No offense, Jamie, but a heartfelt memorial to Buckley would be more meaningful coming from someone else at TNR, like "the editors" or TRB or one of the old (left-leaning) guard in the Diarist.  I guess you could not wait.

Buckley was indeed a verbal artist, and a champion debator.  Much as I disagreed with him, I'm glad I was around to see him in action all these years.

What I miss most about Buckley is how, on his Firing Line show, he let liberals actually get their point across.  He did not shout them down, which is why the top liberal thinkers would come on and participate.  Contrast that with Limbaugh, Hannity, and Cunningham.  So I, a solid liberal, will agree with a central aspect of Buckley's conservatism, which is that history is not on some ultimate march toward progress.  History is a product of human actions and decisions, which can lead to either bettor or worse conditions. The recent history of the conservative movement shows that the movement is way behind where it was when Buckley was in his prime in the mid 60's to late 70's.

RIP great man.

"But mere partisanship ought not prevent one from relishing Buckley's intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language."

You mean, like this paragraph he wrote in 1957 in National Review?

"The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal— is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

Let's not jump on Jamie, that was a classy post.  RIP, Buckley.

Also, LDuncan nails it.

The guy loved his syllables, that's for sure.

'Course, some folks use big words because they're the right words to use, and others use 'em like you'd use sandbags, piling them together against the rising creek, the angry wet unknown, that threatens to overflow its banks and breach your threshhold.

I always got the sense that, in Buckley's case, it was a little of both.

A multi-faceted man; an ambiguous legacy. WFB purged the American conservative movement of John Birch paranoids, but he didn't purge it of race-manipulators. Had he and his magazine embraced the civil rights movement, we'd be living in a very different country today. Pity or shame, take your pick.

Words are useful for two things: conveying meaning and obfuscating it.  Big words are especially useful for both those tasks.

"But mere partisanship ought not prevent one from relishing Buckley's intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language."

Not "voluminous" enough, apparently.

When even your opponents pause and reflect upon your graciousness and intellect, you know you've made an impact that goes far beyond mere partisan politics. The conservative movement can never repay the debt it owes William F. Buckley for giving us the

Another weird aspect of Buckley was the affectation of a kind of High Church Toryism mingled with hip-hip-hoorays ("say a prayer for Father Mike!") for that most un-American of creeds, Catholicism. National Review was filled with little cheerleaders, east european crazies, maniacally jesuitical types with CIA ties, and assorted litttle Buckleyite hangers-on (the contemporary version of this is on display in the nonstop vapidities of corner.nationalreview.com's "K-Lo.").

All very strange in a gung-ho **American** conservative movement. The only reason it worked, I think, was that the old protestant midwestern/southern Right found Catholics and the Church-- especially after 1979-- a useful ally in 1) the Cold War and 2) presidential elections.

Not really sustainable any more, I'd say. National Review post-Buckley is now a grab-bag of postures and faiths, from atheistic-scientistic-semi-racist John Derbyshire to Sr. Katharine Elephant to evangelicals and jews and recovering drug addicts converted to Catholicism....

William F. Buckley Jr. passed away earlier today. Almost a year ago, Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of The

I hate to be that crank who starts shrilling after a respectful obituary, but I did not find Buckley "disarming."

If the government had followed Buckley's advice and "tattooed the buttocks" of AIDS sufferers, Buckley would now be receiving the kinds of obits typically reserved for Neo-Nazis and the like. When AIDS patients -- and gay men generally -- were widely demonized and feared, Buckley was only too happy to pile on in a cruel and bigoted way.

I agree with LDuncan, and today at least, shall not list words written 50 years ago as evidence of his ultimate character. He had manners, which has to count for something, so today so shall I. RIP

williamyard, great post.

I was never a particular fan of WFB, but I agree he will go down as a towering figure on the American Right. He made conservatism respectable, even among the intellectuals.  And NR has had an impact over the years as well.

RIP, WFB.

My very first memory of Mike Kinsley was on Firing Line.  I thought, Wow, he doesn't sound like a conservative, what's he doing there?  The answer, of course, was that what Buckley appreciated most was brilliance.  He suffered fools graciously, though assholes less so, e.g. his famous exchange with Gore Vidal.

But, as intimidatingly erudite as it was, Buckley's conservatism was still problematic for me.  Someone who takes "standing astride history and yelling Stop!' as a motto is not someone I want to order my world.

@ ratnerstar:

I don't think huntlib was jumping on James Kirchick.

The fact is, the bruises left by racist and bigoted rhetoric don't magically vanish just because the speaker dies. When Buckley could have been dedicating his intelligence and energy to ending lynch-mob terrorism in the south, he was instead offering himself as an apologist for American apartheid.

Buckley was loquacious and lively; he was an interesting talk show guest; he was a character, and a good sport. It's fine to point all of that out, and it's fine to mention, also, that he was a bigot.

The people who suffer the effects of bigotry tend to remember that stuff. Should they be scolded for their bad taste in remembering it now?

Ha -- sorry: last comment on this, I swear.

It's also worth mentioning that Buckley advocated, in a passionate and very serious way, that blacks should not be permitted to vote.

"Amidst the shouting matches, spin, and ad hominem attacks that dominate our political debate today, it's difficult to remember that a man like Buckley and forums such as Firing Line ever existed."

You realize that you're one of those who make it "difficult to remember that a man like Buckley and forums such as Firing Line ever existed," right Jamie?

Can anyone tell me what, if anything, Buckley had to say about his civil rights stance later in his life? I've never seen him revisit the issue, or have anyone ask him about it.

Yeah, I'm with the Hungarian on this. Brilliant man, important man, but the quality of one's influence can be seen in one's disciples. One look at the crew over at National Review these days will give you a hint of the quality of Buckley's.

An RIP from liberals is certainly owed to one of liberalism's great adversaries. Anything else, including praise for the work he did or the views he advocated, is not.

Buckley was a flamboyant male cultural icon from the late 1950s-1960s along with his fellow performance artists Norman Mailer, Hugh Hefner, Timothy Leary and Gore Vidal.

But only Buckley commanded huge political influence. And that influence was never used on the right side of the greatest moral and political issue of the 1950s-1960s, civil rights.

IMHO, this cardinal failing-- wrong on the central, earth-shaking issue of his era-- is the most important fact about the man. It trumps his scintillating chats and splendiferous yachts and glittering harpsichord soirees etc.

nb most of the neocons were IIUC on the right side of the civil rights issue. Off the top of my head I can name young Paul Wolfowitz, young Peggy Noonan, young Bill Bennett, probably many others who were Kennedy Dems who strongly supported civil rights.

Given his towering influence on the GOP, Buckley's failure to embrace civil rights was more than a bad call. He missed a chance to detoxify US politics and gave support to the Southern Strategy that has had such disastrous results for the nation ever since.

I agree he would be disappointed in some of the current voices at National Review. Their instant reaction editorial simply highlights how far the magazine has fallen.

Like this last line:

"Our sadness for him, and for us, at his passing is leavened by the hope that he is now with his beloved wife, Patricia, who died last year."

Hope?! If one is going to express a heartfelt expression of two loved ones joining each other in the afterlife, one says "fact" that they have joined each other. Morbidly, I find it amusing that they can only hope that's the case, and wonder what they think the alternative is...

On a purely writerly level, this is another fine outing from Kirchick. Nicely phrased, succinct, and short. Kudos.

But given that Kirchick's oeuvre consists largely of digging out the least savory of a person's writings, statements, or associates, and using them to condemn the target as some kind of cretin to be rejected by all right-thinking people, one would have expected Kirchick on Buckley to be a little less fawning, even in a death notice. I guess Buckley's anti-communism and anti-antisemitism excuse a multitude of sins.

Reading William Buckley's articles in National Review is what first got me interested in politics. I wish I could have met and thanked him for that. Rest in peace.

I agree that Buckley was a valuable, unique conservative voice, a relic really, from a bygone era. But I am surprised that young Jamie, who has an almost extraterrestial capacity to remind readers of even a hint or scintilla of bigotry, doesn't mention the fact that Buckley is, to my mind, one of the few political commentators to ever call someone a "faggot" on live tv. Gore Vidal, if I recall, was the lucky recipient of this pearl of

Buckley's intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language.

Cheerio...

This one makes me chuckle, from the NYT obit:

"For Murray Kempton...the Buckley press conference style called up 'an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus.'”

Jaunty, I mentioned that.  I think it was "you queer" and threatened to punch him out, when Vidal wouldn't stop calling him a cypto-Fascist.  Here's a clip:

www.youtube.com/watch

even worse:  crypto-Nazi!

I'm with KeenSally: I began to watch (or to listen to) Firing Line in 1982, toward the end of my senior year in college. A few months later I was subscribing to National Review, and, until 1990, I read almost every new issue from cover to cover. Buckley's conservatism resonated with the opinions and attitudes that I'd absorbed during my upbringing: vigilance against the Soviet threat, an aversion to an ever-expanding state, and libertarian economics.

When John O'Sullivan took over the editorship of National Review and began to take the magazine in an ugly, nativist direction, I let my subscription lapse. Grad school and its aftermath disabused me of the conservatism I'd embraced and maintained in my 20s and even into my 30s, but my respect and admiration for Buckley never waned, even as my regard for most other American and British conservative figures sank like a lead weight in a pond.  (These days, my views are much closer to those of The Nation than to National Review.)

Buckley, too, I think, changed with the times. The initial AP obituary noted his early disdain for the Beatles, but, still during the 1960s, he changed his opinion and developed an apprecation for their music, even if the cultural resonances of their lyrics and public personae diverged radically from WFB's own sensibilities. That's a benign example, to be sure, but I'm not so sure that he didn't come around to a more accommodating (if not liberal) position on civil rights.

Jamie's right, too: Buckley was a breed apart from today's conservative bomb-throwers. His generation--and that includes Reagan as well, even though he was roughly a decade-and-a-half older--could exemplify a degree of generosity towards their ideological adversaries in this country that few exhibit today.  No, he wasn't consistent, but who is?  He was, however, human.

What lasting lessons did I learn from WFB? Perhaps an enduring suspicion of hubris in all its forms, whether on the left or on the right.  

May he rest in piece.

Mr. Buckley seemed to wear his image with pleasure. It was always interesting to see and hear him wrestle a simple proposition into a kind of obscurity which only the properly privileged can discern. If indeed you disagreed it was only due to a deficiency of some moral of intellectual capacity. And in that regard he was able to extend a kind of generosity to his opponents. It's likely he wore this as a shield.

Very interesting figure. I'm inclined to agree with Yard. As if to run from contingent absolutes by enlisting  the aid of absolute contingencies. Those contingencies and those absolutes couldn't quite make the leap to permeance he seemed to desire. I suspect that it had to do with his basic unease in realms of faith. Rational Catholicism it could be argued is and oxymoron.

Anyway. I often enjoyed his provisional lyricism if not the sentiment that was expressed. RIP indeed. May we all when it comes to to cross the realm.

I'm too young to have seen Firing Line on the television, but if you go to the television museum in Manhattan you can check out old episodes. It's terrifically entertaining, even if the issues discussed are thirty or forty years old. There's a website somewhere that has a bunch of them, too.

Buckley wrote those witty, almost-respectful obits in NR -- I remember reading the ones he wrote for Ayn Rand and John Lindsey in a book of his essays. Sad there isn't another WFB to write one for him. Say what you will about the man, but he's the last of his breed. What a shame. Great man. RIP.

WFB was my hero. After high school the first book I ever read without it being assigned was "God and Man at Yale" followed by "McCarthy and His Enemies" after which I subscribed to "National Review" and became an arch Conservative. I cried like a baby when I got the news in 1964 at my remote Army outpost that Goldwater had been defeated. I  then subscribed also to TNR in an attempt to see how such things as liberals could exist. I'm still a Conservative but only subscribe now to TNR and not NR. I can't explain it.

The passing of conservative icon and National Review founder William F. Buckley has given TNR contributors