By now you may have heard that Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., and until yesterday a columnist for his father’s magazine National Review, has declared himself an Obama supporter and resigned his position at the magazine. His reasons? McCain has “changed,” Buckley tells us, having become “irascible and snarly” in the course of a failing campaign; “his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises,” and his attack ads are “mean-spirited and pointless.” Buckley also dislikes McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate.
This is very odd indeed coming from a man who tells us he cast a write-in vote for George H. W. Bush in 2004, and who supported Bob Dole against Bill Clinton in 1996. I recall the younger Buckley telling some interviewer after one of the Clinton-Dole debates that year that he thought Dole had done well, when he quite obviously had not, and was at that point running a pathetic and inept campaign notable for a desperate last-minute tax cut proposal that went nowhere - and which was transparently politically motivated given his reputation as the “tax collector for the welfare state” (as Newt Gingrich memorably labeled Dole). (I say all this, by the way, as someone who voted for Dole, or at least against Clinton.) Bush Sr., of course, is the man who chose Dan Quayle as his running mate and ran some famously harsh ads against Dukakis in 1988. (The “Willie Horton” ad was not among them - that was run by another group, not Bush’s campaign – but Bush ran similar ads.)
Now I am not suggesting for a moment that we should accept the usual liberal tripe about Quayle, the “Willie Horton” ads, etc. But neither should we accept the current tripe about the alleged “mean-spiritedness” of McCain’s ads, which is equally groundless; and those ads are in any case pretty tame compared to the (perfectly defensible) “Willie Horton” type stuff. If Buckley had no problem with Bush's ads, what's the big deal with McCain's? If he thinks Dole was worth supporting despite his desperate flip-flopping, why not McCain? If he thinks Bush’s choice of Quayle – who, despite the injustice of the standard liberal caricatures of him, was certainly no better a VP candidate than Palin is – did not cast doubt on Bush’s judgment, why does Buckley think McCain’s VP choice casts doubt on McCain’s?
There’s got to be more to Buckley’s switch than this, then, no? And so there is. In his latest piece he (quite rightly) decries the explosion in federal spending that has occurred under the current President Bush, and the corruption represented by the likes of Jack Abramoff, regarding all of this (again quite rightly) as a departure from true conservatism. “I haven’t left the Republican party,” he tells us in a Reaganesque flourish; “It left me.” (One wonders how long he’s been saving up that line.)
Yet McCain, who is acknowledged even by liberals to be a budget cutter and foe of corruption (or at least was so acknowledged by them before it became politically expedient to deny it) is in Buckley’s view not the right man for the job. Rather, true conservatism, and in particular smaller government, restrained spending, and lower taxes, can in Buckley’s view be secured by electing… Barack Obama. And the Democrats, the party of ACORN, will give us honest government. Buckley reminds us also of his father’s support for drug legalization – fittingly, given that Christo has obviously been smoking something.
Buckley’s true motives, I would guess, are hinted at by his recourse to the standard leftist smears against religious conservatives, referring as he does to the “fatwas” directed against him and to the “Right Wing Sanhedrin.” It is even more evident in his passing acknowledgment (in his first piece) that “on abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian” and his evident disgust (as expressed in his second piece) with the efforts made by some Republican politicians to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case (that is, to keep her from being starved to death by her husband – a little detail Buckley leaves out, swallowing the camel of cold-blooded murder that he might strain out any gnat that might taint his doctrinaire “federalism”). All of this coming from a man who claims that it is the Republicans who have abandoned true conservatism, and whose father – a devout Catholic and the man who more or less defined modern American conservatism – emphasized, from God and Man at Yale onward, that the defense of the moral and religious heritage of Western civilization must always be a central part of the conservative project. Without that (I would add) contemporary “conservatism” is really just libertarianism, which is itself just a riff on liberalism and not conservative at all.
The irrationality of Buckley’s position is only accented by his frivolous appeal in his defense to how “unpredictable” and “fun” his own father was, the elder Buckley’s sometimes eccentric positions having “tend[ed] to keep things fresh and lively and on-their-feet.” The country is in the middle of two wars and facing the worst economic crisis since the Depression, and Buckley decides the thing to do is “mix it up” a bit and have some laughs. This is the true conservatism the Republicans are to be condemned for abandoning?
It seems to me that if Buckley were honest, he would acknowledge that his true reason for bolting the Republican Party and backing Obama is that he has himself abandoned (if he ever truly believed in) what conservatism has always been, and on top of that decided that his social libertarianism trumps his economic libertarianism. For there is, I submit, no other way plausibly to explain his actions: Obama is far less conservative than McCain on economics, to say nothing of the Democratic majority he would have at his command; but Obama and the Democratic mainstream are perfectly simpatico with Buckley’s views on abortion, “same-sex marriage,” and euthanasia. And it is hard not to wonder whether Buckley’s greatest beef with Gov. Palin is that her ascendency ensures that the social conservatism he apparently despises will remain at the center of the conservative movement, whether or not McCain wins in November. (Perhaps this is what he truly regards as McCain’s most unacceptable “change,” for McCain has, after all, long been distrusted by social conservatives. That he has now single-handedly revived their fortunes must be particularly galling for anyone devoted to Buckley’s brand of “conservatism.”) But then, emphasizing these things would hardly have allowed Buckley to depart from the fold with a self-righteous “more conservative than thou” flair.
But perhaps this credits Buckley’s decision with greater coherence and rationality than actually lay behind it. Perhaps there is nothing more here than what meets the eye: an ill-considered, muddleheaded, ungracious exercise in bandwagon punditry by an unserious man.
Comments (27)
I would put it slightly differently. I think Buckley has sided with the urbane over what he sees (sometimes rightly, sometimes not) as the crass. Note his declaration that Obama has a "world-class temperment" while McCain is "irascible"--a fact about McCain that has never changed that I can tell. And how was daddy so much greater than the movement today? Urbanity, fun, freshness! It's Buckley who has left the Republican party, for better or for worse, and his staged martyrdom, in which he says he'll get hate mail about it and then proceeds to wail about hate mail, is about the crassest part of the whole debacle.
It's nice to see you at WWWTW, Prof. Feser. Your work caught my attention a long time ago (it seems so long ago, anyway) with a piece about whether Islam needs a Luther or a Pope. I'm looking forward to reading your contributions.
Posted by Chris Floyd | October 18, 2008 1:04 AM
“Right Wing Sanhedrin."
Thank you for Not Thinking.
Chris Buckley was born an only child. He continues to be one.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | October 18, 2008 12:17 PM
I am sure I am not the only one ever to point this out, but liberals make one wish sometimes to meet a real libertarian. "On _______, I'm libertarian," they say, where "________" is _always_ something at least highly objectionable, if not outright murderous, and usually has something to do with sex. One never meets one of these pseudo-libertarian, libertine, liberals who says, "On gun ownership and self defense, home schooling, criticism of Islam, and the right not to use one's business to promote homosexuality, I'm libertarian." You never see a liberal with these so-called libertarian sympathies get up in arms about, say, the fact that it is illegal for Aunt Jane to sell her homemade jam to the public in Washington State, or even about high taxes and redistributionist government programs. No, it's always "abortion, gay marriage, et. al.," where "et. al." presumably includes such fundamental American rights as nude dancing, prostitution, and drug dealing.
Posted by Lydia | October 18, 2008 2:12 PM
"And how was daddy so much greater than the movement today?"
Surely, this is a joke. Can anyone seriously argue that Bill Buckley would take pride in a campaign that brandishes such symbol-fetishes
as lipstick tubes, waterboarding T-shirts and now, toilet plungers at its rallies? Clownish behavior should exist at the far margins of a movement based on cultural renewal and not serve as the primary medium for its message.
The real question isn't whether or not Chris Buckley is a rank opportunist engaged in moral preening and social climbing. It is whether the conservative movement poses a genuine alternative to Leviathan and the degraded social norms it helps to produce, or if it is has joined the Left in a race to the bottom.
Instead of offering a serious and somewhat elevated rhetoric in defense of life and against an omnipotent state, Trig, Sarah Palin and a private tradesman are employed as totems to appeal to the sentimental, sybaritic, and simple members of the carnival's audience. And when it is all over, we'll get a National Review editorial bemoaning the intellectual state of the electorate.
The catacombs are looking better and better.
Posted by Kevin | October 18, 2008 3:26 PM
I must have died and (quite unexpectedly) gone to heaven.
A post by Edward Feser, comments by Lydia & Frank...I mean, what do I have left to live for?
;^)
Posted by steve burton | October 18, 2008 6:34 PM
...lipstick tubes, waterboarding T-shirts and now, toilet plungers...
Kevin,
Don’t be such an elitist. Why would you disdain the enthusiasm of those patriots who are so meticulous, thoughtful, gracious, and serious about two wars and a historic economic crisis?
Posted by Step2 | October 18, 2008 8:13 PM
Steve, it's obvious: You have to live for writing a top-notch post of your own and having all of us and the other commentators comment on it. :-)
Posted by Lydia | October 18, 2008 8:21 PM
Son of Buckley seems to have signs and symptoms similar to the son of Schaeffer.
All the strange things that are done in the name of attention! Watch out for this other kind of ADD--attention deficit syndrome--whereby the patient feels deficient and seeks attention. Frodo had it, too. Carter still does. Strange things are done in the name of attention.
Posted by KW | October 18, 2008 8:57 PM
I second Lydia's comment, Steve -- I've missed you guys!
Kevin, I think there's some truth to what you say, though I also think you overstate things a bit. But my point was just that to jump, as Christopher Buckley does, from (rightly) decrying the state of the conservative movement to actively supporting Obama, is sheer lunacy.
Posted by Edward Feser | October 19, 2008 1:23 AM
Thanks, Chris -- it seems like a long time to me too. 2003 (when that piece was published) seems like a different world...
Posted by Edward Feser | October 19, 2008 1:33 AM
Christopher Buckley had virtually nothing to say about foreign policy (except to note that smart guys from Ivy League schools can mess up), which is a mark of an unserious man in my book. Does Christopher Buckley see no significant difference between Senator Obama's and Senator McCain's views on foreign policy (even if Christopher Buckley agreed with his late father about the imprudence of the Iraq war)? Or worse, does he actually think that Senator Obama has a better grasp of the nature of the threats faced by the U.S. and will do a better job of conducting American foreign policy as president?
Posted by Perseus | October 19, 2008 3:49 AM
Ed,
I never considered Chris Buckley, an entertaining satirist, a man of the Right to begin with, and he is writing for Tina Brown's dull, conformist page; "The Daily Beast". The name comes from Evelyn Waugh's brilliant and hysterical savaging of modern journalism; "Scoop", which mocks the industry including the tendency of editors and reporters to grandstand and curry favor with the powerful by fictionalizing and tailoring "stories". This episode sounds like a case of life imitating art.
What is really appalling is not Buckley's toadying, but the decrepit intellectual and spiritual state of what is broadly known as the conservative movement. How to knit a noble banner for those who reject the suicidal direction of a dangerous anti-human, utilitarian Regime is of greater interest to me, and I look forward to reading your well-informed thoughts on the subject.
Posted by Kevin | October 19, 2008 10:33 AM
Posted by Zippy | October 19, 2008 2:56 PM
Kevin,
I don't know which is worse: the lunacy that exists in the seemingly warped new conservatism of today or the one that you & Zippy seems to be a part of which is bent on a complete surrender to the radical Left; for that is all that I've essentially heard from the both of you in most, if not, all your comments.
Rather than fight with what remaining forces we have against the latter, you & yours would rather take to running to your catacombs and let everything else go to the proverbial Hell.
To whose benefit will it serve when the most Leftist government of all our nightmares assumes power not only through the Highest Office in the Land but also through a Senate majority vote?
(I still believe in the projection of a 60 Democratic majority vote Senate. Yet, even if the latter is not accomplished, should Democrats get only to 57 or 58, they need only compromise with moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe who often votes with moderate Democrats anyway. In any case, they would only need to convince 2 to 3 people to compromise with them then whereas now they have to bring over as much as 10 Republicans.)
Posted by aristocles | October 20, 2008 1:56 PM
Ari, conforming to the manners and mores of The Hollow Men, internalizing their prejudices, accepting their premises and imitating their practices is surrendering. It is a daily struggle to resist the soothing lies of any age, particularly one as technologically advanced, as relentlessly intrusive and subtly seductive as this one. May I kindly suggest you do a better job of inoculating yourself against its more pernicious fictions and support me in my efforts to do the same?
For the record, I disagree with Zippy on one point. Our civic religion is Liberalism. We hold an abiding faith in endless Progress and unlimited material improvement through our own mastery of nature and man. The “two-party system” is found within the liturgy as it expressively reminds us of the vital role democratic capitalism plays in our salvation, but should not be mistaken for the Deposit of Faith itself.
Posted by Kevin | October 20, 2008 3:19 PM
Ari, conforming to the manners and mores of The Hollow Men, internalizing their prejudices, accepting their premises and imitating their practices is surrendering. It is a daily struggle to resist the soothing lies of any age, particularly one as technologically advanced, as relentlessly intrusive and subtly seductive as this one. May I kindly suggest you do a better job of inoculating yourself against its more pernicious fictions and support me in my efforts to do the same?
For the record, I disagree with Zippy on one point. Our civic religion is Liberalism. We hold an abiding faith in endless Progress and unlimited material improvement through our own mastery of nature and man. The “two-party system” is found within the liturgy as it expressively reminds us of the vital role democratic capitalism plays in our salvation, but should not be mistaken for the Deposit of Faith itself.
Posted by Kevin | October 20, 2008 3:19 PM
Kevin,
"May I kindly suggest you do a better job of inoculating yourself against its more pernicious fictions and support me in my efforts to do the same?"
As I've expressed before, I highly laud you for the integrity with which you hold to the belief & practice of genuinely Christian principles; however, I do beg to differ as to the breadth of its pragmatism.
There is no point in arguing with the obvious veracity of the above statement.
Yet, however true and profoundly meaningful, it somehow avoids the stark realization of an apparent capitulation that will indeed occur when the powers of Government are handed over ever so blithely to the Messiah of the radical Left.
Posted by aristocles | October 20, 2008 3:40 PM
Posted by Zippy | October 20, 2008 4:21 PM
Ari, the Age of Obama means our Babylonian Captivity gets ratcheted up a couple of notches, but we have the means to organize an effective slave revolt. Presuming of course, we still have the will, and don’t curl up into a collective fetal position on November 5.
Maybe in their groanings over vanished wealth, the American people might be more receptive to learning the causes of their plight. For example; it is impossible to expect a financial system of strangers to successfully function, if the trust between a mother and her unborn child is routinely and cruelly betrayed.
Posted by Kevin | October 20, 2008 5:43 PM
Kevin,
Well, according to the Financial Entertainment Network (so aptly put by your own Zippy), the 2 best positions given our current economic crisis thus far are: (1) Cash and (2) Fetal.
I don't see how basically giving away the keys of the White House to a High Priest of Moloch helps any.
Posted by aristocles | October 20, 2008 5:55 PM
The morning of Nov. 5th can't come too soon.
Posted by thebyronicman | October 20, 2008 7:50 PM
Oh, yes it can! Until it does, I can, to plagarize a phrase, keep hope alive. I dread the damage an Obama presidency will do to my country. McCain is problematic but he, at least, does not hate it. I remember the days when I didn't have to wonder whether one of the candidates for the highest office in this nation actually had its well-being at heart.
Posted by Lily | October 20, 2008 8:25 PM
Apparently (based on thebyronicman's response), some folks can't wait for this to transpire.
Go Obama!!!
CHANGE -- is all this country needs -- that & FOCA! ! !
For Truth, Justice and the ABORTION Way -- Hip, hip Hooray!!!!!
A Baby is Nothin' But a CANCER!
Posted by aristocles | October 20, 2008 8:30 PM
Ari,
Obama's Presidency wouldn't be possible without the artless statecraft, massive spending binge, reckless war and gross incompetence of the past 8 years. If you're looking for people to blame, I suggest you visit the mainstream conservatives who unexpectedly drew inspiration from the works of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.
I personally can't prevent Obama's ascension. I suspect it a scourge from God and if we don't learn our lesson this time, Islam is waiting in the wings. More importantly though, we all have a moral obligation to resist the spiritual disorder of our day and to bear witness to Truth. After your pilgrimage to the polling station make a prayerful one to an abortuary and stand-in for those who cannot speak. One day when you need it most, a grateful voice may rise up in your defense.
Posted by Kevin | October 20, 2008 8:35 PM
Kevin,
I do not deny that it was 8 years of lunacy that has driven people to seek solace in the cold embrace of one of the most vicious advocates there is for Abortion. That, however, does not make embracing the candidacy of such an individual even vaguely justifiable nor does it mean we allow for the possibility of having such a candidate assume the Office of Presidency.
Would that also include the kind of disorder evident in those who are preaching the seemingly righteous Gospel of McCain as if, even with his pro-ESCR policies, he is somehow trumpeted as if he were a Man of God on the side of Goodness?
Posted by aristocles | October 20, 2008 9:00 PM
*Groan*
Posted by thebyronicman | October 20, 2008 10:57 PM
Maybe Buckley dislikes Palin because she winks more than he does. Only a little.
Posted by Tom Wilson | October 24, 2008 12:46 PM