RSS Feed MenuThe current issue of National Review features a symposium on the continuing relevance of Bill Buckley’s famous 1955 editorial in which he pledged to stand athwart History shouting “stop.” The editors invited me to contribute: my response follows below.
It’s a memorable phrase. But think how much worse a place the world would be if Bill Buckley had actually succeeded in calling a stop to history in 1955. Vienna would still be occupied by Soviet troops. The federal government would still regulate prices on everything from natural gas to brokers commissions. Racial segregation would remain American practice. People would continue to die unnecessarily of cigarette smoking or in unseatbelted automobile accidents. The country would be poorer, more regulated, less innovative, less educated. All in all: There’s been a lot of progress since 1955.
And much of that progress is due to the very movement Bill Buckley created. Conservatives talk about tradition. Despite that talk, over the past half century conservatives have mostly worked to change America – and for the better.
No matter how much things improve, however, the predominant conservative outlook remains pessimistic. Buckley’s friend Whittaker Chambers famously said that in moving from communism to conservatism he was leaving the winning for the losing side. Richard Weaver warned that the West had been in more or less uninterrupted decline since the 14th century. James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises, Russell Kirk: few of the founding fathers of modern conservatism were exactly blithe spirits.
Among Bill Buckley’s greatest gifts to conservatism was the gift of his temperament. In life, he was a man of infectious cheerfulness. That cheerfulness shines through in his famous publisher’s letter, which begins by outlining all the reasons that NR cannot succeed and ends by promising that it will. Can we who learned so much from Bill Buckley not learn this as well?
True, the news is mostly bad these days. America is governed by leaders determined to veer far and fast to the left, to build a hugely bigger government and to step back from the struggle against dangerous enemies abroad. Yet for all our problems, our situation is better in almost every way than was the situation of 1955. Let us study history and learn optimism. Stop? No – forward!
Akes // Mar 21, 2009 at 8:22 am
I am constantly hearing from the moderates as from the left that we need to be more inclusive. Well that is just an ignorant statement. Prove to me anywhere you can where the conservative movement has sent anyone away. The problem is we let the media define who we are. To be honest if you could explain conservatism and the progressive movements with out the intellects talking down to either side you would find this country would be conservative. You see contrary to you elitist who keep telling us and any liberal media outlet that we are void of ideas is nothing more than trying to bring conservatism to a halt. If you dont like conservative thinking create you own movement and claim it yours stop trying to water down oars. I personally am against abortion except for rape insets and life of the mother. But I do not believe in forcing the other side to pay with there tax money to support my view. And our tax money should not be paying for abortions. If you are so supportive of it you pay for it and when it comes time for you to answer for your decisions as is with me and anyone else that does not support it . I accept the judgment. Also let us not forget this country is not a democracy it is a Republic the States should be making the decisions for its people not the majority of this country. I am afraid congress is forgetting there responsibilities. As for gay marriage or equal rights for gays. Gays have the same rights I do. That said I do agree that they should be able to get benefits and other privileges as married couples. But gays need to stop trying to hijack marriage that is clearly what the states and there people have been voting against get your own name for it and call it that . Stop being passive aggressive . I have a sister who is gay and we do not agree on anything but we still love each other . I asked her to just stand back and look at my proposal with out trying to make a point that they to may call it marriage . I understand the point but is it worth dividing this country into this group or that group. She reluctantly agreed. As I did with her side but we both concluded that nothing is getting resolved with this type of bitter anger towards on another. I ask again for any proof you have that conservatives are pushing anyone away. Either you agree with our principles or you dont. The ideas of the conservatives should start with those principles and move forward from there . We should not ignore them to just try and appease someone that does not agree with them. They are individuals and they are going to see things there way no matter how much we give up our principles. We have good ideas lets start articulating them. Because clearly hope and change has not come to this country lets step up and make it happen we are Americans we can do anything if we stick to what made this country great. And not just empty slogans and words. Change does not always mean for the better.All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter into another!Gail Sheehy
sinz54 // Mar 21, 2009 at 9:18 am
Akes asks: “Prove to me anywhere you can where the conservative movement has sent anyone away. ” That’s easy. You hard-core right-wingers drove Hispanics away with the anti-Hispanic nativism displayed over the Bush immigration bill. Bush used to get up to 40% of the Hispanic vote when he ran for office. McCain got only 25%, and he got that much only because he publicly repudiated the nativists (and incurred their wrath). A hard-right GOP candidate would have lost over 80% of the Hispanic vote.
sinz54 // Mar 21, 2009 at 9:24 am
Akes says: “I do agree that they [homosexuals] should be able to get benefits and other privileges as married couples.” Right now, that’s not part of the GOP Platform. The Platform doesn’t recognize the special concerns of homosexual citizens at all. There’s nothing about inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, estate planning, etc. In fact, it says: “We call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” The phrasing “equivalent to it” suggests that the GOP is even opposed to civil unions.
midcon // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:45 am
I think part of the problem is that when it comes to marriage, the separation of church and state has failed. Any two people should be permitted to for a union for their economic betterment. What rights and priveleges accrue to one such set of people, accrue to all. Marriage, on the other hand, is a spiritual joining that should be governed by the state and should only benefits that a particular religion is empowered to provide within the bounds of that religion and nowhere else. Whether the state recognizes marriages and allows marriages to have the rights and priveleges of a civil unions is a decision made by governments not by churches. Remember the vow – what God hath joined to together…. Consequently, marriages can only be ended by the church (if a particular religion allows it) and civil unions can only be ended by the government. Only by maintaining strict separation of church and state can we get out this mess. If I church does not permit the marriage of certain categories of people, those people are free to belong to a different church. Each religion is free to choose under what conditions they will recognize a civil union. Everybody wins, church, government, people, even the Socons!
midcon // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:46 am
There were errors in my post – I meant to say that Marriage is a spiritual joining that should NOT be governed by the state and should only have benefits that a particular religion is empowered to provide…