Time Writer Sneers at William F. Buckley Jr.

NewsBusters ^ | February 28, 2008 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

It looks like Time magazine has dispensed with the quaint custom of showing at least a little respect for the recently deceased. This story by Richard Corliss begins a long sneer in the direction of William F. Buckley, Jr. starting with its very title, "William F. Buckley: Mandarin of Right-Wing TV." From that low point, Corliss continues his descent into his ill-mannered septic tank as he blames Buckley for inspiring what Corliss describes as "partisan political harangue as infotainment" following an appearance on the Jack Paar show in 1962:

Few viewers realized that those two evenings 46 years ago would birth a durable TV genre: the partisan political harangue as infotainment. The Left, in Vidal's image, never took hold, but Buckley soon set up shop at PBS, of all places, hosting the primordial political chat show Firing Line. From that, and from Buckley's blithe, castrating wit, a horde of right-wing radio spielers and Fox News ideologues, not to mention the Manichean shouters on The McLaughlin Report and many a Sunday panel show.

Corliss continues his attack on Buckley by suggesting that he was a trickster whose goal was to win a debate at all costs:

His manner suggested that he was 100% right — right as in correct — and all who opposed him were fools or brigands. It's an old debater's trick, and he was the master debater. Like another '60s icon, Vince Lombardi, he believed that winning was the only thing. Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.

How about the trick of attacking an opponent when he is no longer alive to answer back, Corliss? The poison pen Time writer continues his attack upon the recently deceased by suggesting that Buckley inspired the right to win in the battle of ideas with mere showmanship:

For a while, the tactic didn't win Buckley many adherents. But it worked in the long run. As the conservative movement took hold, thanks in large part to his biweekly magazine National Review, conservatives began to speak out more forcefully, belligerently, confidently. By the '80s they had most of the smarties, while liberals still wallowed in position-paper platitudes. What had the right learned from Buckley? The importance of showmanship.

Corliss, when not kicking dirt into Buckley's grave, takes a few potshots at other conservatives such as by mischaracterizing Rush Limbaugh as some mere loudmouthed redneck:

None, though, had Buckley's strangely seductive, amusingly upper-class persona. In tone and aplomb, he was Leslie Howard to Rush Limbaugh's Larry the Cable Guy, a caviar-and-truffles type to Sean Hannity's Lunchpail Joe. In that sense, Buckley was a throwback even before the 1960s, to a breed of would-be royalists stranded in the tight-lipped New World. The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley's Edward VIII airs — and a pleasant anachronism in his later career as conservative elder statesman, his orotundity drowned out by the noise of the Limbaughs.

Corliss concludes with a parting "right-wing" shot at Buckley:

But that only proved Buckley's importance as a political and cultural innovator. His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn't been successful in creating it.

One can't help but wonder if William F. Buckley is somewhere out there, reading the Corliss hit piece with bemusement. An impish grin on his face and a twinkle in his eyes as he prepares to deliver a devasting Buckleyan riposte with his "ear-catching right-wing eloquence."

[PJ-Comix]

Talk about bad taste. Corliss just could wait to take a potshot at Buckley the moment he died.

[wretchard]

The fact the Left hates him is the greatest tribute to his effectiveness.

[mkjessup]

Corliss doesn’t even rise to the level of the last and final handful of toilet paper that Bill Buckley used to wipe his butt.

Rest in Peace WFB!

[Rumplemeyer]

A good measure of your caricature is, who are your enemies.

[Hans]

Poor Time magazine. I last subscribed 20 years ago, last
bought a copy two years ago.

[padre35]

Ahh, so the author managed to open his Thesaurus program and take potshots at his betters behind the mask of some MSM rag that is just as likely to display the scribbles of a bitter man next to an advertisement for Rogaine or Viagra.

How appropriate that the two afflictions that infest this sort have their treatment displayed next to such low brow venom.

[saganite]

Pretty much the same type of vitriol was written when Ayn Rand died. The left has zero class.

[watsonfellow]

It gets worse.

Corlis wrote for National Review.

Go figure.

[WrightOnTarget]

Yes, Buckley is probably up there grinning at this tripe. If Buckley managed to laugh off the following review by Frank Ashburn of "God and Man at Yale"... "The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face." ... then he can laugh off that classless Time dweeb.

[Hans]

It has become a thin husk of its former self. A little
leftwing rag.

[y6162]

“Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.”

Sounds about right to me. Wish more Republican candidates had the instinct to go for the jugular.

Interesting this guy is neither charming or crushing. Must be jealous.

[rbmillerjr]

Yeah, I’ll bet if somebody does a google on this writer you can find tribute articles singing the high praises of Alger Hiss though lmao.

I’d do it but I’m working.

[Mr. Lucky]

You would find Charmin so much more satisfying.

[Jane Austen]

Worse than bad taste.

[andy58-in-nh]

A life well lived, richly shared, and deeply enjoyed is an affront to other men poor of spirit and shallow of soul. It is evident that Corliss resents Mr. Buckley for the success and adulation he craves for himself, but will never achieve.

[SE Mom]

Fascinating. Richard Corliss is apparently incapable of attacking WFB on the merit of his arguments over the years..so instead attacks him on his style..

I’ll speculate the reason is -Corliss cannot grasp the principles Buckley so ardently defended.

[JeanLM]

Two comments: 1. Corliss takes issue with Buckley’s style; not the substance of his principles, as is typical of the left. 2. Buckley’s passing will probably not be as noteworthy to the MSM as Heath Ledger’s, in terms of length and breadth of coverage. To me this is how far we’ve moved significant events out and entertainment values into the popular news media.

[Republic of Texas]

“Hi Mr. Corliss, this is William F. Buckley’s jock. Oh, you can’t carry it, I just wanted you to see it”.

[Rummyfan]

His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn't been successful in creating it.

What the heck is Corliss even trying to say here?

[Mac from Cleveland]

Corliss isn’t fit to shine Buckley’s shoes.

In the article, Corliss called Buckley a “master debater”- Get it? har de har har-I’d expect that type of double-entendre from the National Lampoon, not Time Magazine.

Even if he disagreed with Buckley, surely he could have been civil under the circumstances. There was an old journalist who was a fearsome opponent of those he disagreed with, but who never unfairly smeared any old enemy after their death, saying, when people asked why he showed such restraint: “When the Good Lord lays His hand upon a man, I take mine off”.