Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


The link is non-functional and needs to be fixed or elaborated.

Contents

[edit] Final Public Appearance at Yale University, November 2, 2006

There was a change tonight (11/2) which was just deleted and should be restored:

 + On November 1st, 2006 at the Yale Political Union Buckley delivered his final public speech on matters of policy. The topic of his speech was "Resolved: The Democratic Candidates for November 7th should Withdraw". 

 [http://www.yale.edu/ypu/ Link at the Yale Political Union website

[edit] National Review neoconservative?

63.134.129.109 changed the description of National Review from "conservative" to "neoconservative". National Review is more usually considered a pure conservative publication, and many of its writers and editors (such as Jonah Goldberg) would vehemently deny being "neoconservative". Therefore I am reverting this change. — DLJessup 01:52, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

I marked the page as npov because there seems to be a dispute as to whether William Buckley and the National Review are conservative, or neoconservative. I suggest people have a discussion about it before the article is changed one way or another.Phil179 01:45, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have remarked this page as npov (GreatWhiteEric eliminated the npov), at least until the neoconservative epithet is thoroughly debunked. — DLJessup 04:03, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

NR is the wellspring and granddaddy of neoconservatism. However, I guess I'm not sure if it should classified as neoconservative itself, or as an antecedent. - Nat Krause 04:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To the contrary, Commentary magazine is widely considered to be the magazine that launched neo-conservatism. Chonak 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the magazine is neoconservative or merely conservative in nature, but I stand by my argument that the page needs to be npov, because there seems to be a conflict between users in editing that needs to be hashed out here in the talk page. I suggest the people who have reverted it each way talk about their views here instead of editing it the article right off the bat. Phil179 01:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia entry, neoconservatives have a more aggressive foreign policy stance, with lessened stances on social policy and government-shrinking. National Review is very socially conservative, frequently including articles opposing gay marriage and stem cell research, and is devoted to smaller government, criticizing republicans for not following through on Ronald Reagan’s plan to eliminate the department of Education. Although they initially supported the Iraq War, the board of editors stated that they would not have supported it in its current form if it could have been absolutely concluded that Saddam Hussein had no WMD’s. Furthermore, this is not a neutrality issue. If someone altered the Adam Sandler article to indicate he was born in 1936, and I changed it back, and they tried to change it again, it would be the same situation. A simple factual discrepancy. Finally, the user that originally made the alteration to ‘neoconservative’ also changed several other articles about Republicans to indicate that they were neoconservative, and all of those were changed back, with no controversy. — GreatWhiteEric
"criticizing republicans for not following through on Ronald Reagan’s plan to eliminate the department of Education." They got rid of the Education part of it! Hurr Hurr. In any event, I'm interested why Buckley got a medal. Can anyone add a note in the article explaining what it was for?

Phil179, here's something to think about: it is pretty much undisputed that National Review is conservative. It is arguable whether NR is neoconservative, partially because neoconservative is a term that is both vague and politically charged. (For certain sections of the conservative movement, it is a perjorative phrase.) Therefore, referring to NR as neoconservative is inherently less neutral than referring to it as simply conservative. — DLJessup 14:34, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

[edit] Firing Line

Firing Line was on the air for over 33 years and is the primary reason anybody outside of New York ever heard of Buckley. Somebody ought to try to work it in somewhere. And why some debate about a TV movie has been singled out for mention in the article is not obvious. Squib 22:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Done. -- Pinktulip 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Buckley School of Public Speaking

The Buckley in question is Reid Buckley, not Bill Buckley. It's a big family, and while Reid and Bill do share a similarity in looks and probably a common ancestor, they are in reality two different people.

Source: The link at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Reid Buckley is identified on the first page.

-- davidtwery _at_ comcast _dot_ net (not a Buckley)

[edit] Buckley vs the far right

I think this article should mention WFB's struggle with the John Birch society and other far-right anti-semitic groups. Many commentators regard his effort to establish a conservative movement which was cleary separate from (and indeed hostile to) the far right as a crucial step in American politics. See, for example, [1], [2] and this E. J. Dionne column from Oct 2005. (See also William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment, ISBN 1881919064, in which a Bircher claims that WFB is/was secretly working to destroy American conservatism on behalf of the liberal establishment.)

BTW, Dionne's column should probably go in the external links.

Chris Chittleborough 08:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Nothing in the criticism section is referenced; it needs to be! Joey1898 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This bizarre section can only be based on a ridiculous caricature of Conservatives: "Buckley came late to the English language, not learning it until he was seven (his first language was Spanish, learned in Mexico and his second French, learned in Paris). This would hardly endear him to many conservatives and thus is not emphasized by his supporters." Joey1898 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is dripping with POV.-Jersey Devil 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First language Spanish?

While I am sure that Mr. Buckley has spoken Spanish and French fluently from a young age, I find it hard to believe that his parents did not speak to him in English for the first seven years of his life. Can someone please clarify this for me?

This is indeed talked about in his book, The Right Word. It is not with me at the moment, so I cannot give a specific page or chapter, sorry. Nihixul 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Firing Line"

I'd like to see a citation for the statement that says his interviewing methods were "nonconfrontational." Granted I've only seen one clip of "Firing Line," but it was a clip in which he debated Noam Chomsky, and Buckley was certainly "confrontational," and definitely insulting.

The following are Michael Kinsley's and Noam Chomsky's reactions to Buckley on Firing Line (Leroy, Dan. (October 9, 2005). The Conservative Lion in Winter. Section 14CN Connecticut Weekly, New York Times):
"If you had seen William Buckley on a lot of 'Firing Lines,' (sic) kind and gentle are not the words that arrive," Mr. Kinsley said with a laugh. "But words do arrive like civil and friendly. It's not that he was easy on people. But he was polite."
"Even Noam Chomsky, who once provoked Mr. Buckley's ire as a Firing Line guest during the Vietnam War, said that while he had paid scant attention to Mr. Buckley's work since then, "From the little I know, I think he was quite different from the radical statist reactionaries who now defame the honorable term 'conservative,'" he said in an e-mail message."
I think the original editor was trying to say something like what Kinsley said. The show was confrontational but civil, friendly, and polite. Chomsky's quote makes no sense to me ("radical statist reactionaries"?) but he too does not seem to think Buckley rude. The divide is between Buckley's brand of on-air combat and those like Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk. Rkevins82 17:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, by "statist", Chomsky is probably saying that some people now considered "conservative" trust the government too much in its claims and exercise of power. Chonak 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been searching for what Buckley says to Chomsky verbatim but cannot find it. Interesting you mention O'Reilly, who often threatens those he interviews with physical violence, because Buckley tells Chomsky (I quote loosely) "Good, because if you did I'd smash you in your face." And he certainly cut off Chomsky midsentence in order to form the debate, which I'd say isn't exactly polite. He's an early O'Reilly, not a more polite O'Reilly.

Another (non)confrontational Buckley quotation, aimed at Gore Vidal: "'Now, listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face.' This is according to several sources, including Esquire Magazine at the time" (from Wikipedia's entry on crypto-facism). Buckley's got the hatred and the threat of physical violence thing down pretty well, but he still gets a "nonconfrontational" label in the Wiki-text. I wish that could be deleted. But maybe it's correct; maybe hatred of gays and violence weren't frowned upon by the 1960s-era "Firing Line" audience. ...

That quote doesn't reflect on WFB's approach to interviewing, as it was not part of an interview by Buckley and not on the Firing Line show. According to his essay "On Experiencing Gore Vidal" (reference cited in the Vidal article), he said it in anger to Vidal during some of ABC's Dem-convention coverage after repeated provocations. In his essay, he apologized for the personal insult. Chonak 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested quotation: 'everyone detected with AIDs should be tattooed in the upper forearm to protect common needle-users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals' - New York Times op-ed, 1985. Quoted in Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's The Golem At Large, page 127

[edit] Thanks

I would like to thank all of the contributors to this article. It will come in handy whenever he the media quotes one of his unamerican comments and 60% of the viewers go "Who the F***ley is Buckley?"--mitrebox 04:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movement Organizer

Should not some attention be paid to Buckley's pivotal role in the creation of the modern conservative movement, as documents in Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus? Dvd Avins 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

Can someone find the source of Buckley's famous line about shunning governance by the Harvard faculty? Because this point of view can be easily caricatured, it would be useful to see it in the orginal context.

I don't have it at hand, but a likely place to look is in Quotations from Chairman Bill. Chonak 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Yorker reference

In The New Yorker's Issue of 2006-07-31 article Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? by Stacy Schiff, this artile is referred to with:

What can be said for an encyclopedia that is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and sometimes illiterate? When I showed the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam his entry, he was surprised to find it as good as the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He was flabbergasted when he learned how Wikipedia worked. “Obviously, this was the work of experts,” he said. In the nineteen-sixties, William F. Buckley, Jr., said that he would sooner “live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” On Wikipedia, he might finally have his wish. How was his page? Essentially on target, he said. All the same, Buckley added, he would prefer that those anonymous two thousand souls govern, and leave the encyclopedia writing to the experts.

[edit] WFB?

I consider myself generally familiar with politics and with political opinionists and I have never before seen Buckley referred to as "WFB" in a public forum. I consider it very odd that this nickname appears right along with his name at this opening of the article. I believe it's just not well-known enough to be given such a prominent position. If "WFB" is used in some contexts, then it should be mentioned as trivia. Acsenray 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Buckley uses it in National Review and in personal correspondence. I have thus reverted. Rkevins82 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

Any truth to the stories circulating that Buckley is a very heavy drinker, perhaps no less than his nemesis Ted Kennedy?

I dunno, anonymous, I do know that he known as an aficionado of wines and liquors, but except to MADD that probably doesn't make him an alcoholic. V. Joe 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Quote!/ Request of consensus

"It was rumored, in 1946, that the hangman in Nuremberg adjusted the nooses of some of the condemned to magnify the pain of suffocation. Such sadism was not called for then and is not called for now. But if fornication is wrong, there is no denying that it can bring pleasure. The death of Saddam Hussein at rope's end brings a pleasure that is undeniable, and absolutely chaste in its provenance."

This quote is brand new, from this morning's addition of National Review Online. Does everyone else think that this belongs with such notables as the Boston phone book? In my opinion, only time can make a quote especially noteworthy...V. Joe 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's notable for at least two reasons. (1) Buckley said it (presumably) and (2) it is brazenly politically incorrect. Wahkeenah 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about politically correct, but he did say/write it. I remember thinking it quite a "gawd, I wish I'd said that" moment. I count myself as an admirer of WFB. V. Joe 07:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The politically correct view being to take the "high road" and talk about the close of a chapter, moving forward, blah-blah-blah, like Bush and other world leaders have to. Buckley is under no such constraints, and said what a lot of Americans are thinking: "Ding-dong, the Son-of-a-Witch is Dead!" Whether he had WMD's or not, he was the cause of a great deal of trouble for US. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, maybe he'd still be an ally in the coming confrontation with Iran. But nooooo. Wahkeenah 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, not quite, it seems to me that the main "politically correct" thing to do is to say, "Saddam was a bad person, but we are opposed to the death penalty", which is the sort of thing which people like Tony Blair and Romani Prodi have said. Personally, I am pleased... although probably not as nearly pleased as a great number of Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Iranian and Kurdish widows. Of course, he isn't the only person I'd like to see the Rogue's March played for (or the dirge for the unmourned), but its a good start V. Joe 08:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You're talking specifically about left-wing political correctness. I'm talking about right-wing political correctness. Since the Ten Commandments tell us not to kill other people, most right-wingers, while supportive of the death penalty, don't publicly celebrate the taking of life, perhaps for fear of looking hypocritical. Also, what we've found in 3 1/2 years is that there is no shortage of younger blood willing to take up the banner when the older ones have been killed off. Killing Saddam may have been fun, but he was already history. It's a plus because this removes any chance of his coming back to power, but it's also a minus because he becomes yet another martyred hero for the Middle East warriors to rally around. So we have to ask whether the plus outweighs the minus, or vice versa. Wahkeenah 11:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I wasn't aware that the right-wing really had political correctness (being a term inspired by left-wing activitists (like Dworkin), but also remember that the U.S. right and left wings are both comparitively mild... since Jacques Chirac (for example) is both shockingly right-wing and shocklingly left-wing by Ameircan standard... shockingly left-wing by U.S. standards on most social policy (i.e. the death penalty, but shockingly right-wing on others (banning displays of religon in French public schools) or on the treatment of immigrants... he also tends to be more left-wing with OTHER people's countries and issues, but shockingly jingoistic with the place of France in relation to Europe and the world.. I do wish GWB would be as aggressive, instead of asking the U.N. Security Council to weigh in first. Our foreign policy should be that of TR, "speak softly and carry a big stick a really big Navy... and to use it at the drop of a hat. V. Joe 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/Talk%7EWilliam_F._Buckley%2C_Jr._4bca.html"