Can’t Blame Buckley Anymore

The New York Times reports in a news story that William F. Buckley Jr. is divesting himself of control and ownership of “National Review,” the journal he founded 49 years ago. WFB was never a culture warrior, and these days, he’s not much of a warrior of any kind. Of course, at the age of 78, he’s entitled to set aside some responsibilities. What is so annoying about the Times’ account is the explicit assumption that American Conservatism in 2004 is this grand success, and that we have been led there by people such as the man with the Jeweler’s Eye.

Magazines publish articles about defending “traditional” marriage, but for the mainstream press, American has “drifted to the Right”. Who wouldn’t rather live in that “liberal” America of 1950?


7 thoughts on “Can’t Blame Buckley Anymore”

  1. Conservatism as a success
    It makes sense that conservatism would be presented as a glorious success. Conservatives like to feel they are in line with established realities, and liberals like to feel they are fighting a lonely battle against the mighty forces of darkness and oppression but nonetheless let opponents make their pitch. It would be awkward for either to admit that only liberalism is admissible in what passes for public discussion today. Also, to define conservatism as a great success is to define the conservatism that hasn’t succeeded, and isn’t much represented in well-funded mainstream institutions, out of existence.

    Rem tene, verba sequentur.

  2. Amusing Addendum
    The same week of WFB’s “retirement”, as some in the press have described it, John O’Sullivan has a seven-page cover story (on immigration and Samuel Huntington) published in Buchanan’s American Conservative. As most of you will know, JOS was NR’s editor for nine years.

    • Because he supported race-replacement I viscerally dislike WFB.
      Buckley is someone who I suspect might have been led astray on the issue of race-replacement immigration (immigration used as a tool for replacing a race with one less disliked or somehow more useful to the élites who control immigration) by a perception of Catholicism’s requirements which was faulty but understandable in view of that religion’s failure to clarify the fact that Christians are not enjoined by Christianity or Catholics by Catholicism from opposing the deliberate, completely avoidable annihilation of their race no matter what race that happen to be (yes, even if it happen to be the white one). At 78 he deserves that we cut him a little slack now—but he started this neocon-on-immigration insanity when he was ten years younger and in full possession of his faculties. If I, also a Catholic but one who must labor under only average intelligence, saw the light, why couldn’t he, a Catholic blessed with very superior intellectual gifts? His monumental intellectual and moral lapse on immigration, though perhaps somewhat understandable in light of the Catholic Church’s moral failure in neglecting to clarify certain issues, is nevertheless hard to forgive.

      • Did he fall for a big lie?
        I wonder if Buckley fell for one of the big lies that the open-borders Jihadis regularly promote: That all of these Mexicans invading the country is ultimately a good thing for conservatism as they are all staunch traditional Catholics who will oppose abortion, the homosexualist agenda, etc. That’s why California is such a staunch, bedrock conservative state.

        This is an enorous lie. The overwhelming majority of those crossing the border are Catholic in much the same sense that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are – nominal Catholics who have no regard for church teaching on moral matters. Like so many others, Buckley just can’t see (or refuses to see) the ultimately genocidal agenda of the left and their corporatist allies – who care about nothing except adding to the bottom line.

        • evangelical hispanics
          carolus what is your opinion about evangelical hispanics,in california they voted in suport from 187 proposal and for thomas macclintock-endorsed by buchanan-.

          • Hispanic Evangelicals
            M.S. raises an interesting point. I am aware that there are Evangelical hispanics. One group in particular is the largely Indian population of Chiapas state, who have embraced Evangelical Christianity in great numbers.

            The hipsanic evangelicals I’ve run into personally have been a) here legally b) genuinely interested in becoming American. Like Michelle Malkin, they are often patriotic and have a grasp of traditional American history and culture that is often absent in whites brainwashed by the public school gulag. It is thus not surprising that they would support 187 and McClintock.

            Even so, we’re talking about a small group here. The folks invading the country are largely the Mexican underclass – nominal Catholics who have embraced a culture that mixes leftist anti-Americanism, anti-white racsim, and moral hip-hop style degeneracy. The Mexican oligarchy is quite happy to export them here and the alliance of amoral business interests and Marxists that VDARE writers have dubbed the ‘treason lobby’ is qually happy to invite them in as slave labor, clients and foot soldiers in their campaign to destroy America.

  3. Naturally the Times lauds a meaningless conservative
    Buckley is little more than another “star” in the firmament of celebrities that constitutes contemporary American “culture.” When did he last represent anything larger than his own personality and self-esteem? Any active or positive contribution he made to politics ended at least 20 years ago. Here’s just one example of this man’s emptiness. In 1995, in a Firing Line debate, he took the affirmative side in a debate, “Resolved, that immigration should be drastically reduced.” Yet he never again wrote _anything_ on the immigration issue; in 1997 he fired the very editors who had made NR a voice for immigration reform; and he brought in a new editor who didn’t mention immigration at all until after September 11, 2001.

    Lawrence Auster

Comments are closed.