A Principle Conservative
One of the people who opened my eyes to the realm of ideas was William F. Buckley.
The first time I read about him in the newspapers was in his 1965 race for New York City mayor on the Conservative Party line. New York was then as much a Republican city (albeit a very liberal one) as a Democratic place. I think we sometimes forget that LaGuardia (arguably the greatest New York mayor) who had held the office a mere 20 years previously to that election, was a Republican in the progressive mold of Theodore Roosevelt. Republican John Lindsay won the 1965 race that year beating Abe Beame and Buckley.
The following year Buckley launched his show, “Firing Line,” on PBS. It was a fascinating place to learn about pure ideas. I began reading National Review and some of Buckley’s many books. He was prolific and controversial in his writings. Buckley even dabbled in fiction with his Blackford Oakes novels.
His feud with Gore Vidal was legendary and very litigious. Yet he was good friends with liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith and liberal Democratic Congressman Allaird Lowenstein both of whom appeared many times on his show. One of his antagonists, Norman Mailer, became one of his friends. Ideas could be debated among those holding different views.
Buckley and his contemporaries were educated. They were well-read, well-travelled and open to hearing all ideas not only those they agreed with. People can have well thought out discourse, but there must be an agreed set of facts between the parties.
That is mostly gone now. When people who have been elected believe in super lasers changing election results and that the person who lost the last election is still president, there isn’t much point in debating ideas and philosophies. In the U.S., we are very far removed from a time when a person like Buckley could have a following on television…a place where ideas could be discussed in reasoned debate.
How many of us today have ever read philosophy? In the 1930s a Gershwin popular song referred to Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, in the lyric. What passes for dialogue today is two opposing political parties shouting nonsensical slogans nothing of which is rooted in history, science, or any other learned discipline. Even the word “woke” purporting to mean a point of view is as silly as when someone shouts socialist or communist without further explanation.
We say we want to have our children educated in civics and government but then try to narrow the scope of that education to a particular viewpoint. A conclusion cannot be reached without knowing all governing philosophies. Freedom isn’t “free” without teaching all viewpoints. That is a recipe for a new dark age.
Bill Buckley knew and understood not only America but also the rest of the world. As a child he spoke Spanish and French before English. Buckley was a devout Catholic and explored his faith in his writings. He was a man who came from wealth but understood that the best way to bring the greatest prosperity was through a free-market, capitalistic system. He came to that viewpoint after he studied every economic system.
He was a Republican that also was a libertarian. He spoke out for the decriminalization of marijuana in the 1960s. Buckley fought anti-Semitism, racism, and anti-intellectualism. Free speech was paramount even when he disagreed with the speaker. I would guess that Buckley would no longer be a Republican if he were alive today.
Substituting Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene as Republican intellectuals doesn’t quite have the same heft as Buckley or his contemporary, Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism. When the intellectual underpinning of a political party dies, so does the party itself. A party of grievance is not sustainable because it isn’t a party of hope or more importantly rational thought.
Buckley and his conservative contemporaries gave America a reason to support Republicans. Now, the GOP just has a bunch of complainers who cannot broaden their support with enough other Americans because they offer no solutions. That absence of a political platform results in lost elections now and in the future.
