A beautifully edited half century of Bill Buckley.
Athwart History: Half a Century of Polemics, Animadversions,
and Illuminations: A William F. Buckley Jr.
Omnibus
Edited by Linda Bridges and Roger Kimball
(Encounter Books, 550 pages, $29.95)
AT NATIONAL REVIEW'S 25TH ANNIVERSARY PARTY, one month
after Ronald Reagan was elected president, George Will said:
"Before there was Ronald Reagan there was Barry Goldwater, and
before there was Barry Goldwater there was National
Review, and before there was National Review there
was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980
has become a conflagration."
Five years later, at the 30th anniversary party, Ronald Reagan
himself put it this way: "You and I remember a time of the forest
primeval, a time when nightmare and danger reigned and only the
knights of darkness prevailed; when conservatives seemed without a
champion. And then, suddenly riding up through the lists, came our
clipboard-bearing Galahad: ready to take on any challengers in the
critical battle of point and counterpoint. And, with grace and
humor and passion, to raise a standard to which patriots and lovers
of freedom could repair."
That's the Bill Buckley to whom we rallied when the liberal left
dominated the national political and intellectual debate and set
its terms, the Bill Buckley who threw down the gauntlet that was to
change the direction of American social and political history. The
challenge was issued in 1955, coming in the form of a statement of
purpose for the newly launched National Review, announcing
that the magazine "stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time
when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with
those who so urge it."
The statement, which was to become a conservative manifesto and
a founding document of the American conservative movement, laid
down the lines of battle.
National Review is out of place, in the sense that the
United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York
Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is
out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected
conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation....One must
recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid
intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a
number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand
designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal
intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the
ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked
in and took over.
It would be the mission of his new magazine, Buckley wrote, to
take it back: We offer "a position that has not grown old under the
weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered
by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of PhDs in social
architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a
thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical
contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves
us just about the hottest thing in town."
As Daniel Oliver recently observed in TAS, "We need to
reread, perhaps fortnightly, National Review's opening
call, and marvel at its clarity and courage."
The reaction among the liberal mandarins -- and in those days
the liberal/left journals of opinion they controlled exercised an
outsized influence -- was, by any standard, disproportionate. Four
years earlier, in 1951, with the publication of God and Man at
Yale (Gamay, as its publisher Henry Regnery named
it), Buckley had already caused a panic attack among the guardians
of liberal intellectual hegemony. In his excellent introduction to
Athwart History, Roger Kimball describes that reaction:
"Bill's opening credo that 'the duel between Christianity and
atheism is the most important in the world' was simply not to be
borne. His codicil -- 'I further believe that the struggle between
individualism [i.e., conservatism] and collectivism is the same
struggle reproduced on another level' -- elevated disbelief into
rage."
Kimball continues: "The nerve that Bill struck with God and
Man at Yale is still smarting; indeed, it is still throbbing
uncontrollably [as witness] the discrepancy between proclamations
of ‘diversity' on campuses and the practice there of enforcing a
politically correct orthodoxy...there is plenty of room for
'diversity,' so long as you embrace the liberal-left dogma. Diverge
from that dogma and you will find that the rhetoric of diversity
has been replaced by talk of 'prejudice,' 'hate speech,' and the
entire lexicon of liberal denunciation."
True enough. But in a career spanning the second half of what
may have been history's most eventful century, Bill Buckley helped
ensure, at first almost singlehandedly, that opposing voices were
heard above the collectivist cacophony. And when he finally
relinquished command of his magazine and his numerous enterprises,
conservatism, if not triumphant, had been reestablished as a reborn
and vital political and philosophical alternative to the
once-dominant liberal ideology.
In the end, writes George Will in his preface to this volume,
Bill Buckley was "a history-making figure" who "asserted, and then
proved, that a few determined men and women, equipped with sound
ideas, could put paid to all ideas of determinism. They could
command history to halt, step back, and turn right.
"It did. It had no choice."
IN THIS VOLUME, the story of that historic turnabout and the
consequent conservative ascendancy is chronicled through pieces
culled, as the editors tell us, from millions of published words,
spanning nearly six decades, with commentaries on subjects as
diverse as Edward Kennedy and Robert Bork, George Bush and Barack
Obama, Kremlinology and Communist China, the New York
Times and Cuba, rock music and peanut butter, and the debt of
gratitude we owe to Dr. George Washington Carver. The last
anthology Buckley himself assembled, Miles Gone By (2004),
was intended to serve as his "literary autobiography" -- in
Kimball's words, "a cheerful book, a convivial book" intended to
"reflect the depth and variousness of its author's pleasures."
In Athwart History, the editors set out "to reintroduce
the public to the serious, sinewy, occasionally pugnacious side of
Bill Buckley" and, by providing a companion volume to Miles
Gone By, to show us Buckley whole. Kimball credits this
approach to Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont
Review, who had observed that much of Bill's "more trenchant
work" was out of print. "What was needed, he said, was a collection
that represented the intellectual Bill Buckley, Buckley the
polemicist, controversialist, and thinker."
John R. Coyne, Jr. a former White House speech-writer, is co-author with Linda Bridges of Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement (Wiley).
I was a subscriber to NR from 1978 - 2003. As Mr. Buckley faded,
so did their conservatism and their clarity of thought, their
vocabulary, their grammar, their punctuation.
They really, really miss him. So do I. So do we all...
Nolite me conculcare!
Nate| 9.30.10 @ 5:42PM
You're not going to make any friends at Am. Spec. longing for
the days when there were conservatives who possessed wit, clarity
of thought, etc.
Hate to break it to you, Dan, but the new "conservative" way is
to brag about one's ignorance and flaunt one's most zany and
irrational suspicions as badges of honor.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 12:15AM
Rich Lowry is there because he looks gay and can attract Log
Cabin Republicans to NR.
BH| 9.30.10 @ 5:41PM
National Review used to be conservative until the non-cons ( pun
intended)took over. Buckley himself led this betrayal to
principles. It seems it became too important for him to be liked
& mainstream rather than right.Check out Chronicles to see what
NR once was.
Dan Hirsch| 9.29.10 @ 9:45AM
I was a subscriber to NR from 1978 - 2003. As Mr. Buckley faded, so did their conservatism and their clarity of thought, their vocabulary, their grammar, their punctuation.
They really, really miss him. So do I. So do we all...
Nolite me conculcare!
Nate| 9.30.10 @ 5:42PM
You're not going to make any friends at Am. Spec. longing for the days when there were conservatives who possessed wit, clarity of thought, etc.
Hate to break it to you, Dan, but the new "conservative" way is to brag about one's ignorance and flaunt one's most zany and irrational suspicions as badges of honor.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 12:15AM
Rich Lowry is there because he looks gay and can attract Log Cabin Republicans to NR.
BH| 9.30.10 @ 5:41PM
National Review used to be conservative until the non-cons ( pun intended)took over. Buckley himself led this betrayal to principles. It seems it became too important for him to be liked & mainstream rather than right.Check out Chronicles to see what NR once was.