Has conservatism Died with William F. Buckley Jr.?

[n2nh]

Buckley's home in Sharon, Conn., also served as the birthplace of Young Americans for Freedom, which became the nation's largest conservative youth group. The group's Sharon Statement outlined the principles of modern conservatism: individual liberty, limited government, the U.S. Constitution, federalism, the free-market economy and a strong national defense.

Those were the principles that Buckley and the conservatives in his orbit advanced from National Review's founding in 1955...

In the 1994 Contract with America, conservatives declared that they would deliver "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." Then in 2000, for the first time Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and the White House. At last, conservatives believed, they would be able to deliver on the agenda they had been advancing for decades.

What happened? Republicans increased federal spending by a trillion dollars in six years. They passed the biggest expansion of entitlements since the LBJ years. They federalized education. They gave unprecedented power to the executive. They launched a massive nation-building project thousands of miles from home, to do in Iraq what conservatives would never expect government to do in the United States.

Even worse, the conservative intellectual movement abandoned its limited-government roots. The neoconservatives, who drifted over from the radical left, brought their commitment to an expansive government intimately involved in shaping the social and economic life of the nation. They transformed conservatism from rugged individualism to "national greatness." The religious right demanded that government impose their social values on the whole country. Conservatives who had once rallied to a famous Reagan declaration - that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" - became loyal supporters of George W. Bush, who said, rather differently, "When somebody hurts, government has got to move."

Buckley's conservatives decried the shift of power from the states to the federal government and from Congress to the imperial presidency. Russell Kirk, a founding editor of National Review, wrote that conservatives seek to "limit and balance political power." But in the Bush years, conservatives have sought to nationalize education, marriage law, family medical decisions and gun crimes.

Todays 'conservative' is much removed from the ideals of Conservatism that Buckley wrote and spoke of. Has the NeoCon movement perverted his message?

Bill Buckley is dead. Has conservatism died with him? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/EDENVA4SK.DTL)

[N9MOQ]

William F Buckley Jr, after watching the movie Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) said it was probably the best movie he had ever seen.

It intrigued me to watch the movie, just to know what kind of movie could get such high praise from this man.

It is a very good movie. The ending has a very satisfying feel to it.

[K3XR]

Very funny, as if the LIBS would have a clue about Conservatism.

[kc2orw]

Todays 'conservative' is much removed from the ideals of Conservatism that Buckley wrote and spoke of. Has the NeoCon movement perverted his message?

Bill Buckley is dead. Has conservatism died with him? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/EDENVA4SK.DTL)
Conservatism died with the second election of George Bush that is where it became a perverted shell of what it was.

[kc2orw]

Very funny, as if the LIBS would have a clue about Conservatism.
Like you have a clue about anything at all I doubt it considering your post in ragchew.

[N9XR]

Like you have a clue about anything at all I doubt it considering your post in ragchew.

Danno has proven he knows what conservatism is. It is "Oh, I don't think for myself and I require Limbaugh and Hannity to tell me what to think and and and tell me what conservatism is."

[n2nh]

Very funny, as if the LIBS would have a clue about Conservatism.

Too close to the truth for you Dan? Want to talk about this - with your own thoughts or do you just want to snipe and post links?

It's here for discussion. What do YOU really think?

[W3MIV]

"Conservatism" is not dead; thoughtful, insightful conservatism is moribund in the hands of the current crop of reactionaries who shout above any legitimate voice of reasoned debate about the nature and direction of our government.

Buckley's genius was that he challenged with dialectical engagement that always sought to dissect ideas of politics, law and morality in ways that enforced a deeper examination of one's own values and positions, regardless of whether or not you disagreed or agreed with him. He made you think, and thus he made us all better for it.

The contemporary array of "conservative" pundits are mere speechifiers. They orate, but never educate. They are like Dan with his ever-ready armamentarium of internet links -- purveyors of someone else's views, ideas, philosophies. Buckley stood head and shoulders above this lot of pretenders because of his power to inspire action or reaction.

"Liberalism" today is no better off than "conservatism." There is a paucity of new and energetic thinking behind either core of political philosophy, Left or Right. The only thing now engaged is rancour, and the self-satisfaction of winning elections soley for the winning, and not because anyone on either side of the aisle has new ideas about what to do with government or how to do it after they have won. Buckley leaves a vacuum -- perhaps that would better be expressed as "Buckley LEFT a vacuum," for he has not been actively engaged for a long time.

He will be missed largely because of the undeniable absence of real intellect that can challenge and inspire new ideas.

[n2nh]

Well put Albert. It is precisely because of the vacuum that Buckley's passing that I posted this. That and my respect for him. I didn't always agree with him, but there were times that he could intelligently make his point in a factual way that changed my mind. Not by being bombastic and dogmatic, but by sticking to the facts and using his knowledge as a tool to make his point.

Was he always right? IMHO, Not by a far margin. He was usually entertaining without being shrill, intelligent without being harsh and congenial to even those he disagreed with. He was the greatest asset the Right had and a worthy adversary for the Left. I believe his insight kept the Right on the path and the Left honest. They had no choice, if they strayed too far, he'd be ready to pounce.

Sadly, the Neo-Conservative Right moved away from Buckley. We now have O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh. Hyperbole prancing on rhetoric rather than substance based on intelligent thought. They aren't even worthy to be his shadow nor to use the same title he did, Conservative. Buckley is one of the reasons I distinguish between Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. One has only to listen to him speak, or read one of his articles and the genuineness of his point is made. The difference is only too apparent when you hear those who think they are his successors.

I think Liberals and Democrats knew him better than Conservatives. Why? Because when someone makes a point that can't be refuted, it means taht they're right. And you notice that right away. He was the epitome of Conservative genius something rare on both sides of the political spectrum. I thank the much maligned Public Broadcasting System for airing his shows for decades and giving us the chance to watch him.

His passing is a great loss for Conservatives and Liberals too.

From the Huffington Post: "He was the most influential public intellectual of his generation in this country, maybe the world." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-curry/bill-buckley_b_88847.html)

[kc2orw]

I thank the much maligned Public Broadcasting System for airing his shows for decades and giving us the chance to watch him.

Intentionally highlighted

[N9MOQ]

His passing is a great loss for Conservatives and Liberals too.

And for many of the rest of us too.

[K2WH]

Irrelevant. His death means nothing to most people.

Conservativism is not a cohesive movement that requires a figurehead or leader, it is individuals who think and have like ideas of how things "Ought to be".

I did not know or read anything Buckley although it is believed all conservatives must have a God or leader somewhere. Unlike liberals who join groups of liberals and echo group mentality. A liberal alone is a liberal lost. I do not belong to any group and do not share my thinking with others who think along the same lines.

Conservativism means individualism. Not a tribe with any particular leader. Buckley is dead - move on.

BTW, I thought Buckley was an ambassador to some foreign country.

K2WH

[W3MIV]

Why does none of this surprise me?

Irrelevant. His death means nothing to most people.

Conservativism is not a cohesive movement that requires a figurehead or leader, it is individuals who think and have like ideas of how things "Ought to be".

I did not know or read anything Buckley although you believe all conservatives must have a God or leader somewhere. Unlike liberals like yourself who join groups of liberals and echo group mentality. I do not belong to any group and do not share my thinking with others who think along the same lines.

Conservativism means individualism. Not a tribe with any particular leader. Buckley is dead - move on.

BTW, I thought Buckley was an ambassador to some foreign country.

K2WH

[K2WH]

Why does none of this surprise me?

I guess cause you've seen it all. Ask yourself. If Al Gore died, would the question "Has Liberalism Died" be asked ? Of course not because of "Group Think".

K2WH

[ad4mg]

Why does none of this surprise me?

He's running on empty, Albert. When desperate, they eat their own.

[kc2orw]

I guess cause you've seen it all. Ask yourself. If Al Gore died, would the question "Has Liberalism Died" be asked ? Of course not because of "Group Think".

K2WH
By you via Rush Limbaugh highly likely.

[W3MIV]

I guess cause you've seen it all.

No, but I've seen enough.

Ask yourself. If Al Gore died, would the question "Has Liberalism Died" be asked ?

It would not be asked by me. I know enough not to think that Al Gore invented "liberalism." I suspect you really know so little about true liberalism that you might imagine it to have been invented recently, and by some politician you loathe. That really reaches the point I was making when I posted that I was not surprised by your response.

Of course not because of "Group Think".

Here we really arrive at the fallacious unreasoning that founds your error. It is not the "liberals" who are guilty of any sort of "group think," as you pretend to understand. It is the current salmagundi of so-called "conservatives" who flock like crows, merely surrounding and harrying anyone and everyone they would fear as respresenting true thought and the kinds of ideas that moisten their knickers in terror.

Your posts belie any real attachment to refinement or reason, all too often merely mimicking the chorus of reactionary mynahs that fill radio, television and internet blogs with a noisome cloud of pseudo-philosophy based on the narrowest sorts of xenophobia, cliquish hauteur based on vacuous inegalitarian premises and economic avarice animated by niggardly motives.

The far Right of your droolings will never replace Buckley largely because they had already abandoned him for far lesser lights. And your posts point inexorably in the direction the far Right is headed, which is more and more away from the solid ground of intellectualism that Buckley bequeathed to an ungrateful and uncomprehending coterie of failures. Like lemmings, you continue to rush to greater and greater ineffectiveness.

Ask yourself why, if you have the stomach for the truth.

[K2WH]

No, but I've seen enough.



It would not be asked by me. I know enough not to think that Al Gore invented "liberalism." I suspect you really know so little about true liberalism that you might imagine it to have been invented recently, and by some politician you loathe. That really reaches the point I was making when I posted that I was not surprised by your response.



Here we really arrive at the fallacious unreasoning that founds your error. It is not the "liberals" who are guilty of any sort of "group think," as you pretend to understand. It is the current salmagundi of so-called "conservatives" who flock like crows, merely surrounding and harrying anyone and everyone they would fear as respresenting true thought and the kinds of ideas that moisten their knickers in terror.

Your posts belie any real attachment to refinement or reason, all too often merely mimicking the chorus of reactionary mynahs that fill radio, television and internet blogs with a noisome cloud of pseudo-philosophy based on the narrowest sorts of xenophobia, cliquish hauteur based on vacuous inegalitarian premises and economic avarice animated by niggardly motives.

The far Right of your droolings will never replace Buckley largely because they had already abandoned him for far lesser lights. And your posts point inexorably in the direction the far Right is headed, which is more and more away from the solid ground of intellectualism that Buckley bequeathed to an ungrateful and uncomprehending coterie of failures. Like lemmings, you continue to rush to greater and greater ineffectiveness.

Ask yourself why, if you have the stomach for the truth.

Buckley was a conservative but he was Buckley's conservative not mine. I am my own conservative and your meandering, nose in the air script is just so much salami conditi and smells just as bad.

K2WH

[W3MIV]

Tanenhaus offers a refined opinion in TNR:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7f949ee4-9035-4a5a-8c52-b5078985ba9e&p=1


One evening in late August 2002, I was at Buckley's home in Manhattan for one of the biweekly dinners he still holds for top National Review staff and occasional outsiders. At this point, it was clear to Buckley, and everyone else, that an invasion of Iraq was impending. As Buckley relaxed in his library during pre-dinner cocktails, he talked about the speech Dick Cheney had given that morning at the annual national convention of the VFW in Nashville. Cheney had warned of Saddam Hussein's pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and declared that, "the risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action." Like most of the National Review contingent gathered that evening (and, indeed, much of the nation), Buckley was impressed. But, as others spoke confidently about victory, he was quiet--not disagreeing, but listening. He was also quiet, as I recall, when one guest, a National Review contributor, dismissed the perils of the postwar occupation, since the Middle East was already a mess and couldn't possibly get worse.

Over the next months, Buckley continued to watch and listen--and, ultimately, to succumb to the same doubts felt by so many others as the war spun along its disastrous parabola. A year into the campaign, Buckley wrote that we had gone to Iraq "in order to eliminate any capacity to make weapons of mass destruction, and in order to export the blessings of democracy. But we have not succeeded." Later, he was appalled by the injustice of Guantanamo and shocked by the revelations about Abu Ghraib, an episode whose "sheer sadism, pleasure taken from torture" Buckley deemed worse than the My Lai massacre of civilians. By July 2004, Buckley had had enough and issued a John Edwards-like mea culpa: If "I had known back then in February 2003 what we know now I would not have counseled war against Iraq." He shrugged off the knowledge that somewould consider him "disloyal" and that he had provided fodder for the Democrats in the November election. Two months ago, Buckley wrote that, if he held a seat in the House of Representatives, he would vote against Bush's proposed troop surge.

...

Buckley perhaps differs most strikingly from others on the right in what he hasn't said: Specifically, he has not denounced Bush's liberal critics. Commentary has seriously proposed that the editors of The New York Times committed treason by publishing reports on the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program; Dinesh D'Souza, in his new reductio ad absurdum, The Enemy at Home, consciously summons up the ghost of Joe McCarthy by proffering lists of "domestic insurgents"--they include Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy, and Martha Nussbaum--who "want bin Laden to win and Bush to lose the war" on terrorism. But Buckley, with his memories of the AFC, knows the difference between dissent and disloyalty. (He is succinct on D'Souza's book: "I haven't read it and I reject its thesis.")

Beyond this, Buckley recognizes, as Bush's defenders have not, that the trouble originates with the Iraq war, not with its opponents. When I asked him recently if Iraq is the Republicans' Vietnam, he said, "Absolutely." It is a serious admission for one who knows that Vietnam destroyed cold war liberalism and, with it, the Democratic Party's control of national politics. Iraq now threatens the right and the GOP, Buckley says, with the "identical" fate. No wonder, then, that in a July interview with CBS News, he said that if Bush were the leader of a parliamentary government "it would be expected that he would retire or resign." He has been somewhat kinder to Dick Cheney, whom he characterized in an interview last year not as a liar but as a dupe, who had "believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction" and then thundered forth so confidently on it. If, by contrast, Cheney knowingly misrepresented the facts, Buckley has privately acknowledged, Bush would be a candidate for impeachment.


It is a fairly long article, but well worth the read.

[ad4mg]

Tanenhaus offers a refined opinion in TNR:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7f949ee4-9035-4a5a-8c52-b5078985ba9e&p=1



It is a fairly long article, but well worth the read.

Thanks for the link to the article, Albert. I gained much from reading it, and it isn't really all that long.

Buckley was a pretty amazing fellow with his own ideas. I imagine he drove even the conservatives of his time a little mad with his deliberate demeanor!

[k4kyv]

Sadly, the Neo-Conservative Right moved away from Buckley. We now have O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh. Hyperbole prancing on rhetoric rather than substance based on intelligent thought. They aren't even worthy to be his shadow nor to use the same title he did, Conservative. Buckley is one of the reasons I distinguish between Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives.

His passing is a great loss for Conservatives and Liberals too.


Doesn't this (http://caglepost.com/cartoon.aspx?id=44B572DC-F56E-4E67-A6B4-9D3B123106F2) pretty much say it all?

[W3MIV]

Doesn't this (http://caglepost.com/cartoon.aspx?id=44B572DC-F56E-4E67-A6B4-9D3B123106F2) pretty much say it all?

More even than a contrast with Buckley, it is revealing of the current state, and level, of political discourse. While he was never urbane or erudite in the ways Buckley could not avoid displaying, Limbaugh used to be funny and entertaining, whereas now he now seems little more than a tiresome scold.

Kenneth Galbraith and Buckley could not have been much farther apart politically, yet both were very close, personal friends who traded good-natured jibes and valued each other in ways that reached beyond the pale of partisanship. It is hard to imagine a Limbaugh or a Coulter establishing such a relationship with any political adversary.

Watching old "Firing Line" videos is painful in the way it points out just how far we have fallen.