Perhaps it is time for his successors-in-interest to purge the magazine and its on-line companion of the equally unsavory elements who have over time found a home there; specifically, the elitist urban haute-bourgeoisie types who all went to the same prep schools, wear the same designer clothes, frequent the same bistros, and live in the same rent-controlled enclaves in Manhattan.
These people are to my ears increasingly indistinguishable from their liberal cohorts in their choice of interests and attitudes, and it is no surprise that they see qualities in Barack Obama that resonate powerfully with them. He is essentially one of them. A flinty Arizonan war hero and an Alaskan hockey mom do nothing for them because they do not know, have never known and will never know people like that anywhere in the cool cloisters of their privileged lives.
Buckley, Sr. was presumed by many to be a natural elitist by virtue of his upbringing, and in some ways he certainly was, but from what I have seen and read, he lived a life of exceptional variety and identified well with people of backgrounds and interests far different from his own. The fact that he wrote about them convincingly is proof enough.
It would likely make WFB sad to have to kick his own son off the team, so to speak, but he loved his magazine dearly and and was fiercely protective of it. In my opinion, the current editor ought to decide how much he loves it, too.
Dang, that is so dead on, a brilliant observation.
I've always respected C Buckley's writing, but I've always sensed that he was at best a political moderate who was trying not to offend conservatives. He proclaimed his atheism years ago, and it's not the Rand-type rationalist style atheism but more the "religion is icky" type atheism.
Hang out with the cocktail party set and you eventually get sucked in, I guess . . . let's not forget his little urination match with Tom Clancy after Clancy's Jack Ryan/Japan book. Like many elitists, he doesn't understand people who didn't get into the best schools. They're inferiors and, look, wheeee, Obama's an Ivy Leaguer, he's ONE OF US!!!
Ok, so we’ve said the same thing ... you’ve just said it better than I did!
Excellent comment from a reader at National Review’s “The Corner”:
“Reading Buckley’s explanation, I would summarize it as this:
“If we view Obama’s past political alliances as mere cynical manipulation to advance his career and if we view his election policy proposals as just pandering to the electorate, then we can feel good about voting for him for President because of, ah, oh yes, his character.”
There is a key unstated element in this. They are trust fund babies and have lived a gay life (old sense) never having had to work for a living. There are a lot of folks who go to all of those schools, have to work hard all of their lives, and become solid and productive citizens.