13/03: A worthy tribute to William F. Buckley
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I have previously proclaimed my preference for Newsweek over TIME (although, ironically, I subscribe to TIME and not Newsweek--long story).
As I reported earlier this week, I had a chance to pore over the 10 March 2008 edition of Newsweek during a three-hour flight back from Washington, D.C.
In a forthcoming post, I intend to comment on Evan Thomas's essay on bias in the mainstream media, "The Myth of Objectivity," in which he offered some provocative analysis--but falls short of capturing the full extent to which complicated forces and personalities lead to politically slanted news coverage.
But before I get to that, a bit of almost unadulterated praise and sincere admiration: I very much appreciated the cover story marking the passing of William F. Buckley, "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT." The Newsweek treatment proved far superior to TIME in terms of providing breadth, depth, and, most importantly, recognition of the historic impact of Buckley's life. The ten-page, heart-of-the-magazine, multi-author, multi-view coverage featured a bio-piece from top political writer and sometime-editor, Evan Thomas himself. Adding to the excellent primary story, the edition offered two fascinating ancillary opinions from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, liberal maven and editor and publisher of The Nation, and Michael Gerson, former George W. Bush speechwriter, regular contributor, and articulate proponent of "compassionate conservatism."
The death of Buckley, quite frankly, left me at a loss for appropriate words. Admittedly, my silence sprang from my unfamiliarity with him as a person. While I certainly knew the celebrated public persona of the quintessentially urbane conservative intellectual, I knew very little about the man behind the iconic presence.
The Newsweek coverage offered a much-needed window into the soul of the warm and compassionate, "sunny and hopeful" (and funny) Buckley.
Responding to Whittaker Chambers and his assertion that the West was doomed, and, therefore, "attempts to save the West [like the National Journal] were also doomed," Buckley responded:
"Yes, well, even so, America needs a journal to argue why we ought to have survived."
When asked what he would do if he won the 1965 New York mayoral race, Buckley answered: "Demand a recount."
More Serious: his political philosophy in two sentences:
"I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
On the other hand, all who know him agreed that Buckley placed friendship over politics and ideology. He was the “civil conservative.”
Wonderful.
I said almost unadulterated praise:
Newsweek (and Vanden Heuvel) offered the two obligatory caveats in a Buckley obituary: he supported McCarthy (the bad one), and he resisted the civil rights revolution. These reminders are appropriate--but, for some context, one might also notice that other prominent and well-meaning Cold War Catholics of the time rallied around Joe McCarthy--think of the Kennedy family, for example. And one might also note, if we truly lived in a society in which we were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, that the myriad laudable effects of judicially coerced racial equality actually produced a plethora of unintended deleterious consequences within modern society that have nothing to do with equal justice.
One other quibble: Newsweek succumbs to the current media template that asserts that the civil and refined Buckley, if he could, would tell us that Rush Limbaugh and his ill-mannered ilk are destroying the conservative movement, giving back the hard-won gains of the last fifty years.
But, up until last week, Buckley could have told us anything he wanted--and usually did. I think it is fair to assume that Buckley preferred a wholly different style from the right-wing talkers--but that seems beside the point. Buckley left us with no deathbed denunciation of the less-talented and coarser voices of conservatism, and it is disingenuous to attempt to craft such a condemnation posthumously.
As I reported earlier this week, I had a chance to pore over the 10 March 2008 edition of Newsweek during a three-hour flight back from Washington, D.C.
In a forthcoming post, I intend to comment on Evan Thomas's essay on bias in the mainstream media, "The Myth of Objectivity," in which he offered some provocative analysis--but falls short of capturing the full extent to which complicated forces and personalities lead to politically slanted news coverage.
But before I get to that, a bit of almost unadulterated praise and sincere admiration: I very much appreciated the cover story marking the passing of William F. Buckley, "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT." The Newsweek treatment proved far superior to TIME in terms of providing breadth, depth, and, most importantly, recognition of the historic impact of Buckley's life. The ten-page, heart-of-the-magazine, multi-author, multi-view coverage featured a bio-piece from top political writer and sometime-editor, Evan Thomas himself. Adding to the excellent primary story, the edition offered two fascinating ancillary opinions from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, liberal maven and editor and publisher of The Nation, and Michael Gerson, former George W. Bush speechwriter, regular contributor, and articulate proponent of "compassionate conservatism."
The death of Buckley, quite frankly, left me at a loss for appropriate words. Admittedly, my silence sprang from my unfamiliarity with him as a person. While I certainly knew the celebrated public persona of the quintessentially urbane conservative intellectual, I knew very little about the man behind the iconic presence.
The Newsweek coverage offered a much-needed window into the soul of the warm and compassionate, "sunny and hopeful" (and funny) Buckley.
Responding to Whittaker Chambers and his assertion that the West was doomed, and, therefore, "attempts to save the West [like the National Journal] were also doomed," Buckley responded:
"Yes, well, even so, America needs a journal to argue why we ought to have survived."
When asked what he would do if he won the 1965 New York mayoral race, Buckley answered: "Demand a recount."
More Serious: his political philosophy in two sentences:
"I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
On the other hand, all who know him agreed that Buckley placed friendship over politics and ideology. He was the “civil conservative.”
Wonderful.
I said almost unadulterated praise:
Newsweek (and Vanden Heuvel) offered the two obligatory caveats in a Buckley obituary: he supported McCarthy (the bad one), and he resisted the civil rights revolution. These reminders are appropriate--but, for some context, one might also notice that other prominent and well-meaning Cold War Catholics of the time rallied around Joe McCarthy--think of the Kennedy family, for example. And one might also note, if we truly lived in a society in which we were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, that the myriad laudable effects of judicially coerced racial equality actually produced a plethora of unintended deleterious consequences within modern society that have nothing to do with equal justice.
One other quibble: Newsweek succumbs to the current media template that asserts that the civil and refined Buckley, if he could, would tell us that Rush Limbaugh and his ill-mannered ilk are destroying the conservative movement, giving back the hard-won gains of the last fifty years.
But, up until last week, Buckley could have told us anything he wanted--and usually did. I think it is fair to assume that Buckley preferred a wholly different style from the right-wing talkers--but that seems beside the point. Buckley left us with no deathbed denunciation of the less-talented and coarser voices of conservatism, and it is disingenuous to attempt to craft such a condemnation posthumously.
