"One less race-baiting, nazi-sympathizing, McCarthyite"
That's three lies in one sentence. Very impressive, from the aptly named "Moron".
Buckley was in truth a fine man and, as Joan Didion said, was well-liked even by those who disagreed with him. His close friendship with John Kenneth Galbraith is evidence of that.
It's too bad that political discourse has deteriorated so far from the old days, when Buckley, Galbraith, Milton Friedman, etc... were in their prime.
"One less race-baiting, nazi-sympathizing, McCarthyite"
That's three lies in one sentence. Very impressive, from the aptly named "Moron"."
He was certainly a racist as late as the '60s, quite an outspoken and virulent one, too. I don't know if he changed. He may have. Many have since those days. His reputation certainly changed, though he doesn't seem to have done anything other than keep quiet to bring that about.
I wish moron and Njorl would supply something of a source citing their accusation that Buckley was a racist.
The public record shows Buckley starting National Review in part because he wished to move the conservative movement away from anti-Semites. And of course he famously disavowed the John Birch Society, known for it's fanciful conspiracy theories.
The worst that can be said of Buckley is that while under his leadership, National Review opposed the Civil Rights Act on a variety of grounds. Writers during that era also wrote in support of Jim Crow laws. Those positions were later repudiated both by the magazine and Buckley himself. (See here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anN._IfoJo1M&refer=us)
It's just a fact that about half the people of Buckley's era opposed at least part of the civil rights movement. Some of them went on to be known as famous and prominent liberal Democrats (i.e. Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd) while others became conservative Republicans. Liberals are forgiven their transgressions, conservatives aren't. This is wrong.
But if anyone can produce any evidence that Buckley ever made comments disparaging blacks or other minorities, I'd like to see it. Until that is produced, I think these people leveling the charge need to do a little self-examination as to why they are so eager to libel the man.
"He was certainly a racist as late as the '60s, quite an outspoken and virulent one, too."
Yeah, where's the proof Njorl? Or are you just making things up? I read Buckley's biography by the left-wing John Judis and there was no evidence of racism in it. As Joe Lieberman noted just now, Buckley did his best to drive extremists and racists out of the party--hence his repudiation of the John Birchers, and his criticism of Pat Buchanan.
I also read his first few books, and again saw not a hint of racism. Really, making up defamatory charges on the eve of a good man's death is not to your credit.
A very intelligent and notable figure. There were some things I disagreed with him on. He was a tad too sympathetic to Right-wing dictators like Franco or Pinochet and I think he believed in legalizing drugs whereas I don't. Still he got people to think on important issues and was much classier than most of the Right these days. (The exchange with Vidal involved provocations on both sides, modern commentators don't even need to be provoked to go hostile)
"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. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists." (National Review, August 27, 1957).
The central question arises, I think, to what extent should such deplorable views ever be excused by the mere death of their heinous author.
"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. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
-William F.Buckley
That is racism. Anyone with any level of skepticism or curiosity could have found this in 10 seconds by googling (buckley racist).
I wish people would provide the more content for context of the "why the south" article, and establish where it is established that an unsigned editorial is in fact Mr. Buckley's writing. (although as editor of the magazine he bears responsibility for it anyway.) What are you hiding in the ellipses? Do they radically change the meaning?
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the urban and inner suburb community of the blue states 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 blue-state community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced culture. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of blue state over red state: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
One less race-baiting, nazi-sympathizing, McCarthyite "conservative" P.O.S. in the world -- no regrets from me.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I knew he was in declining health, but I always expected he'd go during one of Bush's speeches.
"One less race-baiting, nazi-sympathizing, McCarthyite"
That's three lies in one sentence. Very impressive, from the aptly named "Moron".
Buckley was in truth a fine man and, as Joan Didion said, was well-liked even by those who disagreed with him. His close friendship with John Kenneth Galbraith is evidence of that.
It's too bad that political discourse has deteriorated so far from the old days, when Buckley, Galbraith, Milton Friedman, etc... were in their prime.
He'll be missed. I didn't always agree with him, but I've enjoyed a lot of his work over the years.
As for "moron" above, do you have any contributions to the world other than spouting nonsense in the comments sections of web sites?
"One less race-baiting, nazi-sympathizing, McCarthyite"
That's three lies in one sentence. Very impressive, from the aptly named "Moron"."
He was certainly a racist as late as the '60s, quite an outspoken and virulent one, too. I don't know if he changed. He may have. Many have since those days. His reputation certainly changed, though he doesn't seem to have done anything other than keep quiet to bring that about.
I wish moron and Njorl would supply something of a source citing their accusation that Buckley was a racist.
The public record shows Buckley starting National Review in part because he wished to move the conservative movement away from anti-Semites. And of course he famously disavowed the John Birch Society, known for it's fanciful conspiracy theories.
The worst that can be said of Buckley is that while under his leadership, National Review opposed the Civil Rights Act on a variety of grounds. Writers during that era also wrote in support of Jim Crow laws. Those positions were later repudiated both by the magazine and Buckley himself. (See here http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anN._IfoJo1M&refer=us)
It's just a fact that about half the people of Buckley's era opposed at least part of the civil rights movement. Some of them went on to be known as famous and prominent liberal Democrats (i.e. Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd) while others became conservative Republicans. Liberals are forgiven their transgressions, conservatives aren't. This is wrong.
But if anyone can produce any evidence that Buckley ever made comments disparaging blacks or other minorities, I'd like to see it. Until that is produced, I think these people leveling the charge need to do a little self-examination as to why they are so eager to libel the man.
"He was certainly a racist as late as the '60s, quite an outspoken and virulent one, too."
Yeah, where's the proof Njorl? Or are you just making things up? I read Buckley's biography by the left-wing John Judis and there was no evidence of racism in it. As Joe Lieberman noted just now, Buckley did his best to drive extremists and racists out of the party--hence his repudiation of the John Birchers, and his criticism of Pat Buchanan.
I also read his first few books, and again saw not a hint of racism. Really, making up defamatory charges on the eve of a good man's death is not to your credit.
A very intelligent and notable figure. There were some things I disagreed with him on. He was a tad too sympathetic to Right-wing dictators like Franco or Pinochet and I think he believed in legalizing drugs whereas I don't. Still he got people to think on important issues and was much classier than most of the Right these days. (The exchange with Vidal involved provocations on both sides, modern commentators don't even need to be provoked to go hostile)
"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. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists." (National Review, August 27, 1957).
The central question arises, I think, to what extent should such deplorable views ever be excused by the mere death of their heinous author.
”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. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
-William F.Buckley
That is racism. Anyone with any level of skepticism or curiosity could have found this in 10 seconds by googling (buckley racist).
I wish people would provide the more content for context of the "why the south" article, and establish where it is established that an unsigned editorial is in fact Mr. Buckley's writing. (although as editor of the magazine he bears responsibility for it anyway.) What are you hiding in the ellipses? Do they radically change the meaning?
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the urban and inner suburb community of the blue states 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 blue-state community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced culture. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of blue state over red state: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."