RIP WFB

Bill Buckley was good and NR was good when he ran it. However, I feel that NR has declined since Bill retired from it and especially since the egregious David Frum took over.

Actually met him once, in of all places the Corpus Christie, Texas airport. A gentleman.

A quote from a Buckley editorial in the National Review from 1957, titled "Why the South Must Prevail":

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 in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes ... the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

He later apologized for those views. There's zero evidence that he retained them afterwards.

I wonder if you'll ever apologize for any of the vile things you write? Based on history, I doubt it, but you just stay classy there, Jim.

He later apologized for those views. There's zero evidence that he retained them afterwards.

Afterwards? After what? Ten years after he wrote that racist opener, he was against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And, in his view, Martin Luther King was a boring old Negro. This alleged apology certainly didn't arrive in time to matter. If indeed there was any real apology --- it's always easier to claim that you apologized that to actually do so.

Besides, shouldn't you consider that Buckley was actually a liberal? After all, he praised the fascist dictator Franco, and the theory today is that fascism is the origin of liberalism. Buckley also declared that the Iraq war a failure. If he was a racist, fascist opponent of the Iraq war, was he really much different from, say, Michael Dukakis?

Jim Harris, de mortuis, nihil nisi bonum.

I might also add, ascendo tuum.

As I said, Jim, you just keep it classy. I suspect that when you die, you won't be getting any encomia from anyone, let alone both sides of the political spectrum.

In fact, I suspect that no one will give a shit at all.

It must really suck to be you.

Jim Harris, de mortuis, nihil nisi bonum.

Say nothing but good about the dead? There was no such rule on this site when Falwell died. So why the sanctimony now? Buckley wasn't much better than Falwell.

But okay, he was better. He realized that the Iraq war was a predictable failure. Even a conservative hack can be right about some things.

I suspect that when you die, you won't be getting any encomia from anyone, let alone both sides of the political spectrum.

I wouldn't want anyone to offer any praise over my grave that he wouldn't tell me in person while I'm still alive. Or hold back any criticism. If I ever said that blacks don't deserve to vote because they're inferior, then by all means, spit on my grave if you outlast me. Nor would it be good enough if just claimed vague regrets. Segregationism would rightfully tarnish my memory unless I atoned for it directly in word and in deed.

The same goes for Buckley's lavish praise for Francisco Franco, the fascist Spanish dictator, and for Joseph McCarthy, the American witch hunter and liar. When did Buckley even backpedal on those. An intellectual giant? Brrr...

Gee, Jim, you claim to be opposed to fascists?

Strange...

And continually vile. And (unsurprisingly) unapologetic.

You claim to be opposed to fascists?

I admit that I can't make up my mind. When I read Buckley's statement that Franco was a real national hero, I think, wow, what an insult to the people of Spain. Buckley must not have cared about their freedom at all if he viewed their fascist dictator as a national hero.

But then Jonah Goldberg tells me that fascism is actually liberal. If I'm liberal, I must favor of fascism whether or not I realize it.

It's a conundrum.

But are you sure that Buckley wasn't actually a liberal? That would resolve the crisis.

Well, actually, he was a classical liberal.

Not that you would understand anything about that.

...and God forbid that he really felt that way. Given the fact that at that point they'd been kept in abject poverty for 90 years, with bad jobs and little education, and that's the aspect he what he was addressing. The whites WERE advanced, economically, educationally and every otherally or way possible. Isn't the black plight THEN, why I'm supposed to feel guilty NOW?

But taking that 5 word phrase out of an entire book is a cheap shot, especially after he apologized later for writing it. No matter the amount or fervency of the apologies, is it ever enough Jim? It certainly doesn't see so. You made that 5 word phrase bold faced. But why did you skip the four words before it, "...for the time being..."? Which is going back to what I said about intent and context. However odd it seems now, many people, mainly southern whites, were concerned that giving that huge population voting rights, would allow them to take over entire areas and vote themselves bread and circuses. (or if Mike and Bob are looking in, catfish and watermelons.) But why anyone would be angry now, at something published 50 years ago, and subsequently apologized for, and long ago, is beyond me.

I hear everyday, sometimes right here in downtown TtM, how certain members or groups in our society are inferior. But the only time somebody's dander gets up is if some conservative or caucasian, or someone who dares to be both, is found to have ever dared to utter such a phrase as Buckley's concerning ability or intelligence. It's all the worse if the subject of the comment is brown, black, yellow, polka dot or blue striped with red flowers. Hell, I've heard derogatory remarks everyday since November of 2000, about the general intelligence of GWB, his VP, most of his cabinet and anyone who was stupid, white or conservative enough to have voted for GWB in the first place. Double that ignorance level if they ever supported the war, quadruple their supposed ignorance if they still support the war.

No one has come forward to call down those words, or to deride their speakers. Those words are are much younger, shiny, pointed, shouted in hate and fresh from the speakers, than the 50 year old words you quoted. I'll not hold my breath until anyone apologizes for those words. It won't happen now or ever.

I'll bet they have Buckley lashed into his coffin. That way he won't spin out of the grave from all the crap that will be said against him now that he can't respond.

Given the fact that at that point they'd been kept in abject poverty for 90 years, with bad jobs and little education, and that's the aspect he what he was addressing. The whites WERE advanced, economically, educationally and every otherally or way possible.

So the argument is that after 90 years of segregation, blacks hadn't advanced enough to deserve desegregation? If so, how much time did the white Southerners want to bring the blacks up to speed? 900 years, from the sound of it.

But why anyone would be angry now, at something published 50 years ago

I have no reason to be angry, because Buckley lost the argument --- the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act both passed. Anger is no longer the point. The point is: If Buckley was on a racist quest for more than 10 years to preserve segregation, is that really the work of an intellectual giant?

No matter the amount or fervency of the apologies, is it ever enough Jim?

What were these apologies? One truly convincing apology would be enough. If Buckley was an intellectual giant, I'm sure that he could write a fantastic apology when he wanted to. So what exactly did he say and when did he say it?

Besides, you're not only claiming that he apologized profusely (even though the profusion is missing from this conversation), you're also saying that he was right the first time. You can't truthfully apologize and still think that you're right; that's not consistent.

No one has come forward to call down those words, or to deride their speakers.

I'm sorry that you feel so trampled by the bad-mouthing of Bush and his supporters. But unlike the blacks that Buckley had in mind, you do have the right to vote.

Well, actually, he was a classical liberal.

...who admired Generalissimo Francisco Franco. I can believe that Jonah Goldberg mistakenly dropped the word "classical" from his title. Classical liberal fascism. That would explain a lot.

Jim,
it's not my argument, but most southerners of that time didn't want it in 90, or 900 or 9000 years. Although I was raised in the south I was NOT taught that blacks were inferior. But there were plenty of people who feared the black voting block. Ignorance is a powerful driver of emotions.

I'm not claiming he was right, I'm saying that at the time, he thought he was right. And the majority of whites in America were right there with him, especially but not limited to, southerners.

I'm not sure who gets to decide when someones apology is enough. I'm old enough and I've been married long enough to now that this acceptance is on a sliding scale. But the constant crying and barking about things done 200 or 100 or 50 years ago is pointless. Here's a prime example, Buckley wrote something you feel is wrong and racist. It was 50 years ago and you say his apology was hollow.

He's dead now, integration happened, blacks can vote, you win. He can no longer apologize for past deeds or argue his point. The problem is, or so it seems, that no apology is ever enough in these cases. No loss of power, prestige or funds is ever enough. Was he supposed to apologize on street corners, or just go door to door making apologies in places with a high ratio of African-Americans?

I just re-read what I wrote, profusely is not what I said or implied.

I don't feel trampled, I just get tired of the dual standard. Don't whine when a white guy says the dreaded "N" word or questions the intelligence of someone based on skin color, then let slide by stuff like "heimy town" or "chocolate city" It's all based on stupid preconceived notions and it's wrong. I want to see Al Sharpton take some black comedians to task for saying "funny" stuff about white people. If he's about racism, let him be about ALL racism.

As to voting rights, is THAT the buffer for complaint? Is that the gold standard, voting?

But unlike the blacks that Buckley had in mind, you do have the right to vote.

The ship is in Jim. They can vote. 43 years Jim, that's how long the African-Americans have had secure vote rights. If having a right to vote is supposed to offset someones complaints of racism, name calling, foul language aimed at them, then plenty of the race baiters need to shut they hell up Jim. Given that they can now vote.

But the constant crying and barking about things done 200 or 100 or 50 years ago is pointless.

The "encomia" at the top of this page includes direct praise for what Buckley did 50 years ago. If you're going to praise him for his giant intellect at that time, but then say that his racism is ancient history, then you're laundering the man's biography.

Besides, it wasn't just that he liked the poll tax. He also liked McCarthyism, and he liked fascist Spanish dictators. Maybe instead of casting all of this as bad, I should instead praise it as part of his amazing influence?

It was 50 years ago and you say his apology was hollow.

No, I'm saying that your claim that he apologized is hollow. What exactly was the apology, and when was it?

Jim, you have to remember to take the little pills every day like the doctor said. Otherwise stuff like this happens. Write yourself a little note or something.

...yep, I got myself into another one of these didn't I?

Jim,
I'm finished.

You win.

Buckley was a racist, Bush is a racist, I'm a racist. Anybody who didn't call Buckley a racist the instant they found out he was dead, is a racist. Tell me where to send my share of white guilt apologies and reparations.

(Bob, Mike, I am a racist. You just didn't show me the right data to prove it to me)

Buckley was a racist, Bush is a racist, I'm a racist.

Nobody called you or Bush a racist in this discussion, only Buckley. It's a bit childish to spread the accusation so far beyond what was actually said. Is it fair to call Buckley a racist? When he declared that the white race was superior, yes, that's racism.

Just as, when Buckley praised a fascist dictator as a national hero, that was fascism.

Unless, of course, Buckley apologized and renounced segregationism at some appropriate time. But did he? You and Rand claim that he did, but neither of you have divulged the what or the when. Could it have been a secret apology?

Do you have any evidence that Buckley was ever in favor of "segregationism"?

Not that you're persuadable--you'll continue to believe what you want to believe, but go read this if you like. Probably, though "I was wrong" won't be good enough for you. You'll no doubt demand something more abject.

Do you have any evidence that Buckley was ever in favor of "segregationism"?

The words are right here on this page. "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 in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes." When this was written in 1957, "prevail" meant keep segregation. He didn't mean that the white race would prevail at baseball games. Buckley was saying that the whites in the South deserved segregation because, "for the time being", they were superior.

Oh, what's the use, if you can't see it right on the page then you'll probably just forget it again.

Would like to see the context in which Jim quotes Bill Buckley. I suspect it might help to better understand the discussion. I, for one, think Jim's being highly selective in what he quotes. NR has posted at least one quote from Buckley concerning the Civil Rights Act that shows that Bill's struggle with the legislation had more to do with political philosophy. He felt that the solution was within black culture and not through government intervention. Government intervention, he feared, would only revive issues that were still sore spots with the south going back to the Civil War. He says that 10 or 15 years later he decided he was wrong and that much good had come from the approach. He also said that he thought that Roosevelts's approach to entering WWII was deceptive, but, in the long run, the right thing to do in battling Hitler. I think Jim needs to cite chapter and verse so we can get some context. Frankly, he strikes me as full of hot air, among other things.

Not that I'm commenting on anyone who posts here, of course, but: have you ever notice that the people who rail most loudly about people on the "Right" (for historical reasons not my favorite term, but in this instance I'll go with the vernacular) being fascists, or having fascist-tendencies, or are too sympathetic to fascist dictators, are themselves the biggest devotees
of the Cult of the State? These are the kind of people who loathe "Bu$hitler" but can always find redeeming qualities in someone like Castro.

In psychology, this is called "projection",

Again, not pointing the finger at anyone here. I'm sure "Jim" is so critical of WFB because Jim's a libertarian and was disappointed at the times Buckley strayed from his Nockian roots.