Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Post 54a: Son of William F. Buckley Resigns from National Review

You must read this to gain a better appreciation of the state of discourse in America.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/buckleys-son-leaves-national-review/?pagemode=print

5 comments:

  1. Comment received via e-mail from The Laughingman:

    That it never occurred to me that this sort of evil nonsense would rear its ugly head may be an indication of my naivety.

    It may also reflect my experiences in the Army.

    But mostly, I think it is the result of my friendship with a very good friend of African-American descent.

    I have come a very long way from what I was taught, in Louisville, in the early '50s.

    Apparently, we still have some distance to go.

    As long as any of us are inclined to discount the value of another's ability to contribute to our economy's success primarily on the basis of the quality of his/her tan, we are all well and truly screwed.

    Were we awash in great ideas, we might be able to survive disenfranchising a third of our thinkers, but we are not, we can't...and we really don't have the luxury of time to engage in this stupidity....

    ReplyDelete
  2. It’s a sad commentary. I have no doubt William Buckley is rolling over in his grave that this has happened to his son. I’m a little confused as to what really happened.

    Although I agree with Laughingman’s comment ‘we have a long way to go in reference to racism’ in this specific situation, the ‘bias’ is a dispute in political choice (or political commentary) and not racism. Even to quote Chris: “So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven't left the Republican Party. It left me. “

    Although William F. Buckley was classified preeminent voice of American conservatism (even the father of modern conservatism) he did support some Democrats during his time with the Review as well as his television show, Firing Line. IN FACT- The National Review, actually endorsed Kerry in 2004 because Bush had deviated so far from true conservatism.

    This may be my naivety but it seems to me that the problem within The National Review may simply be a ‘take over of power or control of commentary’ within the business structure now that Bill Buckley is gone.

    Vikki

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Vikki for your comment. I suspect that you are probably correct about the National Review's current management following the death of the Senior Buckley. Thanks for informing us of the fact that Wm F. Buckley previously supported some Democratic candidates. I would have expected as much out of him. He always struck me as a thinker, even though I may have disagreed with him on occasion.

    Maybe I'm in the minority and pretty silly, but it just seems to me that something is a tad warped about always agreeing with, and defending, the position of any organization. Shouldn't decisions be based on the individual merits of the issue at hand each time?

    Thanks as always.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Absolutely individual merits of the issue should be the determining factor. I think of myself independent for that very reason.

    Buckley evolved working as a moderator of his show, Firing Line. With opposing guest/subjects booked (as happens with any editorial show) it creates an involuntary result or attribute that both sides of any issue have to be considered and discussed. And I think the National Review reflected his evolution over time also.

    I also think the notable politician in the past 3 decades who seemed to step across party lines were influential in a great deal of his commentary or opinion. Remember ‘Reagan’s Democrats’? I think (?) the term was originated on Firing Line.
    Vikki

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Vikki. Your comment also made me think of something else. You referred to the "evolution" of the senior Buckley. Earlier this evening, I heard a former aide to President Reagan, who knew Barry Goldwater well, describe the relationship between McCain and Goldwater. At one point he described McCain as the ultimate flip-flopper. This term has always bothered me in that I want something to come to the realization that they were perhaps wrong about an earlier position, and that as a result of reconsidering the factors and gathering more info over time, they have taken a new position. Now some might say that the change was prompted by political expediency; however, how is one to know? I actually admire folks who admit mistakes and move on.

    There is something else of which you reminded me. I always respect another person's point of view, even though I may disagree with it, as long as it appears to be derived from some logical thought process and there is intellectual honesty. However, when one comes up with an explanation that requires significant stretching and thus becomes incredulous. Some of the explanations for positions taken during the current presidential campaign have made me lose respect for some of other leaders, on both sides of the aisle.

    I always respect Bill Buckley's analysis, even though I might have reached a different result.

    Thanks. We appreciate the time and thought which you expend in responding to our posts. It's always a pleasure.

    ReplyDelete

"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense should be a Way of Life"™

Opportunity to Serve as "Guest Author"

This forum was designed to be YOUR forum for the civil exchange of ideas by people with all points of views. We welcome the submission of articles by all of our readers, as long as they are in compliance with our Guidelines contained in Post No. 34. We look forward to receiving your submissions.