Why should we mourn the passing of William F. Buckley?
I was an Objectivist through high school and for the first year of college. At that time I was a devoted follower of Buckley’s Firing Line and read the National Review regularly.
What struck me most about Bill Buckley was that he was passionate but restrained. He was never less than polite, no matter what his adversary was saying, and, I am informed, he was often friendly with people who shared none of his life views. And truly, his views were a life view.
Bill Buckley believed that the primary source of national growth and improvement was brought about by the fulfillment of the individual and not with any societal concern with doing anything to improve the condition of the less capable or less fortunate. I believe now that those who follow his way of thinking fail to recognize the role of luck and fate in life. They believe that achievement is strictly the result of hard work, with nothing else necessary.
There is a remarkable pervasiveness of this way of thinking; witness if you will the many people who are opposed to either the banks or the government doing anything for people who are about to lose their home in the current mortgage crisis. Such people say that when you make a mistake you must suffer the consequences.
Those same people oppose anything directed to the benefit of anyone which is not in direct proportion to the amount that they earn. They see no merit in the concept of noblesse oblige; privilege to them does not entail responsibility, or as Spiderman says, “With great power comes great responsibility.” They are all for themselves and for their own profit. We have known for a long time that there are problems with that view of life. Dickens knew it over a hundred years ago.
“‘Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!” (Marley to Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, Chapter 1)
In the original New York Times review of God and Man at Yale in 1951, Peter Viereck summarized Buckley’s then current failings by saying, “Some day, being intelligent and earnest, Buckley may give us the hard-won wisdom of synthesis. For that, he will first need to add, to his existing virtues, three new ones: sensitivity, compassion, and an inkling of the tragic paradoxes of la condition humaine.” In the years that followed, whatever virtues Buckley exhibited, he continued to exhibit those failings. In many ways he never grew any wiser.
“The Way We Live Now, 7/11/04: Questions for William F. Buckley; Conservatively Speaking”
By DEBORAH SOLOMON, Published: July 11, 2004, the following exchange shows his obtuseness and insensitivity towards African-Americans.
“In the 50’s, you famously claimed that whites were culturally superior to African-Americans.
The point I made about white cultural supremacy was sociological. It reflected, in a different but complementary context, the postulates of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
What are you talking about?
The call for the ”advancement” of colored people presupposes they are behind.
Which they were, in 1958, by any standards of measurement.”
In the National Review editorial, written by Buckley on 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9, the issue was whether southern whites had the right to restrict the votes of African-Americans. Buckley wrote that the question was:
“…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 median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.”
…“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 numberical (sic) minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.”
Is a man who wrote that a person to be revered by America?
In that same interview with Solomon, he defends his proposal that the backsides of AIDS sufferers be tattooed to warn off potential lovers. This, from a man who considered himself a good Catholic all his life. His lack of compassion was mind boggling, but the best line in the interview is his response to this question:
You seem indifferent to suffering. Have you ever suffered yourself?
I do not advertise adversity and would certainly not talk about visits with psychiatrists or proctologists.
Now, I think we can agree that most people, when presented with such a question would categorically deny that they are indifferent to suffering, but Buckley just lets it pass right by without defending his virtue.
Perhaps he knew that he had none to defend. He certainly never had any inkling of the tragic paradoxes of the human condition. He seemed blissfully unaware of the frightening challenges others had to face in life.
You know what, I don’t think we should mourn his passing.
March 3rd, 2008 at
Joel,
This is pretty well researched for a blog post. Given those excerpts, you are right, it is pretty hard to mourn the guy.
The little I knew about him came from watching a few of his TV appearances. I always liked his style, if not his views. He was intelligent, articulate, and mentally nimble…therefore, he was damned persuasive. Overall, he was a class act, and he wasn’t like the rabid psuedo-intellectuals that mostly populate the far Right and far Left these days. He was the real deal, even if you didn’t agree with his beliefs.
That he said these kinds of things (above) is somewhat unfortunate but this man was a product of his times as we all are, and I don’t think his memory will be marred by them. Whether or not you mourn him, I think its important to give him due respect.
April 2nd, 2008 at
You fail to note that Buckley later repudiated those views. Saying he is unworthy of mourning because of his views more than a half-century again, but failing to mention that his views evolved, is a bit disingenuous, no?
Buckley’s views in 1957 were not those of a backwards reactionary, but reflected a good portion of the nation, and his logic is a bit less obscene than the rank and file racism of the day.
On race, Buckley progressed measurably more than the Progressives themselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at
Bill,
Let me note to begin with that this man was one of my heroes in my youth, but the facts are the facts. These statements came AFTER the Supreme Court had ruled on Brown vs Bd of Education, which for me was the beginning of American enlightenment on racial issues.
I held Wm F. Buckley to a far higher standard than others because of his intellectual brilliance. He was a solid adult when he wrote those distressing views, and they cannot be forgotten, only forgiven. I must judge him against a higher standard than the average racist of the period when those remarks were written.
You have left out the remarks about AIDS, which displays a disinclination to hate the sin and love the sinner, which is a fine Catholic doctrine, completely forgotten by a man who was a practicing Catholic. I don’t think that it is acceptable to be indifferent to the suffering of others.
I am still distressed with his remarks.