Posted on 06/28/2004 7:31:10 PM PDT by neverdem
In 1954, when Ronald Reagan was still a registered Democrat and host of "General Electric Theater," the 28-year-old William Frank Buckley Jr. decided to start a magazine as a standard-bearer for the fledgling conservative movement. In the 50-year ascent of the American right since then, his publication, National Review, has been its most influential journal and Mr. Buckley has been the magazine's guiding spirit and, until today, controlling shareholder.
Tonight, however, Mr. Buckley, 78, is giving up control. In an interview, he said he planned to relinquish his shares today to a board of trustees he had selected. Among them are his son, the humorist Christopher Buckley; the magazine's president, Thomas L. Rhodes; and Austin Bramwell, a 2000 graduate of Yale and one of the magazine's youngest current contributors.
Mr. Buckley's "divestiture," as he calls it, represents the exit of one of the forefathers of modern conservatism. It is also the latest step in the gradual quieting of one of the most distinctive voices in the business of cultural and political commentary, the writer and editor who founded his magazine on a promise to stand "athwart history, yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it."
In explaining his decision, Mr. Buckley said he had taken some satisfaction in the triumph of conservatism since then, though he expressed some complaints about President Bush's unconservative spending and some retrospective doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq. But his decision, Mr. Buckley said, had more to do with his own mortality.
"The question is choose some point to quit or die onstage, and there wouldn't be any point in that," Mr. Buckley said, recalling his retirement from his television program "Firing Line" a few years ago. "Thought was given and plans were made to proceed with divestiture."
With characteristic playfulness, Mr. Buckley said that he had not disclosed the timing of the hand-over. He plans to give the trustees his shares at a private party tonight at an Italian restaurant near the magazine's East 34th Street office. "It is kind of a big event in my life," he said, sipping a glass of wine over lunch at the same restaurant last week. "I thought I might as well put a little bit of theater in it. When I leave this building a week from now, I will probably feel a little bit different."
Mr. Buckley, whose syndicated column will continue to appear in the magazine, said he did not expect changes in the contents of the magazine. Richard Lowry, the editor, will continue in that job. Mr. Rhodes, president of National Review, will become chairman of the newly formed board of trustees. The trustees will include Evan Galbraith, an executive of Morgan Stanley who was ambassador to France under Mr. Reagan, and Daniel Oliver, who was chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under Mr. Reagan and whose son, Drew Oliver, was an assistant editor at the magazine.
By virtue of his relative youth, Mr. Bramwell is the most notable of the five trustees. "I wanted somebody who is very young and very talented," Mr. Buckley said. "One likes to think in the long term."
A former officer of the Conservative Party of the Yale Political Union, Mr. Bramwell began writing for National Review two years ago as a Harvard law student. At a recent ceremony at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, he presented Mr. Buckley an award for contributions to the conservative movement along with an admiring, perhaps even Buckleyesque, appraisal of Mr. Buckley's literary style.
"By ironic periphrasis, arch understatement and surprising deployment of familiar and of course unfamiliar words, Buckley convinced his opponents that he knew something they did not, and what's more, that he intended to keep the secret from them," Mr. Bramwell said as he presented the award. "Thus did he waken their minds to the possibility that liberalism is not the philosophia ultima but just another item in the baleful catalogue of modern ideologies."
Not everyone shares this assessment of Mr. Buckley's work. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, called Mr. Buckley's sometimes baroque style "genially ridiculous."
Mr. Wieseltier added: "It is a kind of antimodern pretense, but of course he is in fact a completely modern man. His thinking and his writing have all the disadvantages of a happy man. The troubling thing about Bill Buckley's work is how singularly untroubled it is by things."
But Mr. Buckley's voice has always been singular. He was not much older than Mr. Bramwell when he founded National Review. The son of an oilman, Mr. Buckley was already famous for his first book, "God and Man at Yale" (1951). Conservatism in the United States was close to its 20th-century nadir, marked by Dwight D. Eisenhower's defeat of the conservative Robert Taft for the 1952 Republican nomination.
The first issue of National Review appeared in 1955. As Mr. Buckley tells it, he became chief editor in part because deferring to a young man was unthreatening to many venerable contributors. "It was easier to allow them to accept a 29-year-old than to select among themselves who will be boss," he said.
William J. Casey, who later became director of central intelligence under Mr. Reagan, incorporated the magazine. Mr. Buckley retained ownership of all the voting stock. National Review has never made a profit, Mr. Buckley said. It makes up any shortfalls each year with contributions from about 1,000 to 1,500 donors, and every other year it sends a solicitation to its subscribers in an effort to add names to the "A list" of regular donors. Mr. Buckley will continue to write the fund-raising letters, he said.
As for conservatism today, Mr. Buckley said there was a growing debate on the right about how the war in Iraq squared with the traditional conservative conviction that American foreign policy should seek only to protect its vital interests.
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
Asked whether the growth of the federal government over the last four years diminished his enthusiasm for Mr. Bush, he reluctantly acknowledged that it did. "It bothers me enormously," he said. "Should I growl?"
Still, he professed more than a little pride at the country's rightward drift during his years in control of National Review. "We thought to influence conservative thought, which we succeeded in doing," he said.
WFB is an amazing intellectual ! I will never forget all of his interviews with Malcolmn Muggeridge ! They were some of the best interviews of all time !
WFB, thanks for 50 years or so, of rational thought. You helped more than a few of us to make it through the second half of the 20th century. Enjoy your semi-retirement.
I'm actually in the middle of reading WFB Junior's account of the construction of, resistance to, and eventual destruction of the Berlin Wall.
He was definitely a towering influence in my life, especially in my growing appreciation for the conservative perspective on economic, social, political and cultural issues.
One of the best gifts that I've ever received was an annual subscription to "National Review", courtesy of my older sister.
I think that this news calls for a salute of some kind.
Get out your lighters folks!
Saw him in person years ago. I wish him well. He could skewer libs with the best we have until he mellowed (or perhaps tired).
He is even more impressive in person.
Of course this isn't supported with the actual quote and a source. I have my doubts.
I just emailed my friend the same thought. I loved hearing Muggeridge and Buckley discuss religion. They had such clear minds. I had the pleasure of hearing Muggeridge speak many, many years ago. What a gentle soul. I still miss "Firing Line" and especially the political debates. They were very cordial and yet spirited debates.
BTTT
I suppose that you can take any person's brief comments and twist them out of context if you have a specific predetermined agenda in mind before writing a story.
Then again, there have been a lot of conservatives expressing reservations about Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I wouldn't pass judgment until I saw the full text of any sort of interview conducted by the NYT, including all of the quotations that were left on the cutting room floor.
I wish him well. He came out as a conservative when there were hardly any others on the scene. "God and Man at Yale" was a great inaugural book.
That makes two of us! I still think that there's a gaping void in the Saturday morning lineup of PBS programming. As much as I enjoy watching "Uncommon Knowledge", William F. Buckley knew how to do it up right.
He and Warren Steibal really broke the mold when they conceived of that show. I wish that there was something comparable on television today, but there simply isn't. There's no way to get around that fact.
He used to tape all his Firing Line shows in Columbia, SC.
I never knew what his connection to Columbia was.
Now he can sail his yacht beyond the coastal water limits and smoke all the pot he wants.
Happy retirement, Buzz!
That said, it was Rush who became a stalwart for me and brought conservative values alive in a way that WFB could never do. I became a conservative because of WFB and an activist because of Rush. I thank them both.
Okay, so it's a completely different Columbia.
You get the point.
We'll miss you Bill!
I met the man 23 years ago and had the opportunity to question him on some topics while he was visting the University of Rochester.
My father, however, beats me on this hands down - not only did he meet Buckley in the early 60's, but he has an autographed copy of "Rumbles Left and Right".
The only thing that struck me as odd was the weird verbal affectation that you always pick up on television, which didn't seem as prominent when I met him.
Somehow, it just didn't stick out in person.
I really don't know how you get an accent like that from Texas-or from Connecticut for that matter-but other than that, I can't say much negative in the way of W.F.B. Jr.
Like you guys, I met him once 20 years ago -- in a small seminar with him and Nathan Tarcov, and afterwards. Don't remember any of the content of the seminar, but WFB wore the nicest suit this green and easily impressed Midwestern boy had ever seen.
His decline has been difficult to watch for the past decade or so, but one can't help but be grateful for what he did for all of us in his better days. I hope he's able to enjoy a bit of a retirement. It would be well deserved.
Ditto! I remember in the early 70's College days. My husband and I were avid readers. We didn't always have money for food but we never missed a week of NR. My dad was a military Officer my husbands dad was director of Operations Research for a large Gov. Contract Corp that built fighter planes. I think we always had it at home. So did his family. I will always love WFB. I feel very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.