Logo for the Sobran's website; home of the FGF E-Package

 William F. Buckley Jr. 
in Perspective

March 11, 2008 
Kevin LambspacerindentWilliam F. Buckley’s death two weeks ago generated the usual avalanche of glowing tributes and commentary. Every major newspaper repeated the usual stale anecdotes of the suave and sophisticated National Review founder and raconteur. Newsweek featured Buckley on the magazine’s cover. The day after Buckley’s death the Washington Post published four separate items on him: a front-page obituary, Henry Allen’s appreciation in the “Style” section, an op-ed by Mona Charen, and a newspaper editorial that credited him for turning a movement that lacked “intellectual respectability” into an “influential conservative intellectual establishment.”

indentAccording to legend, Buckley defined the modern conservative movement. He served as the guiding force in consolidating articulate conservative intellectuals with the launch of National Review in the mid 1950s. In essence, he redefined the Flynn-Taft isolationist Old Right — the post–New Deal Right — that over the years morphed into a politically correct form of conservatism. The gist of recently published commentary suggests that had Buckley not arrived on the scene, the post–New Deal Right would be dominated by bumbling, unsophisticated misfits and deranged kooks!

FGF E-Package offersindentBuckley’s launch of National Review admittedly was a pivotal event for providing an early outlet for the views of an eclectic group of conservative writers. As J. David Hoeveler Jr. notes in American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, “He brought a measure of cohesiveness to a disparate group of dissenters from the liberalism that dominated the American intellectual community.” National Review became an outlet for thoughtful conservative writers, such as Mel Bradford, James Burnham, M. StantonJames J. Kilpatrick, Russell Kirk, Joseph Sobran, and Richard Weaver.

indentHowever, the amorphous and fluid intellectual trajectory of National Review over the years — its inconsistency on civil rights and the immigration issue — ultimately proved problematic for the publication and the larger conservative movement.

indentAs a political force that Buckley helped to forge, the transformation of conservatism from maverick to establishment status compromised principled positions on topics that by today’s standards are beyond taboo for polite society. Controversial or provocative commentary, some of which defined the early contents of National Review, would gradually disappear with the rise of the publication’s celebrity status. Any sustained analysis of racial differences, the impact of racial integration on American society, or the overreach of civil-rights legislation is now rendered beyond the pale.

[Breaker quote for 
William F. Buckley Jr. in Perspective: The "conservative" liberals 
adored]indentOver the course of his life, Buckley had reached celebrity status by recasting “conservatism” in acceptable terms to the arch-egalitarian Left. His ultimate legacy: making “conservatism” chic. Buckley’s embrace of the neoconservatives, the Trotskyite Right, ensured that the “conservative movement” would morph into its present-day Social Democrat status.

indentProof that Buckley attained acceptance by the establishment’s ruling elite is the glowing tributes published in the nation’s leading newspapers, notably the flattering front-page obituaries in the New York Times and Washington Post. These appreciations speak volumes about him and about the fact that the deceased was ideologically not of the “Right” — a “modern conservative” perhaps — but center of “Right” in the traditional sense of the political spectrum. A “conservative” by today’s standards seems to encompass anyone who is to the right of Che Guevara.

indentFor all the sentimental back-slapping of Buckley by conservatives, what exactly are the accomplishments of the conservative movement in the past half-century? A smaller federal government? Fiscal responsibility? The protection and advancement of liberty and freedom? What are the lasting achievements of the conservative movement? An alternative media? Stopping America’s cultural slide to the far Left? The single most important beachhead for liberalism is the vice-like grip on our cultural and social institutions through public education and the mass media. Conservatives have punted to reverse what James Burnham once referred to as the “Suicide of the West.”

indentIt is precisely “Chairman Bill’s” thumbprint on the “conservative movement” that led to intellectual stagnation on a host of critical issues facing the West: mass immigration, multiculturalism, ballooning of the welfare state, racial preferences, and opposition to racial egalitarianism. If preserving one’s cultural and ethnic heritage isn’t a worthy goal of the “conservative” movement, what is? The tepid reaction from conservative quarters to an exploding demographic shift — one that is transforming America’s dominant European roots into a Third World culture — is simply mind-boggling!

indentMarcus Epstein rightly points out on VDARE.com that the “prevailing structure of taboos” has shifted considerably to the Left. Buckley and the modern conservative movement are largely to blame for not resisting this cultural climate, which has festered to the point where men can lose their career for speaking too freely.

indentIn the mid 1950s Richard Weaver once noted in National Review, “Most of us readily admit that this nation owes both its independence and its happiness to the principle of self-determination. That principle is now in danger of being suppressed by a blind zeal for standardization and enforced conformity. To oppose that trend, we do not have to become sectionalists. We need only grant the right of distinct groups to exercise some liberty of choice in the ordering of their social and cultural arrangements. If that liberty is denied, there will be no ground left on which to assert any other liberty.”

indentWeaver’s admonition that it was a mistake for conservatives to drift just to the right of the Left as the country lurched ever leftward culturally and politically was remarkably prescient. This is precisely what has defined the “conservative” agenda over the years. The legacy of American “conservatives” has been to reassure liberals they aren’t really that conservative; and to prove that they really are not bigots and racists they have no intention of conserving our European heritage.

indentThank you, “Chairman Bill,” for this heralded achievement.ntation.

Kevin Lamb

Copyright © 2008 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation.
This column may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation.

Archive of Kevin Lamb’s
“Lamb amongst Wolves” columns

Return to the SOBRANS home page.

FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information.

Search This Site

Search the Web     Search SOBRANS

What’s New?

Articles and Columns by Joe Sobran
 FGF E-Package “Reactionary Utopian” Columns 
  Wanderer column (“Washington Watch”) 
 Essays and Articles | Biography of Joe Sobran | Sobran’s Cynosure 
 The Shakespeare Library | The Hive
 WebLinks | Books by Joe 
 Subscribe to Joe Sobran’s Columns 

Other FGF E-Package Columns and Articles
 Sam Francis Classics | Paul Gottfried, “The Ornery Observer” 
 Mark Wegierski, “View from the North” 
 Chilton Williamson Jr., “At a Distance” 
 Kevin Lamb, “Lamb amongst Wolves” 
 Subscribe to the FGF E-Package 

Products and Gift Ideas
Back to the home page 

Reprinted with permission
This page is copyright © 2008 by The Vere Company
and may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of The Vere Company.