William F. Buckley Appreciation Thread

[DroppinScience]

This will seem extremely odd coming out of an uber-liberal like me, but I thought I'd take the time to spotlight conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. and particularly his long-running talk show, "Firing Line." I don't agree with him politically, but it doesn't matter. The man had extreme intelligence, class, and provided a great forum of debate on the issues of the day and would have many prominent liberals and leftists on the show, where they had an intellectual and ideological showdown. It truly is a far cry for what passes for insightful commentary from today's conservatives and right-wingers (i.e. O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc.).

This discussion of Buckley on the "Bill Moyers Journal" is what prompted this thread:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10302009/watch2.html

Allow me to share with you what I feel are some of Buckley's/Firing Line's "greatest hits":

Buckley interviews Black Panther Huey Newton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ypqCYPduI

Buckley discusses the "Playboy Philosophy" with Hugh Hefner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMM92gLiYDQ&feature=PlayList&p=E5BF05A7DCA26C69&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=69

Buckley interviews Norman Mailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3vTu99Vpd8&feature=PlayList&p=A1611F0CF91EE21B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

And, of course, the classic interview with Noam Chomsky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI&feature=PlayList&p=643C086EAB75BBA0&index=0&playnext=1

[Michelle*s_Farm]

thank you for those links -- brilliant.

[freetibet]

Liberal has many meanings apparently. In what way can a commmunist like Obama be liberal? On the other hand, European "liberals" are liberal from waist below (homos, zoophiles and other deviants) and from such perspective - leftists are liberal. And what does liberalism say about Free Market, ey? There's liberal and Liberal (Conservative-Liberal).

Off the topic, but DroppinScience called himself an uber-liberal (maybe an uber-Mensch?;P) and it made me laugh.

The point about those new rightwingers is that apparently they don't give a damn about whatever utopist b**lshit comes out of the mouths of communist ignorants. You don't discuss with an idiot, do you (I bet you'll turn that phrase against me).

[DroppinScience]

You don't discuss with an idiot, do you (I bet you'll turn that phrase against me).

This is one of your rare eloquent statements. I guess I'll take your advice.

[DroppinScience]

In all seriousness, it's not necessarily that the new brand of conservatism as promoted by O'Reilly and others do not talk to their political opponents. On the contrary, they regularly put dissenting figures on the show all the time. The problem is they have no interest in an actual debate or discussion. Instead, they yell "shut up," "cut his mic" and engage in shouting matches that do a disservice to those viewers who genuinely want to know more about the issues of the day.

In the examples of Buckley, he takes the time to listen to his opponents and forms well-crafted rebuttals. He showed that you are able to disagree without being disagreeable. He never yelled "Shut up!" or anything of the kind. In short, he created a forum that anyone of any political persuasion could take something out of it.

The sole exception to this rule was when he lost his cool in a debate with Gore Vidal in 1968:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8&

Even then, this feels more benign than anything on FOX News today.

[yeahwho]

Dude would of made one badass Mad Hatter. He's got the look and the disposition. I can see him now in a big 'ol top hat... Twinkle, twinkle, little bat, / How I wonder what you're at / Up above the world so high / Like a tea tray in the sky...

[Echewta]

Obama is a communist too?

[RobMoney$]

So it appears you just go to the obvious uberliberal internet haunts, HuffPo and Bill Moyers Journal and see what you're supposed to think each day.

For what it's worth, I always thought William Buckley was creepy and weird.

[saz]

(y)

william f. buckley & charlie rangel debate war on drugs circa '91 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-dtU_esJ8)

the war on drugs is lost - the national review (http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html)

[EN[i]GMA]

William F. Buckley was funny, basically because of the bullshit intellectual act he put on.

In the Chomsky debate it's obvious, despite his affectations, that he's not even close to Chomsky in intelligence, and yet he soldiers on undaunted.

Funny stuff.

[DroppinScience]

So it appears you just go to the obvious uberliberal internet haunts, HuffPo and Bill Moyers Journal and see what you're supposed to think each day.

For what it's worth, I always thought William Buckley was creepy and weird.

Some people visit Huffington Post. Other people visit Michelle Malkin's blog, the Drudge Report, or whatever chain e-mail you see in your inbox.

It's obvious you can't think of anything to say, so if you've got anything intelligent you can think of (think really hard for a few hours), you can come back. Otherwise you're just being creepy.

[DroppinScience]

(y)

william f. buckley & charlie rangel debate war on drugs circa '91 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-dtU_esJ8)

the war on drugs is lost - the national review (http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html)

Oh yes, I give full credit where it's due to the "National Review" for adopting a common sense approach to drug laws. (y)

[yeahwho]

GMA;1709819']William F. Buckley was funny, basically because of the bullshit intellectual act he put on.

In the Chomsky debate it's obvious, despite his affectations, that he's not even close to Chomsky in intelligence, and yet he soldiers on undaunted.

Funny stuff.


I noticed that too. Some of his editorials were nothing more than exercises in dictionary usage. Ultimately Will Shortz (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1927879/bio) the NYTImes crossword puzzle editor is much more fascinating.

[Documad]

For what it's worth, I always thought William Buckley was creepy and weird.
Me too! I think it's because we remember seeing him as a guest on talk shows in the 70s and/or 80s. The ones where he appeared to be drunk. (I had a friend who worked a presidential campaign back in the 1980s and she had to drive Buckley to some speaking engagements and her stories are pretty funny.)

The older interviews DS linked to aren't the ones I remember (they were before my time). I do remember the Buckley doing the interview DS linked to with Huey Lewis -- the several minute long intro before asking a question. It drove me crazy.

It was on other people's talk shows where I remember him more. He was notorious for being a snobby gasbag. I thought Tony Randall's skits about language more entertaining. Or even Jimmy Stewart's poems. You're probably not old enough to remember those.

[Documad]

DS, I'm curious how you are familiar with Firing Line? Was it showing in Canada when you were a kid? It's such a puzzle to me how you could be nostalgic for something so old. I have fond memories of the old Donahue show. It was over the top but I discovered a lot of social issues via that show.

BTW, I listen to Left Right and Center every week via podcast. I think that Tony Blankley makes intelligent arguments for the "right" while exercising good manners. He makes me re-think my position, though I can't say he's ever changed my mind. The "left" guy on that show bugs the shit out of me. He repeats the same pablum every week and he makes me embarrassed to be a liberal. I've taken to fast forwarding through his bits.

[DroppinScience]

No, I never watched "Firing Line" when it was on. It ran on PBS until 1999 if my information is correct. Canada does get PBS, so we would have been able to see it then. I did not tune in to PBS for Buckley, but more so for Big Bird and Mr. Rogers.

I pretty much ran across "Firing Line" because people uploaded clips on YouTube (my first exposure to Buckley were the interviews with Noam Chomsky). If I sound nostalgic for a series of interviews conducted 10-15 years before I was born, it's just that that period of American history (1960s/70s) is fascinating to me and after growing up on intellectually challenged neo-conservatives, it's nice to see that there was such a thing as the well-educated conservative.

[Documad]

I'm nostalgic for the 70s because I was too little to appreciate the cool things. But I temper it with some reality. We were really messed up then. Things are much better now. Especially for women and minorities.

DS, you made me look at some youtube videos. I started looking at the Tom Snyder ones and found an interview with Hitchcock. That was way before my time. I remember the Clash and other rock acts -- the stuff from the late 70s and early 80s -- the years SNL spoofed. It's pretty cool.

You notice interesting things via youtube. For instance why do people post so many videos of Ayn Rand? And who are those people? Do people never outgrow that shit?

[travesty]

I wonder if we're just unable to have rational debate like that in this country anymore. In reality there are plenty of rational intellectuals on both side of the aisle but I wonder if the whole idea of a respectful debate between them is even possible. I mean look at the Presidential debates, what a joke. The primary debates are even worse. Everything now is reduced to soundbites and the PCness of it all just seems to water everything down. Buckley telling Gore Vidal he was going to "smash his goddamn face" was epic. Could you imagine that now? He'd be a "hatemonger" and a "violent extremeist" all over the evening news and probably be the end of his career. Even if a solid debate were to take place once the media got done spinning it, editing it and reducing it to soundbites to fit their agenda both parties involved would likely not want to do it again. The best we seem to get anymore is opnionated speeches from both sides calling the other side out and the two never actually respect each other enough to sit down face to face and discuss things. It's truly sad.

[RobMoney$]

it's nice to see that there was such a thing as the well-educated conservative.



What a completely insulting, condescending, and patronizing comment to make.
It's exactly the type of comment that belittles your opponents that you're holding Buckley up as an example of how not to be.

Also, If Buckley is your example of the higher intelligence that conservatives have to offer, you clearly don't know enough about them to comment on them. It's pretty clear that the only reason you made this thread or offered any type of praise to this weirdo Buckley is because your liberal media told you to.
You saw the article and said "Oh, Yeah, that's how I think too"

[saz]

I wonder if we're just unable to have rational debate like that in this country anymore. In reality there are plenty of rational intellectuals on both side of the aisle but I wonder if the whole idea of a respectful debate between them is even possible. I mean look at the Presidential debates, what a joke. The primary debates are even worse. Everything now is reduced to soundbites and the PCness of it all just seems to water everything down. Buckley telling Gore Vidal he was going to "smash his goddamn face" was epic. Could you imagine that now? He'd be a "hatemonger" and a "violent extremeist" all over the evening news and probably be the end of his career. Even if a solid debate were to take place once the media got done spinning it, editing it and reducing it to soundbites to fit their agenda both parties involved would likely not want to do it again. The best we seem to get anymore is opnionated speeches from both sides calling the other side out and the two never actually respect each other enough to sit down face to face and discuss things. It's truly sad.

yeah, the commission on presidential debates (http://www.debates.org/) squeezes out all of the greens, libertarians and independents and ensures only the two wall street backed parties can participate. and yeah they're not really debates anymore.

and no it wouldn't be the end of his career, he'd be celebrated, which is sad because no one should be celebrated in the political arena for threatening another person with violence.

[DroppinScience]

and no it wouldn't be the end of his career, he'd be celebrated, which is sad because no one should be celebrated in the political arena for threatening another person with violence.

Exactly. Today's conservatives say even worse things (e.g. Glenn Beck on his radio show openly fantasized about killing Michael Moore and getting away with it) and it doesn't seem to adversely affect their careers.

Also, I notice a double-standard when it comes to pundits getting punished for verbal misdeeds. After Don Imus' infamous "nappy headed ho's" remark, he became persona non grata. Now, he deserved what he got, but I still don't understand why Beck and Limbaugh are allowed near a microphone when they seem to say similar (or worse) things on a daily basis.

[DroppinScience]

What a completely insulting, condescending, and patronizing comment to make.
It's exactly the type of comment that belittles your opponents that you're holding Buckley up as an example of how not to be.

Also, If Buckley is your example of the higher intelligence that conservatives have to offer, you clearly don't know enough about them to comment on them. It's pretty clear that the only reason you made this thread or offered any type of praise to this weirdo Buckley is because your liberal media told you to.
You saw the article and said "Oh, Yeah, that's how I think too"

You are very perceptive. I'll be sure to tell the editor-in-chief (Brookhiser) of the "National Review" that he makes up the "liberal media." :rolleyes:

Joke's on you, too. Wasn't even an article, but a television interview. I know your mantra is "Argue the opposite of whatever the board says," but this is sloppy even for your standards.