Category Archives: Political Commentary

General, Philosophy, Political Commentary

RIP WFB

23 Comments

While I’m not a conservative, and never have been, I came to appreciate William F. Buckley much more as I grew older and started reading National Review (though not consistently–I’ve never had a subscription) back in the Reagan years. An intellectual giant has passed.

The Corner is (not surprisingly) all WFB all the time right now.

[Update at 2:30 PM]

A tribute from Mario Cuomo:

I was privileged to know William Buckley for more than 20 years and was in fact his opponent in his last public debate.

He may not have been unique. But I have never encountered his match. He was a brilliant, gentle, charming philosopher, seer and advocate.

William Buckley died … but his complicated brilliance in thought and script will survive him for as long as words are read. And words are heard.

[Early evening update]

Bob Poole weighs in, with a libertarian perspective:

By creating National Review in 1955 as a serious, intellectually respectable conservative voice (challenging the New Deal consensus among thinking people), Buckley created space for the development of our movement. He kicked out the racists and conspiracy-mongers from conservatism and embraced Chicago and Austrian economists, introducing a new generation to Hayek, Mises, and Friedman. And thanks to the efforts of NR’s Frank Meyer to promote a “fusion” between economic (free-market) conservatives and social conservatives, Buckley and National Review fostered the growth of a large enough conservative movement to nominate Goldwater for president and ultimately to elect Ronald Reagan.

In many ways, this is a loss for the conservative (and libertarian) movements even greater than that of Reagan. But due to his influence, which is immeasurable, he leaves behind many to pick up and carry the torch for freedom forward.

[Evening update]

Ed Kilgore has further thoughts:

Buckley once said he offered his frequent polemical enemy Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a “plenary indulgence” for his errors after Schlesinger leaned over to him during a discussion of the despoilation of forests and whispered: “Better redwoods than deadwoods.” And that’s certainly how a lot of us on the Left feel about the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr. (see progressive historian Rick Perlstein’s tribute to WFB’s decency and generosity at the Campaign for America’s Future site). He made us laugh, and made us think, and above all, taught us the value of the English language as a deft and infinitely expressive instrument of persuasion. I’ll miss him, and so should you.

It’s a shame that I have to suffer pea-brained feces-flingers in my comments section on the occasion of his passing. That person will clearly never be able to use the English language as an expressive instrument of persuasion, infinitely or otherwise. It’s sad that he’s unable to realize how unpersuasive, and deserving of the contempt of all, that he is. It’s equally sad that he has no sense whatever of shame, no matter how deserving.

[Update early Thursday morning]

The Washington Post says that Buckley will be missed. Well, not by certain scumbags in my comments section, of course. But who cares about them…?

[Update early morning on February 28th]

Here’s a huge compendium of encomia from all points on the political spectrum. Sadly, the only unbonum words that I’ve seen have been expressed in my own comments section. But then, I don’t deliberately go to the wacko leftists web sites.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Stupidest Person In The World

15 Comments

…has to be Keith Olbermann:

But you’ve got to love the staggering ignorance behind his continued insistence that fascists weren’t socialists because they beat other socialists to death. Golly. How many socialists did Stalin kill? Pretty much all of the show trial victims weren’t mere socialists but hardcore Communists. I guess Stalin was anti-Communist. Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives involved the slaughter of Nazis, so I guess by Olbermann’s logic Hitler was anti-Nazi. Most lefties can’t stand Joe Lieberman, I guess they’re anti-Democrat.

Heh.

Political Commentary

No Truth In Labeling

9 Comments

Obama doesn’t want to be called a liberal. Even though his positions seem to be uniformly “liberal” (used here in the modern, statist sense, not the classical sense).

I recall another liberal presidential candidate who didn’t want to be called a “liberal”:

JIM LEHRER: Do you think he successfully painted Dukakis as a liberal?

MS. STEELMAN: Oh, no, the beauty of last night was that he didn’t have to paint at all. Dukakis clearly painted himself as a liberal. His responses were right down the liberal line, every one of them. That was the thing that most of us inside the Bush campaign found most remarkable is that he didn’t even try to move to the center. George Bush, on the other hand, I think has shown himself as a very moderate candidate, a very conservative candidate at the same time, conservative on the issues where the American people believe the Reagan Administration has been successful, interest rates, inflation, economy, and moving forward on other issues where the American people clearly believe we need to have some answers like child care and others. And we think it was a very good debate because we didn’t paint anything. There was no image making. Dukakis is a liberal and it showed. Bush is very much in the mainstream of American values and American opinion. And that showed.

It didn’t work out very well for him.

Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Are Americans Stupid?

18 Comments

Phil Bowermaster has some thoughts:

See how deftly it’s done? Stupid religious Americans, clever “heathen” Europeans. Unfortunately, in the context, this doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. Americans are opposed to stem cell research because we’re ignorant religious bigots. Okay, sure. But we’re opposed to nanotechnology for the same reasons? And GM foods?

GM foods? Now wait a second…a lot of Europeans are opposed to GM foods. I bet they would even say it’s on moral grounds! Yet somehow, they manage to pull that off without being either 1) religious or — more importantly — 2) stupid. Personally, I think being morally opposed to GM foods is kind of stupid, and being “morally” opposed to nanotechnology is idiotic. However, I don’t see how American stupidity is dumber than European stupidity; one may be informed by religious belief, the other by a paranoid superstitious dread of scientific progress. Advantage: Europe? If you say so.

I just hope that Americans aren’t stupid enough to fall for Obama, as the Democrats currently seem to be.