• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Topic: The truth about William F. Buckley

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    The truth about William F. Buckley

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    While we're telling the truth about everyone, here's my contribution.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...nservatism.htm

  2. #2

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    Brady,

    I think this article is a rather poor portrait of Buckley, especially considering it only delves into two minor points of Buckley's thoughts in a 50+ year period. I'm no Buckley fan per se, so if you can find something better than that, I'd be happy to read it with an open mind.

    Wes

  3. #3

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    I think the article makes a pretty good case about Buckley. I mean, just look at what the guy said! So far as I know, he's never recanted. And with close ties with Irving Kristol, there's no denying Kristol, as recently as 1995, plainly and openly endorsed Socialism (in the form of The New Deal) "in principle".

  4. #4

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    I disagree. It sounds like Buckley was discussing the role of the government in combatting communism, or the Soviet Union more specifically. The quote does not imply by any stretch that Buckley advocated fighting communism by adopting marxism. By reaching such a conclusion, I wonder if the author is reading into Buckley's works or if he has an agenda.

    As for Buckley's support of the UN, I also doubt that as an endorsement of global governance, much less marxism. Many conservatives believed the UN had a place in the world during the cold war, though I'm not certain why Buckley supported the UN himself.

    In a larger context, I don't see an extract from a Yale paper and Buckley's opinions on the UN as revealing any real degree of "Truth". As I said, I'm willing to look at any other information you might have. Most of what I know of Buckley is from watching "Firing Line".

  5. #5

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    Well, these words sound pretty un-conservative and anti-Constitution to me:
    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Buckley
    … we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores....
    "..a totalitarian bureaucracy..."!? And many of the other references cited firmly establish the leftist tendencies (to put it mildly) of many of those who Buckley has surrounded himself. Not to mention Buckley's mentor.

    I know it's hard to accept since Buckley is supposed to be the poster boy for orthodox conservatism, but we'd do well to take heed to the words of a self-described Neo-Conservative and see that Buckely, among many of his cohorts, is not a real conservative, he is a neo-con.

  6. #6

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    I've subscribed to National Review since '95 or so and have read almost every article since. NR has it's mix of cons and neo-cons, and often they have writers who write desenting opinions, but for the most part it is still a traditionally conservative publication. NR is pro-life, anti-stem cell and very socially conservative. NR, in my mind, is the voice of WFB.

    I can't account for these quotes, but they don't seem to fit with the opinions WFB has expressed in his articles in NR.

    I will find some contradictory quotes and post them.

    I think there is a problem with the term neo-con. I have not read one single opinion of any pundant that I know to be neo-conservative that supports any social programs. Whether it's right or wrong or whatever, many conservatives who are not religous often side with pro-choicers and pro-stem cell people, and those seem to be the distinguishing differences between the two. Beyond that, in my experience anyway, there is not much difference.
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare

    homepage

  7. #7

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    Well, we've got a pretty large portion (the majority) of our Republican Congress that most certainly DOES support social programs (prescription drug plan? No child left behind? Faith-based initiatives? etc.). That's a complete reversal of the traditional conservative platform. I remember during Reagan that the platform was to abolish the NEA. Now we're going the opposite way!?

  8. #8

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    Brady,

    You're right, those words are anti-conservative, but let's look at the larger context. Post WWII, there was a schism in the conservative movement between those who wanted for the US to go back to isolationism, reduce the DoD, etc. Buckly was asserting that to combat communism in the United States, conservatives would have to embrace the expansion of government to keep a larger standing military, CIA apparatus, etc. His fear was that the reduction of the power of the federal government, even under Truman, would enable the communist forces at work within the US.

    I think the reason why Buckly is labeled the "Father of Modern Conservatism" is that he does believe that there is a role for the govenment to play with regard to the DoD, FBI, CIA, etc. I agree that he is adopting a more "liberal" view (no pun intended) of the scope, depth and breadth of govenment, but this does not equate to supporting marxism or socialism.

    Wes

  9. #9

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    I could accept that, Wes, were it not for the "totalitarian" qualifier.

  10. #10

    Re: The truth about William F. Buckley

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Well, we've got a pretty large portion (the majority) of our Republican Congress that most certainly DOES support social programs (prescription drug plan? No child left behind? Faith-based initiatives? etc.). That's a complete reversal of the traditional conservative platform. I remember during Reagan that the platform was to abolish the NEA. Now we're going the opposite way!?
    I completely agree. I think Bush & many republicans have adopted Clinton's "triangulation" concept to our detriment.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •