The Cato Institute's David Boaz, author of The Politics of Freedom, looks at the legacy of William F. Buckley, the founder of modern conservatism as an intellectual and political movement "dedicated to individual liberty, limited government, the U.S. Constitution, federalism, the free-market economy and a strong national defense." But, as Boaz writes:
The conservative intellectual movement abandoned its limited-government roots. The neoconservatives, who drifted over from the radical left, brought their commitment to an expansive government intimately involved in shaping the social and economic life of the nation.... The religious right demanded that government impose their social values on the whole country.
These are among the contradictions that confront conservatism today-and "liberalism" has its own fair share, with dedication to civil liberties clashing against its support for expansive government in all its guises, including stifling economic regulation, high taxes, mandated group-based preferences, and (increasingly) counter-productive trade tariffs, along with blocking school choice.
The world is full of grays, and Buckley's religious and generational-based opposition to gay legal equality has to be tempered with his laudable opposition to the expansion of communist totalitarianism around the globe and moves toward socialism in the U.S. It remains for today's defenders of liberty to forge a coherent politics that brings together economic and personal freedom, both at home and abroad.
More. In another recent post, Boaz asks why conservatives now support laws against discrimination based on some characteristics (e.g., race, religion) but not based on others (e.g., sexual orientation). Not so surprisingly, turns out "It's not a matter of logical categories."
25 Comments for “Buckley and Conservatism”
posted by alpha on
If the argument for libertarianism is that it doesn’t suffer from the internal contradictions that affect liberalism and ocnservatism, then it’s an argument that doesn’t work. Libertarianism has these contradictions in an even more acute form.
posted by alpha on
‘ocnservatism.’ That was a typing error – I meant conservatism.
posted by James L on
I have to thank Buckley. It was a New York Times piece of his in the mid 80’s proposing that gay men be branded on the ass in order to stop AIDS that caused in me the first stirrings of righteous indignation and questioning of my own homophobia. A few years later at the age of 26 I finally came out of the closet. Thanks again, Buckley, and wherever you are I hope I’ll never be joining you.
posted by John L on
alpha – Libertarians deny a simple fact of human nature – majorities tend to dislike minorities. The result, if their politics were ever to be put in place, would be a never ending slug fest until the few remaining people would be reduced to living in caves and eating twigs.
posted by Bobby on
Come on, James, you think people go to hell just because they wrote something homophobic? Some sometimes Buckley was mean, true, but who was that gay writer who called him a crypto nazi in the 1960s?
posted by James L on
Bobby- Was it Vidal? Prescient on his part if it was. It must have been Vidal. Gay men are always so much more perspicacious than the run of the mill. Perspicacious – a Buckley word.
posted by Krikey on
A great Buckley quote.
“But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’ ? that is, the Negro revolt . . . . But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us. . . .”
Spoken like a true Conservative crypto-Nazi. The negro revolt, Jesus what a pig. When I meet him in Hell I’ll be sure to sodomize him good and hard.
posted by Rob on
Forget Buckley! Barry Goldwater was a better man of libertarian-conservative principles.
posted by Bobby on
Yes James, it was Vidal. And as long as gays refer to their antagonists as “crypto-nazis” they shouldn’t be shocked when their antagonists return the favor.
Vidal could have defended his arguments without resorting to name-calling.
I agree that Goldwater was a better libertarian, although I wonder how libertarians feel about the fact that Barry wanted to nuke north vietnam? I personally support it, but libertarians don’t seem to like war very much.
posted by Krikey on
I’d rather we nuke Guatemala actually…fuck it, let’s roast all of South American. Ain’t nothing there but brown people and bananas anyway…Jesus knows I wouldn’t miss either of ’em.
posted by Throbert McGee on
“It was a New York Times piece of his in the mid 80’s proposing that gay men be branded on the ass in order to stop AIDS”
Well, admittedly it was ignorant of Buckley to suggest that the warning tattoo should be placed on the ASS, rather than on the cock — given that top-to-bottom transmission of HIV is vastly more likely than bottom-to-top.
posted by Herb Spencer on
Gee, thanks for that clarification, Alpha. I could have sworn I read it as “onanism.”
As for nuking SAmerica, how about just taking out Hugo Chavez instead? Especially now that he’s threatening to go Columbine on Columbia.
WFBuckley was light years ahead of GVidal intellectually and as an author. For all its groundbreaking cachet, ultimately Vidal’s “The City & The Pillar” was nothing more than a cliche, not-so-cryptic sadistic precursor to one of Brett Easton Ellis’ sexual-materialist hack jobs. As Vidal once described himself in one of his few candid comments, he’s “not a very nice person.” We’ve better literary role models elsewhere – PNWarren comes quickest to mind – though “I suppose,” as Buckley might say, Vidal did pave the way a bit. But then, so did Larry Flynt.
posted by Krikey on
Herb: “As for nuking SAmerica, how about just taking out Hugo Chavez instead?”
Typical pansy-ass homosexual rhetoric. What is it with you liberal homos not willing to go all the way. I say cull the herd, kill everyone below the Rio Grande…they are all just terrorists in waiting anyway.
posted by Alpha on
‘Gee, thanks for that clarification, Alpha. I could have sworn I read it as “onanism.”‘
Isn’t it nice, all the sophisticated intellectual discussion one finds here?
posted by Brian Miller on
Libertarians deny a simple fact of human nature – majorities tend to dislike minorities. The result, if their politics were ever to be put in place, would be a never ending slug fest until the few remaining people would be reduced to living in caves and eating twigs.
What a load of nonsense.
Libertarians seek to eliminate the power of government for majorities to oppress minorities, and defend the rights of the individual against collectivist efforts to oppress minorities.
Libertarian societies set limits on the power of majorities to coerce minorities. Leftism, with its fetish for “democracy” (i.e. mob rule) at all costs, and conservatism with its fetish for “tradition” and “democracy” (when it supports that tradition) were the bases of the two most oppressive forms of government on earth — Soviet communism, and European fascism/nazism respectively.
Now I know it’s popular for advocates of failed ideologies like leftism and conservatism to lash out at ideas that work better, but the level of rhetoric on IGF from frustrated lefties and consternated conservatives as of late has been utterly ridiculous (not to mention bereft of facts).
As for Buckley, his death marks a higher-profile example of how society advances. Some people evolve towards greater personal liberty and atone for their past misdeeds. Others, like Buckley, remain resolutely unapologetic for their defense of McCarthyist conservatism, warmongering, and homophobia — yet die and liberate the free market of ideas from the dead weight of their discredited ideology.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, I know this is supposedly a blog working toward a policy arena that is less dominated by the tired, old radical GayLeft or the very small & new GayRight, but to contend, as Boaz does, that the neocons are some cross-over vestigal “radical left” is very, very funny on reflection. And wrong. About as wrong as Boaz’s ending statement of “RIP American conservatism”. What a hoot!
Who does the hateAmerica GayLeft most identify as the DarkLord of the the neocons? Dick Cheney. Whether as Congressman, Pres Ford’s CofS, Haliburton exec or Veep, Cheney was anything but “radical left” at any point in his distinguished career. But today, he is the neocon poster boi.
Pat Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Everett Ladd –all intellectual neocons who forged the movement and term– were anything but lefties… heck, Moynihan was the champion of welfare reform before it was in vogue and the lone voice in JimmineyCricketCarter’s camp for a strong American defense posture.
The trouble with Boaz is that his viewpoint is less informed with a clear understanding of history and more by shorthand leaps in making an argument stick to the wall –in this case, his argument hits the wall and just slides to the bottom.
Limited govt is still a hallmark of conservatives. Lower taxes is still a hallmark of conservatives. What operated in those conservative Congresses and WHs of the 2000’s that Boaz’s notes wasn’t really conservatism… they were pragmatic political operatives mouthing conservativism but acting like drunken sailors in a low class brothel. Come to think of it, exactly like the current Congress of the liberal persuasion.
Boaz misses the reality of Reagan nearly everytime he writes. Reagan used the conservative mantra in order to be different from the long-ruling liberal elite. If conservatives had been ruling during the period of Reagan’s ascendancy to the WH, he would have used the liberal mantra to be different, set apart. In fact, his time as CA Gov was marked by some of the most liberal policies of the period.
Bill Buckley, like Russell Kirk, led the conservatives into the light and made it acceptable to be a conservative. BarryGoldwater, each time he opened his mouth, made everyone but the most reactionary conservative cringe in disbelief.
In a very real way, Buckley helped chase those reactionary conservatives out of the GOP and into the Libertarian Party… where they’re still trying to prove the alien influence of Area 51 on the British monarchy (wink).
posted by Bobby on
“Libertarians seek to eliminate the power of government for majorities to oppress minorities, and defend the rights of the individual against collectivist efforts to oppress minorities.”
—Yes, but libertarians would not support minorities oppressing majorities. Like when the muslims demanded a feet washing system in the Minneapolis airport, funded with public dollars. Or when transexuals demand transexual bathrooms. Or if vegetarians demanded that meat not be served in public schools. Oppression from a minority can be just as bad as oppression from the majority.
posted by ... on
“Libertarians seek to eliminate the power of government for majorities to oppress minorities, and defend the rights of the individual against collectivist efforts to oppress minorities.”
Libertarians oppose government expansion for reasons completely unrelated to relationships between majorities or minorities. They believe the state threats human natural rights, period. However, some of them, like the so-called paleolibertarians, do have a speech that borders conservatives’ histeria. Like some Left-libertarians have noticed, paleolibertarians’ tried to seduce the mainstream – white, Christian, heterosexual, and male – by constantly pitting against minorities and feminists. See Rockwell’s Ron Paul Newsletters.
posted by Jordan on
My favorite part of this article is the part where the author makes excuses for his hero being a horrible bigot, but forgets that he — and every other conservative in the United States — regularly condemns liberals for accepting people in power who are vastly more compassionate and open to the gay movement. That was the best part.
posted by Richard on
Vidal made the comment about Mr. B. after the ‘conservative’ had personally attacked him because of his sexuality. The two men had a long history of political-intellecutal conflict.
Libertarianism seems to be the pent up dreams of rich, white men as their polices would almost always benifit them. Majorities tend to disfavor minorities, businesses tend to seek the most profits.
Their has no been an example of a libertarian society, although the most often cited are not widely seen as moral leaders in human rights; i.e. Chile. Heck, efforts to make a libertarian island fell through as did the recent ‘free state’ project.
posted by Bobby on
Really Richard? What about all the white liberals riding in limousines, in private jets, telling the rest of the country not to drive on SUV’s because of global warming? What about the gigantic house of your hero John Edwards? I’m sure his carbon footprint is the size of a country. Or that college professor who compared the victims of 9/11 to “Little Eichmanns.” He was making $120,000 a year.
posted by BobN on
“Crypto-Nazi” isn’t a slur, it’s an assessment and, at least at the time, on some issues, not way off. Of course, calling Vidal a “faggot” was spot-on (as the Brits say). Each man was right! To his credit, Buckley mellowed with age. Vidal, also to his credit, remains a faggot 😉
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”Really Richard? What about all the white liberals riding in limousines, in private jets, telling the rest of the country not to drive on SUV’s because of global warming? What about the gigantic house of your hero John Edwards? I’m sure his carbon footprint is the size of a country. Or that college professor who compared the victims of 9/11 to “Little Eichmanns.” He was making $120,000 a year.””
It’s so hard to address you without slinging insults at you.
I’m a liberal who tells people that driving SUV’s is stupid. However, like MOST liberals, I don’t have a private jet or a limo. I’ve never even flow because the idea terrifies me. I’ve been cutting energy usage since around this time last year as much as possible, and I recycle and try to reduce waste, etc. etc.
I also live in an apartment, not a huge mansion.
So, I think I have plenty of room to talk, as do most other liberals who aren’t politicians and celebrities, and there are many.
Bobby, you continue to astound me in the worst way possible.
posted by Brian Miller on
While I don’t share Bobby’s penchant for smearing liberals, I do share his amusement for the hypocrisy of liberals in general.
Every liberal I’ve ever known has been an upper-middle class or wealthy white person, always ready to lecture other people on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. from the down-powered window of his/her BMW, Lexus, or (as of late) Prius.
From his/her comfortable expensive apartment or townhome in one of the wealthier sections of San Francisco, Chicago, New York or Boston (shared with an equally liberal, equally-high-income opposite sex partner), he or she will wax rhapsodic about stopping violence in the ghetto.
He’ll lecture you on how poor conditions are in the working class neighborhood you grew up in (not realizing you grew up there) and will condemn you for your “not caring” (even though you’re far more invested there than he/she will ever be). He/she will talk about the volunteer work he/she does every Thanksgiving day, spending almost two hours talking to the homeless before going home to feast over Tofurkey and Whole Foods delights.
She/he will talk endlessly about the importance of diversity, before heading off to his/her office filled with Ivy-educated upper middle class white liberals. She/he will talk endlessly about ending homophobia, despite the fact that the only gay people they know are their neighbors three doors down who they’ve talked to for an hour.
He/she will, of course, bristle at the idea that a sainted liberal like Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Wellstone, etc. were homophobes for supporting anti-gay legislation — but they’ll be ready to call you a racist if you’re not willing to endorse Hamas, or support more welfare spending in your old neighborhood.
They’re the living epitome today of what much of the rest of the world despises in America — aloofness presented as “closeness,” arrogance presented as “compassion,” ignorance presented as “special knowledge,” and hypocrist presented as “tragic circumstances.”
posted by Brian Miller on
Buckley helped chase those reactionary conservatives out of the GOP and into the Libertarian Party… where they’re still trying to prove the alien influence of Area 51 on the British monarchy (wink).
I don’t know about that — I do know, however, that the latest Democratic Party attack on Libertarians was that our party wasn’t willing to allow 9/11 “truther” conspiracy theorists to speak at our last leadership conference.
Apparently, they’re welcome at Democratic Party events, and since they form the core of the Lew Rockwell Republicans, it would appear that the Democrats — not the Libertarians — have a desire to cozy up to those guys.