No figure more exquistetly reflected the American Conservative movement both intellectually and within the popular imagination than William F. Buckley. Buckley woke this morning in the presence of His God.
The man who first emerged as a critic of establishment liberalism in God and Man at Yale went on to found the rights most prestigious magazine, National Review, and helped found numerous organizations such as Young Americans for Freedom and the New York Conservative Party. From Firing Line to his Blackford Oakes novels, Buckley was always breathtaking. His wit, charm, and intellectual depth will be sorely missed.
He was not only a great conservative, he was a truly great American.
It’s never pleasant to speak ill of the dead, but some of us will not miss his deadly spirit of compromise.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007496.asp
His influence is undoubted, but we question his greatness.
Mr. Buckley’s ability to compromise was the heart of his greatness. He kept conservatism from being a lunatic fringe movement while preserving the right as a presentable, viable, electable movement.
For petesake, Chellis, are you really going to make me say it?:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Unfortunately, Buckley preserved the viability and electability of tyranny. He admitted as much. Others in the “conservative” movement have the same flaw, but it should not be excused in any case.
Libertarianism is a form of social heresy. I am not sure why it has such an attraction among the Reformed. The Goldwater quote is great theater, bad politics, and sound only as long as no really believes it. I used to identify with it as a college conservative. Things look different this side of 911.
Conservatives can easily run to the fever swamps littered with the corpses of all kinds of fallen nutters. Buckley held the center ground and helped preserve respectability. This kind of conservative “moderation” is authentically Burkean. Goldwater’s (Hess’) quote sounds more like John Brown than Edmund Burke.
I do agree that 21st Century conservatives should think critically about Buckley’s legacy. The cold war is over. A new threat has emerged from the middle east. Should are view of war be that of Buckley circa 1968 or that of Taft/Kirk who understood how dangerous the warfare state is for liberty.
I am ok being critical of Buckley’s legacy, but not of the man. He was a giant and all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude.
“…how dangerous the warfare state is for liberty.”
Right. This is a critical issue Americans face (esp., post-9/11), and one C/conservatives should seriously re-evaluate. If conservatives (perhaps in-name-only) haven’t been, “immoderate” in advancing a warfare state (and/or interventionist foreign policy) at the expense of liberty, then moderation has no meaning. I think your Kirkean impulses are right on here.
“Libertarianism is a form of social heresy.”
As Reformed non-secularists, we must affirm this (to various degrees) of all social/political philosophies that fail to orient themselves to de regno Christi. [book plug: David Koyzis' Political Visions & Illusions does this well]. So, here again we agree, even if we must continue a mutual iron-sharpening in expressing the most faithful understanding of Christ’s reign in all of life.