Bill Buckley was a good man

I met Buckley only once, in 1969. He was speaking to some civic group in Greenville, Mississippi and I badgered my father into driving me the 100 or so miles from Jackson to see him (for at that time he was the god of my idolatry). During the question-and-answer period after the speech I got to ask one question about a politician of the day, and I got to chat with him for a few minutes afterwards. He asked me what college I was attending. Since I was only in my second year of high school, you can imagine how that affected me. Bill Buckley considered my conversation college-level (or at least feigned such a belief)! One of the most flattering experiences of my life. Although I never fulfilled the promise he seemed to see in me, I can never forget his kindness.

Even when I disagreed with Mr. Buckley, I respected him for his erudition, his thoughtfulness, wit, and his great civility (with the one exception of the time he threatened to flatten the overbearing and smug Gore Vidal who had called him a "crypto-fascist" during a debate on ABC.

Mr. Buckley's reasoned and respectful rhetoric is a quantum leap above and beyond the ranting and railing of right-wingnut radio which engages in low insult and self-righteous vitriol.

I shall miss him.

(And let's face it, his unique speaking style was amusing to listen to. I always got a kick out of listening to him.)

Earlier, Rod said: Every writer wants to be like him, or should. . . . Every man or woman wants to be like him, or should. Sorry, no. Not this writer, not this woman. I've just been reading another Irishman: Jimmy Breslin's The Church That Forgot Christ. Now there's someone I would consider emulating, as a person and as a writer. In this book, Breslin includes a prayer, of which this is one line: Let us understand that scorning the poor is to taunt Christ crucified. I hope for the peace of Buckley's soul, but I don't want to live the way he did.

One of the ways WFB expressed his goodness was to draw some lines around what is respectable conservatism, thereby excluding the kooks (and worse). One of the quotes I read is that without WFB, there might not be a respectable conservative movement today. Unfortunately it seems to be devolving, and I wonder what he would have said about talk radio etc if he had been in his prime in the 1990's/early 2000's.
(And that style! Think of how WFB expresses himself, then think of limbaugh, and cringe).

If this is the thread where we can comment on the man's legacy, I'll say it's decidedly mixed. I don't doubt that he was as gracious, charming, and erudite as his many friends (and adversaries) say he was. But he was often on the wrong side of some big issues, most notably McCarthyism and the Civil Rights struggle in the 60s. It's true he distanced himself from these stances in later years, but he helped give intellectual cover to fascists and bigots for far too long, IMO. On the other hand, he was undeniably correct about the murderous evil of communism when too many on the left in this country simply averted their gaze. And as others have pointed out, he was certainly principled and intelligent enough to recognize what an unmitigated disaster Bush's presidency has been, and had enough self-respect to say so, even though the magazine - and the wider conservative movement - he founded were instrumental in the rise of the modern Republican party.

Conservatives have lost one of their few remaining class acts, and liberals have lost a truly worthy foe.

Gayle, I'm trying to express my demurral politely, while respecting Rod's apparent wish to keep this on a eulogistic level. Since, therefore, I can't start whipping out the quotes, I guess you'll have to take my word for it that I do know a little bit about Buckley. Unlike some here, I did not know him personally, but I knew those who did. And I've read almost all of his books. As evidenced by the reminiscences, he clearly had many good qualities. But was he so good and great a man (and writer) that everyone, everywhere must wish to emulate him? Seriously?? EVERYONE? I think that's taking the dulia just a bit too far. Let's wait till he's worked a couple of miracles before anointing him as a saint.

Hunk, I do understand what you're saying. For many years, in fact, I had myself mesmerized into believing that Buckley's views on the free market were the correct ones. I agree that he was sincere . . . but I'm not sure that's enough to excuse an intelligent and privileged man for holding views that I now see as harmful, in practice, to those who had none of his privilege or opportunity. If sincerity is the important thing, we'll have to be fair and say that Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden are very "sincere." I think you're right that Buckley would never have consciously scorned the poor, in the abstract, but I think that in practice he adopted positions and strategies that did treat poor people scornfully. "In theory, theory and practice are the same; but in practice, theory and practice are different." ; )

So, Sig, are you saying that during the years when you yourself believed in unbridled laissez-faire, you "scorned the poor?" If not, then why do you condemn Buckley for never coming to the conclusion you did? FTR, I think at the time of his death both of you affirmatively intended the good of the poor and just had radically different views about the means of effecting it. And while Osama, Castro and other malefactors were sincere, I don't see in what sense they could have intended the good of the people they knowingly and deliberately harmed. The difference does seem to matter, at least to me.