Kathryn Lopez has received word that William F. Buckley, Jr has died in his home in Connecticut this morning. I had heard that he was ill, but I had no idea of the severity of the illness.
Buckley had, without a single doubt, the greatest influence on the development of my conservative thought. Between National Review magazine and his indispendable weekly Firing Line television shows, Buckley filled my teenaged mind with facts and arguments that required me to read a lot more than I already was just to keep pace. I read his columns, browsed his books, and never missed an opportunity to see him when he did a rare television appearance.
I am too young to have truly enjoyed Buckley’s heyday, when he ran for Mayor of New York City or when he decided that one of his great works would be to grap the rudder of the conservative movement and turn it, almost singlehandedly, away from the assorted wackos that had inhabited it for so long. He did so and conservatism became not only reputable, but surprisingly mainstream. Coupled with the strength and clarity of Ronald Reagan’s vision for conservatism, Buckley’s National Review magazine was one of the two great, shining pillars of American politics for decades.
Then again, as Ace notes, who couldn’t love him for threatening to punch the pompous gasbag Gore Vidal in the face for calling him a “crypto-Nazi”. I rather wish he had. Hot Air has some great links as well, including an interview on the Charlie Rose show in 2006.
I am sorry that he is gone and proud that I got to know a bit of him through his work. I honestly wish I had had the opportunity to meet him and I find myself a bit jealous of those at National Review who got that opportunity many times. He left his magazine in very good hands and I hope that they, and all we conservatives, continue to carry the banner he helped to raise with even half of his style, wit, and eloquence.
(More coverage via memeorandum)
It might surprise you that I still defend my belief that that “Firing Line” was the best political talk show in history. I probably remember watching 70% of the shows. I was too young to remember the earlier shows, but I can assure you that I was on my mother’s lap watching the show. And she was a committed and activist liberal. Her husband was a Rockefeller Republican, and her father-in-law was the local leader of the John Birch Society. Often, they’d watch Firing Line together and debate, politely of course, the topics discussed. That Buckley’s show could could manage to inspire civil debate among this crowd is truly amazing. But it did.
It doesn’t surprise me at all. If I may make a poor analogy (at least on my part), I see you much as the Michael Kinsley to my woefully inadequate Buckley here.
One of the things I remember most about the show is that I almost always knew more about both sides of the discussion after the show than I did before. You reminded me of that with your comment.
I can still recall the theme song to mind without any effort at all. I suppose it has made a larger impression on me than I had thought.
Honestly, I’ve felt closer to him now than ever. I really do miss him. Aside from the Panama Canal and the legalization of marijuana, I rarely agreed with him. But I always valued his view. Sadly, I don’t see anyone replacing him. But who really can?
As for your knowing more about both sides after watching the show, that was really the point, wasn’t it? He felt that his views were right, so it didn’t harm him to allow an alternate view. Aside from his interview with Timothy Leary, he was the paragon of politeness and civilized debate. But Tim probably deserved it. Tim’s cohort certainly thought so: “when you get the message, it’s time to hang up the phone”. But even the Leary interview gave Tim a fair chance to defend himself. Which he didn’t at the time. Ultimately, Tim would get the last laugh, being a high paid consultant in Japan (and making more money than Bill). But Buckley will really get the last laugh, having affected society to a greater extent. In the end, I’m divided on which was both better and worse for us. Leary had the greater economic impact (positive), while Buckley had the greater political impact (mixed). But Leary’s impact is indirect, while Buckley was always respected at the highest levels.