TNR BLOGS

July 24, 2008 | 10:41 PM
July 24, 2008 | 8:12 PM
July 24, 2008 | 7:07 PM

July 24, 2008 | 6:37 PM
July 24, 2008 | 4:58 PM
July 24, 2008 | 2:31 PM

July 23, 2008 | 7:28 PM
July 23, 2008 | 7:06 PM
July 23, 2008 | 3:04 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
June 19, 2008 | 2:54 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:31 PM
July 23, 2008 | 11:49 AM
July 22, 2008 | 8:06 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.02.2008
James K. Galbraith on Bill Buckley

Marking the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. yesterday, TNR asked James K. Galbraith to share his thoughts on the influential conservative journalist and intellectual. Galbraith--whose father, economist John Kenneth Galbraith, was a close personal friend of Buckley's--is a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin.

What Bill Buckley once said of my father was equally true of him: He was “syntactically pure.” Love of language and of the writer’s craft bound them together, the left pea to the right. That, and their winter migrations to Switzerland, where the Gstaad Papeterie would signal the arrival of each by placing a book in the window, and where Bill parked his car in our garage. Of my father on skis, he wrote somewhere: “Like Charles DeGaulle, in an elevator.”

Dad’s blurbs for his novels would read, “Mr. Buckley has a great talent for fiction, as readers of his columns know.”

In Switzerland Bill wrote, skied, and also painted--mostly seascapes. Once, my mother was present at the Chateau Buckley in Rougemont when Marc Chagall was visiting; Bill offered him a studio tour. Chagall uttered just two words: “poor paint.”

Back in Connecticut, just before my first wedding, Bill and Pat invited us to dinner. Over desert, the subject of a present came up. “I can give you a toaster,” he said, “or a case of this wine.” A Margaux. We disappeared into the cellar, and I emerged not only with that on one shoulder, but with an almost equally nice Pauillac on the other. Pat’s voice was then heard, “You’re not giving him two, are you darling, after he called you depraved?”

In 1986, E.J. Dionne quoted me on Reagan’s Tax Reform Act (which I favored), pumping me up by noting that I was “associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party.” Buckley took the cue: “James K. Galbraith, who according to EJ Dionne Jr. of The New York Times, is ‘associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party'...” I wrote to say that his exposé of my associations had not reached Texas in time to block my tenure. The reply: “I am shattered. But the next time you’re in Gstaad you may still borrow the car.”

In my father’s declining years, Bill was his most faithful friend. Every two months, he took the train from Stamford, arrived in Cambridge for lunch, and returned the same afternoon. Once after an unsuccessful outing--difficulties of mood and hearing aids--he wrote to my brother Alan that he would not go again. But it was a resolution he did not keep. And the visits went on, despite difficulties with his own health, until the end.

My last words with him were by email--which he used with enthusiasm and approximate spelling. Two months ago, I wrote to say that I’d been invited to give a “Milton Friedman Distinguished Lecture” in Ohio--but that he couldn’t publish on it, because the invitation might be revoked. An immediate response: “Jamie: What a wonderful opportunity to REPENT!!!!!!”

Two weeks ago, deeply afflicted by emphysema, he sent my mother, now 95, roses for Valentine’s Day.

Erudite, funny, generous: Bill Buckley was a magnificent human being, by any standard.

--James K. Galbraith

Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:17 AM with 15 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

blackton said:

My favorite line: Dad’s blurbs for his novels would read, “Mr. Buckley has a great talent for fiction, as readers of his columns know.” And it is a tribute to Buckley he had the wit to let them be printed. Wonderful illustration of friendship, of people not allowing differences of opinion get in the way of good fellowship. Would that we could all be so tolerant.

February 28, 2008 11:56 AM

huntlib said:

"Bill Buckley was a magnificent human being, by any standard."

Or at least, by any standard that a member of the "advanced race" would hold. But probably not by most black people's standards.

These Buckley tributes are really pissing me off. Are we going to get similar tributes when Farrakhan dies? Endless testimonies to his mastery of oratory, charm, and organizational skills?

February 28, 2008 1:11 PM

tkozal said:

Deal with it...hatred is so passe..unless of course, you support Hillary, not Obama....

February 28, 2008 1:30 PM

Political Animal said:

GALBRAITH AND BUCKLEY....Jamie Galbraith has a brief and gracious remembrance of William F. Buckley posted over at the New Republic that's worth a look. I don't myself have anything to say about WFB because, aside from reading God and Man...

February 28, 2008 1:59 PM

huntlib said:

"Hatred is so passe"?

You're right. What's to get worked up about? Jim Crow is so overblown. The white race, the standard bearer of the highest standards of gentility and nobility, always made extra effort to accommodate the lesser races, despite all the problems they caused.

Let me guess. You're white. But how did I know that?

February 28, 2008 2:26 PM

teplukhin2you said:

In his private behavior Buckley appears to have been a magnificent human being, but like many outsized public characters his otherwise fine mind was tainted by some really repellent notions, or maybe instincts would be a better way to put it. As 718-er Kevin Phillips recalled, this East Side rich kid was an insufferable snob. For Buckley as for the Evelyn Waugh crowd, snobbery was more than an affectation; it denoted a world view that mingled upper-class decadence and partying with the aesthetic impulses of the Catholic avant-garde (Eliot, the metaphysical poets, Bellini, harpsichord music etc). For Eliot and Waugh, the revulsion with a vulgar world very easily slid over to anti-semitism and racism (see Eliot's references to "Rachel nee Rabinowitz", Waugh's constant use of "primitive" Africans and nowhites as foils for his world-weary toffs).

This impulse, combined with the globe-trotting servant-coddled rich-kid background, probably explains Buckley's amazingly stupid and reactionary remarks about "White" cultural superiority.

But what made Buckley so strange, and interesting, was that as an American political influencer he was firmly planted in that mainstream of vulgar US culture which Waugh savagely satirized in "The Loved One."  What would Waugh and Eliot have made of Ronald Reagan? Not just the hokey, homespun midwestern political style but the cavalcade of BS issuing from not just the buffoons and scammers who filled his administration but Reagan's cheerleaders at Buckley's magazine?

February 28, 2008 2:56 PM

huntlib said:

teplukhin, very well put.

When I hear people say, "America is a racist country," my first instinct is usually to say, "oh no, you're going too far. There are some racist people here, but they're mostly non-racist..."

But what do you expect? A racist snob dies and the white media, even the left-wing media, falls over itself with tributes to his wit and elegance?

February 28, 2008 3:24 PM

tkozal said:

Hey, clownhuntlib...did you go to the Papercuts at NY Times blogs, like was suggested elsewhere here...to see the man's repentance?

No I thought not, back to Hillary land with you!

February 28, 2008 3:45 PM

The Plank said:

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

February 28, 2008 6:22 PM

Joebill said:

As anyone who ever watched Firing Line must know, Mr. Buckley was not racist.  He was conservative.  He didn't write "superior race."  He wrote "advanced race."  There's a difference, the same as that between developed nations and emerging nations.  It's not genetic; it's cultural, reflected, among other factors, in education and assimilation into the wider society.  He also wrote, "for the time being," implying the black race would catch up, would also become advanced.   His prescription, continued white dominance, was wrong, but his assessment of the position of blacks in the South, in 1957, was not.  Mr. Buckley always respected the facts as he knew them, even when he didn't like them.

February 28, 2008 7:06 PM

gperez- said:

What good can be said of a man who spent his many hereditary gifts on ensuring that those bereft remained as such?

February 28, 2008 7:14 PM

bcbaird said:

"As anyone who ever watched Firing Line must know, Mr. Buckley was not racist.  He was conservative.  He didn't write "superior race."  He wrote "advanced race.""

Uh, preferring one race over another?  Racism.  Generalizing based on race?  Racism.

I'm not in a tizzy over this because A: I've always considered Buckley a polite, erudite man who was, nonetheless, completely full of shit and B: Custom dictates that you downplay the negative aspects of an individual who has recently passed.  This is unfortunate, as I feel even Hitler would get a favorable send off by today's media.

February 28, 2008 9:09 PM

Joebill said:

Dear bcbaird:  Mr. Buckley didn't "prefer" a race.  He was acknowledging historical reality.  He wasn't saying whites were inherently advanced, just in a position of advancement where history, however ugly, had placed them.  The Supreme Court recognized this reality in Brown:  separate but equal was inherently unjust, because equality under conditions of separation was impossible.  Was this decision racist because it generalized about race?

February 29, 2008 12:36 AM

Androscoggin said:

If you think Buckley's views on race circa 1950 make him unworthy of tributes, then you must be far more confident than I that all of your political and social views will be judged kindly by your grandchildren. And he wasn't a racist (even as measured by that one very old quote from NR); he was just a conservative.

To say that "generalizing based on race" makes you a "racist" is self-evidently silly. Find me someone who has never generalized based on race. Racism must refer to something stronger than that.

This argument reminds me of a guy I took a political philosophy course with in college. His comments in class were solely limited to complaining that Locke and Kant were bigoted, sexist, right-wing religious fanatics who didn't care about the environment. When we read Mill on women, he whined that Mill's feminism was actually patriarchal and paternalistic. Maybe so, but if that's your approach to intellectual history, you miss out on some good stuff.

February 29, 2008 8:19 AM

bcbaird said:

"If you think Buckley's views on race circa 1950 make him unworthy of tributes, then you must be far more confident than I that all of your political and social views will be judged kindly by your grandchildren."

This problem can be easily solved by continuing my regimen of avoiding women altogether.

"And he wasn't a racist (even as measured by that one very old quote from NR); he was just a conservative."

So, thinking one group of people doesn't deserve political power based on skin color isn't racist, it's "conservative"?

Good to know, I guess.

February 29, 2008 4:18 PM