Et tu, Buckley?
Christopher Buckley, the son of famed editor, columnist and conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr., is a fine writer and thinker in his own right, but seems to have achieved maximal fame only after slapping many of his father's biggest fans in the face.
Buckley was forced to resign as a columnist with National Review, the magazine his father founded, after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog post on The Daily Beast. The conservative reaction has been predictable: in a follow-up post, Buckley said the comments received at the Beast, an interactive venture backed by Barry Diller, has been running about 7-to-1 in favor, but at National Review it's been more like 700-to-1 against. A sampling of the reaction on Republican website gopusa.com shows many Republicans think Buckley is a communist and a traitor who should be disinherited from the grave; one commenter eloquently described Buckley's endorsement as "intellectual patricide."
But is it really? William F. Buckley, who died last February, was no fan of George W. Bush, whom he didn't regard as a true conservative, and toward the end of his life he seemed deeply dismayed by the influence of the evangelical movement over the Republican Party. Christopher Buckley, who says he was once genuinely fond of John McCain, switched over to Obama in part out of disgust at the way McCain has conducted his campaign, but largely because of his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. "What on earth can [McCain] have been thinking?" Buckley wrote. It seems almost certain that if Buckley's blue-blooded, Yale-educated father were alive today, he would have felt exactly the same way.
* Photo of Christopher Buckley by AP



Those who contend that Willam F. Buckley would be appalled at the actions of his son Christopher apparently hadn’t been following the opinions of the father in his last days very closely. As his last breath drew near William became increasingly disenchanted with what had become of the contemporary consevative movement, to the point that ideologically committed wife Patricia wondered aloud if he was beginning to suffer pangs of senility.
William’s disaffectations weren’t entirely recent. This was his commentary about neoconservatives in 2004: "I think those I know, which is most of them, are bright, informed and idealistic, but that they simply overrate the reach of U.S. power and influence." He came to favor drug legalization, and in an article published December 3, 2007 he advocated banning tobacco use in America. About George W. Bush he said, "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."
In a February 2006 Buckley wrote in the National Review Online, "One cannot doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." The American Conservative observed that Buckley "saw it [Iraq] as a disaster and thought that the conservative movement he had created had in effect committed intellectual suicide by failing to maintain critical distance from the Bush administration...At the end of his life, Buckley believed the movement he made had destroyed itself by supporting the war in Iraq."
Posted by: JJ | October 19, 2008 at 06:51 PM
"What's especially frustrating is that Republicans like Buckley & Chafee held up McCain as "one of the good ones". They finally get a chance to support their guy!"
Right back at ya, Steve-O, absolutely correct. McCain wasn't the conservatives' candidate, he was the 'moderate' and neocon wing's candidate. The conservatives who oppose McCain's immigration stance have long
knownwritten about his hatefulness.Most major media folks thought John McCain was salt of the earth, back when he wasn't running against a very left, works closely with ex-violent radicals [is that mild enough?] charismatic 'progressive' hope, Here's a clue, media peeps, people don't change all that much after their 30th birthday, let alone their 65th. It isn't McCain that changed, its the situation. Now he is sticking it to The One rather than crapping on 'the base', all of the sudden he is nasty, brutish, and short? Right.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 17, 2008 at 08:09 AM
Conservatives are not leaving the Republican Party because it has gone too far right, but because it is no longer a conservative party. The party has turned into an anti-intellect, mean spirited, lowest-common-denominator, populist machine which favors anti-tax, pro-war, fundamentalist religion, and pro-life ideology over competence, intellect, experience, and good governance. C. Buckley has expressed his disgust, as did his father, over eight years of Republican rule that has resulted in the doubling of the national debt, an ill-conceived and ill-waged war, and political corruption via K-street and moral scandal. Don't postulate over what WFB might have thought... watch his last interviews. He consistently expressed a disdain for Bush,religious fundamentalists, and their movement and considered the Iraq war as a disaster. Conservatives are not leaving the Republican Party, the Republican Party has left them.
Posted by: Kyle | October 16, 2008 at 09:41 PM
Mitchell's right. There's very little evidence that a dead man would "probably" support your side. The man can't speak for himself, so please let him rest in peace.
As a Republican who agrees with NRO's Parker I want to follow Buckley. But the man's being silly. He's throwing out 25 years of fondness for McCain because of Sarah Palin. Sorry, not impressed.
This still hurts, though. Won't lie & pretend Chris Buckley doesn't matter.
What's especially frustrating is that Republicans like Buckley & Chafee held up McCain as "one of the good ones". They finally get a chance to support their guy!
And they balk.
Posted by: Steve-O | October 16, 2008 at 07:35 PM
It seems that, when backed into a corner by the poll numbers, certain Republicans are becoming hateful even towards people who were once considered some of "their own".
Statements such as "many Republicans think Buckley is a communist and a traitor who should be disinherited from the grave" and referring to Buckley's endorsement as "intellectual patricide" are very worrying to many of us in this country. We hope that comments like these (and some of those being made at the rallies) don't convince others in this country and around the world that this is not just a minority viewpoint but in fact America is dominated by what McCain called the "fringe" people. Haven't we had enough hate and violence since 9-11? Can't we be respectful towards each other and turn our energy towards fixing the economy, creating jobs, and finding ways to work together in a multi-partisan fashion? This election should be focused on choosing a leader who can take us into the 21st century, rather than what we've had for the past 8 years. It's time for Americans to be able to feel proud of our country once again.
Green Party Member and former soldier
Posted by: Laura | October 16, 2008 at 06:37 PM
I think it is a tragedy! A true American being disenfranchised by Americans. Is it not the American way to think independently?
Posted by: Cheyne | October 16, 2008 at 06:10 PM
The National Review began life as a thinking-man's read (that is: non-partisan.) Now they are firing people for thinking.
Posted by: Jim Riehle | October 16, 2008 at 01:22 PM
To respond to the previous comment, I don't think the article blamed evangelicals for the war, but rather their hijacking of the republican party and it's veering away from true conservative values. Buckley did say about the 100 names how many years ago? Much has changed with the republican party since then. McCain's choices are hardly conservative by Buckley's standards, maybe by Bush's standards but not Buckley's.
I absolutely see why many true conservatives are moving away from the republican party these days, they're not quite democrats but as the right moves further right, the true conservatives have no place to fit in.
Posted by: Anna D | October 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Hmmm. The man's dead, but we know he once said he'd rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phonebook than the Harvard faculty. He was certainly opposed to Harriet Myers, but Supreme Court justice is a technical position, not an executive one that really doesn't require a lot of specialized knowledge. So I think your near certainty is certainly wrong.
Buckley pater certainly had his doubts about George W. Bush and the Iraq war, but I really don't see how evangelicals can be blamed for the wars there or in Afghanistan, other than their continued and inexplicable willingness to serve as cannon fodder. Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, even Dick Cheney are not known to be snake-handling bible thumpers.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 15, 2008 at 03:35 PM