Buckley Vs. Gore Vidal (What's Wrong with the World)

Buckley Vs. Gore Vidal

by Jeff Martin (Maximos)

The famous exchange, in which Vidal clearly went trolling for what Buckley threatened, in my opinion. It is also worth noting that even the deterioration of the exchange exhibits a higher degree of cultivation than virtually anything one finds on our contemporary 'talking heads' programs, with the exception of the BBC's Hard Talk.

Posted by Jeff Martin (Maximos) on February 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Del.icio.us | Permalink

Tags: (Gore Vidal) (William F. Buckley)

Comments (20)

Sure, Vidal started it. Calling him a crypto-nazi was a stupid thing to do. I have no idea how Buckley's choice of response can be seen as "cultivated," though. You've never seen one elementary school student say to another "I'll smash your face, you queer"? You clearly went to classier schools than I did.

Posted by Mike | February 27, 2008 3:16 PM

His demeanor and delivery are quite cultivated, especially by comparison to the unhinged rantings of a Bill O'Reilly or Shawn Hannity. These rather un-patrician (proletarian, actually, which is not necessarily a mark against anyone) faux-conservatives would not be so composed in comparable circumstances.

I doubt that my schools were any classier than those you attended. The principal of my elementary school did not want me there, and permitted things to be made difficult for me, as when I was repeatedly bullied, and, when I responded, was referred to a shrink with the suggestion that I had an anti-social personality disorder. I was seven.

Posted by Maximos | February 27, 2008 3:24 PM

I gather that WFB was ashamed of his part in this exchange, afterwards, while GV was not.

That speaks volumes.

Posted by Steve Burton | February 27, 2008 3:57 PM

Indeed it does.

Posted by Maximos | February 27, 2008 3:58 PM

I'm not out to defend Vidal, but Buckley did attach a violent threat to Vidal's sexuality. I'm not going to use PC logic here, but back in the day, homosexuals dealt with a lot more violence than they do now. Buckley's outburst wasn't arbitrary. I can only see it as an intent to be vicious, to remind Vidal that to suffer violence was a legitimate and real possibility for a homosexual.

Consider alternate versions. Replace "you queer" with "you Christ lover." Even then, the shadow of ever present violence doesn't really come out. So "you queer" should be replaced with "you n*****."

Vidal's crypt-nazi comment was, culturally speaking, trivial in comparison. So yes, Buckley had a lot more to be ashamed of.

Posted by Mike | February 27, 2008 4:39 PM

Maximos,
Young conservatives have only a vague idea of what Buckley achieved and I'm afraid resurrecting this episode today only obscures his legacy. To say that Buckley helped father a philosophical tradition and a polical movement is one thing, to convey how he did it will take a host of biographers and social historians. None of whom are likely to truly capture what it was like to be in his company, joyfully manning the barricades against forces that seemed invincible, to everyone, but him.

Things are no longer well within the "conservative movement" in general, nor at National Review in particular. Yet, for a couple of raucous decades the Right was an impossibly exciting place to be. All because of the talented, eccentric and sometimes crazed men and women that were magnetically drawn into his dazzling orbit and allowed space in NR or time on Firing Line. To visit his home in Sharon for a YAF gathering was to find refuge in a Tolkien world of monarachists, anarchists, traditionalists and anti-leftist emigres, united only by their host's humor, hospitality and genius.

Since reactionaries subsist on nostalgia,we must do so selectively. The Vidal/Esquire doesn't make the cut.

Posted by Kevin | February 27, 2008 6:52 PM

Mike - sorry. But calling an American conservative a "crypto-nazi" is not a trivial offense. No way, no how. Don't try to minimize it.

Posted by Steve Burton | February 27, 2008 8:23 PM

I'm not out to defend Vidal, but Buckley did attach a violent threat to Vidal's sexuality.

No he didn't. He attached a threat to calling him a secret follower of an ideology that was responsible for acts of genocide. His exact words were, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you..." &c.

Posted by brendon | February 27, 2008 8:26 PM

Mark Levin is on the radio. Hannity is on TV. The food fights never end. Not even on a day like today.
Not even at WWWtW.

Posted by Kevin | February 27, 2008 8:41 PM

Whatever Vidal did to provoke, the fact is I expect very little from this little man. I expect much more from Buckley because he is a great man and so this episode was a disappointing drop to Vidal's level. I'll take a lesson from it however: It inspires me to pray for a guarded tongue when enemies try to bait me.

Posted by Scott W. | February 27, 2008 8:55 PM

Well, yes, but let's not wring our hands over it too much.

Buckley played language like a violin, and a virtuoso performer is allowed to break the rules once in a while, for effect. It was a well-placed, well-timed and appropriate remark, even if he were wrong to actually say it. If this sort of thing were the usual fare for Buckley, we wouldn't be watching a clip from '68.

Posted by thebyronicman | February 27, 2008 9:21 PM

Vidal is many things, but I have never listened to the man and thought him ignorant. So Vidal was either intentionally trying to provoke a strong response or he was ignorant as to how rude and unbelievably vile it is to call someone a secret Nazi who knew full well what level of evil and tyranny was championed and violently instituted by the Nazi regime. We invoke Nazis and the holocaust only when we can not think of anything worse to compare something to in human language. It is the highest level of evil imaginable.

I recall Bill Maher once calling Gordon Liddy a rat. Liddy took sharp exception to that and Maher apologized. Maher meant it as a general insult to the man, but Liddy and any person that has ever done time understood that to mean someone who rolls over on his friends for his own benefit. Liddy is not a rat, whatever else he is, and Maher acknowledged that fact in his apology. I find it difficult to believe that Vidal was unintentionally insulting Buckley in a manner that underestimated how strongly Buckley would take this insult.

As to how Buckley responded, well he was a man in a heated discussion with someone who was clearly not his favorite person by a long shot. There are people that just seem supernaturally designed to get our goat. Was his language objectionable? Of course. Does it give any real insight to Buckley’s character as a whole? Only if you were operating under the assumption that those who recognize that there is a way that we ought to be that is virtuous to pursue for yourself and champion in the public arena are by nature beyond reproach as a by product of that intuition. Otherwise he was a guy that got angry and said something he should not have on television to someone he clearly disliked 40 years ago. What a horrible thing!

Posted by Jay Watts | February 28, 2008 11:05 AM

I don't see what the big deal is. What are you supposed to do when some queer calls you a crypto-nazi?

Being polite to degenerates should only last as long as they are able to behave themselves. Beyond that you are only capitulating to them.

Since reactionaries subsist on nostalgia,we must do so selectively. The Vidal/Esquire doesn't make the cut.

I don't subsist on nostalgia. What are you saying, I'm not a reactionary?

Posted by George R. | February 28, 2008 1:07 PM

...calling an American conservative a "crypto-nazi" is not a trivial offense. No way, no how. Don't try to minimize it.

Uh, sure. When they are going after the neocons, the paleos barely even bother with the crypto-. It must not be offensive when it is a family feud. http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/index1.html

Being polite to degenerates should only last as long as they are able to behave themselves. Beyond that you are only capitulating to them

Politeness is a terrible cross to bear.

Posted by Step2 | February 28, 2008 3:35 PM

"I don't subsist on nostalgia. What are you saying, I'm not a reactionary?"

Exactly. Reactionaries are imbued with a well-cultivated "attitude of gratitude", a profound sense of loss and a healthy perspective on what truly matters in life. Your fascination with a 40 year old incident, sadly shared by others here, that offers no real insight into the life and work of Bill Buckley suggests your are a Liberal afflcited with the usual obsession for long-forgotten grievances and unimportant events.

I came here expecting a well-deserved tribute, not the trivial pursuit of a sophomoric polemic. My mistake.

Posted by Kevin | February 28, 2008 4:22 PM

Kevin,
The well-deserved tribute is the next post, this post was a response to Mike's comment on the previous thread. I happen to agree with Jeff's general sentiment that Buckley was a complicated intellect and generous with his time, love of language, and loyalty. Whatever his faults, his virtues were clearly greater.

Posted by Step2 | February 28, 2008 5:20 PM

Steve Burton,

I don't know where you get this idea:

"I gather that WFB was ashamed of his part in this exchange, afterwards, while GV was not."

I've been following both sides' comments on the episode since the night it happened, and your opinion, stated as fact, is new to me.

Posted by Mickey Bitsko | March 4, 2008 3:10 PM

"I've been following both sides' comments on the episode since the night it happened,"

For 40 years, you have followed this one incident?
Damn. Didn't the World Wrestling Federation offer any relief?

Posted by Kevin | March 4, 2008 10:12 PM

Again these comments fail to analyze the situation correctly. It ignores the basics of capitalism -- which puts profits ahead of humanity. And Conservatives are the most egregious practitioners of this philosophy/ideology. When people such as Videl and Chomsky point the finger at these right-wing fanatics/crypto-nazis, they are right -- just look at the crimes of the US. From the beginning they acted like Nazis against the native population. They then spread their "right" over Latin America via the Monroe Doctrine -- and continually trained and supported "facist" dictators all over the world and often destroyed democracies directly. As to genocide the US is still guilty -- dropping two A-bombs in the middle of two Japanese cities when they weren't needed at all. It then continued wars and threats ever since -- and supports Israel in its crimes and genocide against the Palestinians. And today, even Obama is committing wars crimes by bombing and attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan -- not for any moral purposes -- but for oil in Iraq and for pipelines through Afghanistan.
If one thinks that the US is acting for moral and humanitarian purposes, does one think that the US would be there if these countries only grew cabbages?
JJR

Posted by jjr | February 6, 2009 3:55 PM

Buckley made a elementary error of the art of debate by issuing a personal insult as a response to the opponents diologue. To do so shows a weakness in ones position or stream of consciousness that one has to stoop to such a low level. I bet as soon as he said it he wished he could take it back. Good debate should be free from personall attacks or threats to the opposition.
By the way, does anyone get the pedegree to Vigal's comment "It happend at Sharon"?

Posted by Dave | March 14, 2013 8:05 AM

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember personal info?

What’s Wrong with the World

Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

About

Website

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Authors

Blog Roll

Archives

Buckley Vs. Gore Vidal

Comments (20)

Post a comment