prevail over the blacks? How were black people supposed to break out of this "historical record" if the south continued its racist policies as Buckley advocated? I guess I didn't go through the "tough thinking" it took to take a statement supporting segregation and turn it into a non-racist statement of historical record. You can love Buckley and admit he was fallible. I admit he had a great wit but he could also be an ass like when he called Gore Vidal a queer and threatened to punch him - or did I misinterpret that statement too?

[Joe Mama]

No time for a detailed post, but suffice to say that in the vast litany of WFB's writings, this is the single cherry-picked quote that is seized on by critics who want to think of him solely as a racist-fascist-whatever, and who invariably ignore every other thing WFB has ever written about race. Yes, he was speaking in support of segregation in that quote, which by definition makes him fallible. But if you actually read the full editorial, you'll see that the terms in which he defends segregation are at most an indicator that he was blind or indifferent to the bigotry around him in the 1950s (a quality which hardly made him a member of an exclusive club back then), and not that he himself was racist. On this point, I'd urge you to read WFB's other writings about race in the 1960s -- he was not a racist (or fascist). And that is why, when an ass like Gore Vidal called him a Nazi on national television, WFB was perfectly within his province to respond in kind by calling him a "queer" and threatening to deck him. If someone tried to shut me up by calling me a Nazi, their sexual preference would then not be off limits, and they had better be prepared to defend themselves.

I'm almost tempted to similarly peruse through the writings of Chomsky and Vidal to find all instances where they rationalized atrocities perpetrated by Stalinist regimes throughout the last century, but there would be too many to choose from (and a lot more recent than 1957). Besides, the preferred practice would be just to wait until they're dead.

[JT]

First I was too dumb to comprehend Buckley's remark and now I just cherry picked his statement. Is your defense of Buckley really that he was blind or indifferent to the bigotry around him (questionable that this was the case but it doesn't really make him look any better)? Perhaps he was also blind or indifferent to the suffering of the poor in this country and that led to his views on the role of government.

[Joe Loy]

Actually I agree with you about the Honor of being implicitly analogized to RFK, Condor :}.

"This time, I'm afraid, the baloney's in eye of the beholder, or perhaps in the tissue composing the beholder's brain."

Fair enough :). Since we Are what we Eat and the coldcut in question inhabits my favorite Sandwich, it probably Dominates the old cerebrumcells by now. :}

[Joe Mama]

JT, of course you cherry-picked that statement. Are you seriously going to argue that you didn't? WFB wrote non-stop throughout his life, and countless times on race, and that despicable editorial favoring segregation from over 50 years ago is dispositive on whether he is a racist/fascist? Please.

If you know of similar writings of WFB's, I'd be curious what they are (but please, save yourself the trouble of trotting out his arguments against statism and collectivism in general as proof that he somehow was a racist/fascist, because that would just be an unserious waste of time). I doubt you do, however, because I've had this argument with Buckley-haters before, and that editorial is invariably what they rely on, and little else. Any serious assessment of WFB on the subject of race has to include the balance of his writings -- including everything he's written since 1957 -- evidencing his strong opposition to racism. But I don't believe you know or care about anything else he has written besides that one editorial.

Is your defense of Buckley really that he was blind or indifferent to the bigotry around him (questionable that this was the case but it doesn't really make him look any better)?

Yes, because that is all that editorial portends.

Perhaps he was also blind or indifferent to the suffering of the poor in this country and that led to his views on the role of government.

Or perhaps he was not indifferent to how societies have suffered under statist governments in other countries and that led to his views on the role of government.

[Andrew]

Okay so I must plead my ignorance here and say that I have not yet had the opportunity to read the editorial that is the current subject for debate. Can someone provide a link, rather than making general summations of what the editorial was saying?

In any case, while WFB originally supported or did not oppose the Iraq war, liberals are happy to point out that a couple of years later, WFB changed his mind and decided it was a bad idea. If WFB was afforded the opportunity to change his mind on Iraq, and is now applauded for it, why is he not being afforded the same lenience on racial issues, especially when the editorial in question is apparently over fifty years old? That's even worse than cherry-picking, that's just plain hypocrisy.

[Joe Mama]

Andrew,

I haven't found a link to the actual editorial, just recitations of it.

"WHY THE SOUTH MUST PREVAIL", National Review 4 (August 24 1957), p. 149:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—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 so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way; and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. . . . Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

[Joe Mama]

I don't believe the above is the full editorial, but it's probably all the salient points.

[JT]

I'm not saying that I didn't cherry pick it. I'm just pointing out that you backed off your assertion that I misunderstood the quote and went to a new defense that while Buckley was indeed justifying segregation that it isn't important compared to the other great things he did. The fact is you insulted me by saying I couldn't hope to comprehend his quote. I comprehended it just fine. You're the one that completely changed its meaning and when called on it basically said "fine I'm full of shit on my previous defense but now I can talk this shortcoming away with a new defense." You then used the alway great "but Chomsky is just as bad" defense. Wonderful. When did I say that Chomsky is infallible or say anything about Chomsky at all. If you quote Chomsky on here and it's a bad quote I promise I won't change the meaning of it and then call you an idiot for not being able to comprehend Chomsky.

[Andrew]

My judgment now that I've read the salient editorial is that the premises to which WFB is agreeing to are disappointing and reflective of the prevailing wisdom of that era, and I would have preferred WFB to accept the empirical wisdom of cited anthropologists (egalitarians can remain damned, for all I care).

Ignoring for a second the premises, the basic argument ("If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened.") is acceptable enough (for my philosophical tastes, anyway), but is misapplied in this instance.

Still, despite the objectionable premises WFB accepts upfront, and despite the misapplied argument, I accept his conclusion ("The South ... must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class.... Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races , and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function."). This is, in effect, a retread "White Man's Burden" argument, and although the concept of the White Man's Burden has been just about totally rejected by the post-colonialist mindset of liberal academia, I believe the spirit of the White Man's Burden remains entirely legitimate. God does not dispense knowledge and wisdom equally among individuals nor among cultures, so we must do our best to learn from and help advance each other. For instance, anyone who cannot accept that Hong Kong and India benefited greatly (but to varying degrees) from British colonial influence are simply burying their heads in the sand.

In sum, the editorial is admittedly ugly and any modern conservative wouldn't dare to believe or defend such writing, but I stand by my original point above: If WFB was afforded the opportunity to change his mind on Iraq, and is now applauded for it, why is he not being afforded the same lenience on racial issues, especially when the editorial in question is apparently over fifty years old and the man had long since changed his beliefs on the topic?

[Joe Mama]

You haven't called me on jack, JT. I've simply pointed out that your conclusion that WFB was a fascist/racist because of his support for segregation in 1957, without giving any thought as to his reasons therefore as explained in the full editorial, or his numerous other writings on the subject since (not "other great things he did", but the other things he wrote and said on the very same subject of race), is an insufficient basis for concluding that WFB is a fascist/racist. Expanding on an argument is not "backing off," and explaining the quote in context by giving credence to the other words in the editorial is not "changing its meaning," "talking a shortcoming away," or admiting that I'm "full of shit." I never said that WFB did not support segregation, or that doing so was not a mistake. What I am saying, again, is that the editorial, properly understood, indicates a blindness or indifference to racism, not that WFB was himself a racist (which, again, any fair-minded assessment of his writings as a whole shows that he is not). You think that is an unimportant distinction from the vantage point of 2008. Fine. I disagree.