William F Buckley Jr, RIP

[prole]

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[foraker]

Don't you have a Noam Chomsky cult meeting to go to?

I see you're working on there being a 'classless' society....

Edited March 12, 2008 by foraker

[ivan]

most of the panegyrics i read of buckley last week were still honest enough to admit buckley supported mccarthy and opposed civil rights and never apologized up to the day of his death for holding those patently wrong views, so it's not like a man's a wack-o for pointing out w/ a cartoon that buckley had elements of his personality that were bigoted, elitest and/or fascist.

 

that said, noam chomsky is as close as the left gets to the kool-aid drinkers...

[Hugh Conway]

Don't forget the sexism and homophobia.

[Mal_Con]

And support of Franco

[ivan]

i'd have loved to have seen buckley and hunter thompson in the same roof - jesus-fuck! tell me that had to have happened at some point?

[foraker]

i'd have loved to have seen buckley and hunter thompson in the same roof - jesus-fuck! tell me that had to have happened at some point?

 

that would have been pretty amusing.

[Hugh Conway]

Given Buckleys comments after Thompsons death:

"One can be sorry that Hunter Thompson died as he did, but not sorry, surely, that he stopped writing."

I'll further downgrade Buckley to classless pompous ass

[ivan]

Given Buckleys comments after Thompsons death:

"One can be sorry that Hunter Thompson died as he did, but not sorry, surely, that he stopped writing."

I'll further downgrade Buckley to classless pompous ass

a lebowski-esque reply would have been best:

 

"well...that's like, your opinion, man"

 

thompson certainly was more enjoyable reading

[JayB]

I found Buckley entertaining, but that's about it. For most of his life he seemed to be arguing on behalf of an orthodox conservatism that had little to recommend it over orthodox socialism, except perhaps that unfettered conservatism would at least preserve functioning economic arrangements instead of replacing them with synthetic arrangements doomed to fail in short order. The ends - a yearning for particular social order based on fixed and pre-conceived notions of merit, brought about by state coercion - were different, but the means largely the same.

 

Hayek on Conservativism and Socialism:

 

"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

 

 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

 

 

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

 

 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

 

 

[Matt Kidd]

I think the real reason that you'll never see another popular pundit like this one is because of the assumptions that his program makes - that the audience understands and can absorb a discussion about the Truman Doctrine, Monroe Docrine, Marshall Plan, Greek History, Czechoslovakian Cold War politics, and the domestic and colonial history of Vietnam all in less than 20 minutes.