Does /his/ like/respect William Buckley? Even if you don't agree with his politics?
(Note to mods: 1. His prime legacy was prior to 25 years ago. 2. He was a historian amongst other things (including being a famous historical conservative talking head) and god forbid we can't talk about that on the history board; and, 3. /pol/are grandchildren who've never heard of him).
>>492800
*manchildren.
>>492800
Yes, possibly my favourite idol
>>492800
>William Buckley
Which of his pabulum do you identify as "history."
Because I'm seeing a lot of right wing political presses and mass market paperbacks.
>>492827
>pabulum
Nice word (no sarcasm, it actually is a nice word) although I'm not sure where to begin considering I know where your stance is already.
At the very risk of sounding 'entry level', I suppose his historical standpoint on the Greek junta when he was arguing with Chomsky.
>>492868
Okay, the standard form for being accepted as a historian is publishing peer reviewed journal articles and monographs in a press. I'm not even shitty at his presses. I do know that Basic and Continuum are famous for publishing books of political opinion (nothing wrong with that). His titles also look nothing like historical titles.
Which of his books were historical monographs.
>>492880
I have to go to work in about 20 mins, but leave it with me. /his/ is a slow enough board.
>>492898
No problem, it is more interesting than many other threads.
>>492827
>Four Reforms: A Guide for the Seventies. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1973. ISBN 9780399111709.
>McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. 1954. ISBN 9780895264725.
>Dialogues in Americanism. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. 1964. ISBN 9780911956146.
>The Fall of the Berlin Wall. Hoboken: Wiley, John & Sons. 2004. ISBN 9780471267362.
>>492954
>Four Reforms: A Guide for the Seventies. .... 1973
Do you see why this isn't a historical monograph?
McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning. .... 1954.
Correspondingly this is another intervention into contemporary politics.
>Dialogues in Americanism. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. 1964.
Very likely to be political advocacy again (not that there's anything wrong with that).
>The Fall of the Berlin Wall. Hoboken: Wiley, John & Sons. 2004. ISBN 9780471267362.
I will be looking into these latter two.
>>492968
I just grabbed some titles from his bibliography that looked overtly history related; the only Buckley I've read is "God and Man at Yale."
Not OP btw.
>>492977
But I hope you got the point about interventions versus histories?
>>492984
Yes.
Are you Jewish by the way?
>>492985
No problems. I'll turn this around sometime tomorrow and give you an opinion. You know my politics, but when it comes to the discipline, a colleague is a colleague.
>>492993
No, friend.
>>492998
Uhuh...
>>492997
Well, at the very least, an argument as to whether Buckley was a true historian or not would make this thread additionally /his/ related.
I guess I can respect him a little but his brand of conservatism is completely outdated and it makes me cringe how establishment conservatives and boomers still hold onto him like he's relevant today.
>>493062
So basically you're saying Buckley is outdated because "It's 2015, I mean seriously!"
>>493191
*2016
>>492800
Buckley could have been one of the most skilled rhetoricians to have ever lived. Certainly in the modern era. He was occasionally dishonest intellectually so he could outmaneuver an opponent but really he did make many excellent points that I feel liberalism has yet to respond to effectively.
Whether or not you like him I think Firing Line was a god-tier program and when watching it to today it's hard not to be envious of a time when political debates on television could be so civil and well informed.
Never read any of his books though as I'm a shitstain millennial born to vacuous times.
>this thread
My God actually civil discourse. You give me hope this board won't be a flaming piece of shit. Thanks for that.
>>493230
What are some of those points?
>>493975
Not that anon, but his critiques of academia were prophetic. He noticed that the IVs were pushing collectivist ideas that were in direct opposition to traditional American "rugged individualism" while he was still in undergrad.
>>493959
Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered.
>>494031
Based.
>>494039
What's based was that William Buckley was personally ashamed of that comment.
>>494054
Publicly ;^)
>>494056
No. He was apparently even more upset about it in private. Not, because Gore Vidal didn't deserve it, but because he was ashamed he contributed to the coursening of public discourse with it.
That's why William Buckley was based, even if you disagree with him.
>>494073
*coarsening
>>494085
Thank you based Buckley :^)
>>493191
No, his brand of conservatism was made to counter communism, not the type of liberalism we have today.
>>494112
>the type of liberalism we have today
>not communism
>>494112
>liberalism means leftism in american politics
How did you manage to fuck this up so much?
>>492993
Not him, but why would that matter?
>>494232
I'm just curious is all.
>>494205
We had a robust socialist movement in the early 20th century. Big business and the Red Scare essentially killed this off, making "socialism" (and its derivatives) a dirty word.
As a result, social democrats started calling themselves "liberals" in the 1930s, with the justification that "classical" liberalism was outdated, and they had updated it for modern needs.
>>494277
It still gets pretty confusing during discussions. If someone calls me a liberal, is he insulting me by taking me for socialist or just reminding me that I am pro economic and social freedom?
Much traditional values
The godfather of cuckservatism. He did everything he could to make himself respectable for his liberal friends. Dissociated himself with McCarthy, condemned racist, purged the Birchers, but he still failed and now American Conservatism is walking towards death, it has acquired the worst of two worlds, it is both a parochial and self-referential movement with no relevancy outside of it's own confines, but it's also divided between the "Establishment" which idolizes Buckley for his attempts at "respectability" and the main base, which frankly would be far better off with a more "Gaullist" kind of conservatism.
>>494950
This.
It speaks volumes that a mediocre intellect and hedonist like Vidal was able to emotionally manipulate Buckley into explosion simply by accusing him of being a crypto-Nazi or some other such nonsense.
The National Review and the neocon elite are facing the long night with the emergence of Trump and his historical irrelevance will become even more apparent.
>>494310
It depends. That's just something you'll have to get over. Words lack inherent meaning, especially in politics. When I see Europeans talk about their politics as if they're more intuitive than ours I roll my eyes.
>>495038
>>494073
>>494054
>>494039
>>494031
>A final footnote, and to my knowledge, not widely, if at all, known. If you look closely at the footage of the 1968 TVcontretemps between WFB and Vidal, you’ll see WFB trying to rise out of his chair at the moment of maximum heat. If you look very closely, you’ll see him physically straining, but something holding him back.
A few days before, he was sailing in Long Island Sound when a Coast Guard cutter zoomed past his sailboat, knocking him to the deck, breaking his collarbone. During the Chicago debates, he was wearing a clavicle brace. It’s possible that the brace prevented the moment from being truly iconic.
From his son's (Christopher Buckley's) Eulogy to Vidal. Good article: https://newrepublic.com/article/105655/christopher-buckley-christopher-buckley-his-fathers-old-nemesis-gore-vidal
>>495295
Interesting article.
There can be no doubt that Vidal's little jab was adolescent and personal by nature, but Buckley engaged in similar underhanded tricks throughout their debates. At one point quoting a letter from Robert Kennedy (Vidal being close with the Kennedy family) slamming Gore in an attempt to get a rise out of him.
In true cuckservative fashion William Buckley let an attack against his moral proclivities goad him into losing his head. Of course, the defeat of the Nazis is the great righteous victory of the Anglo ruling class, unquestioned in its holiness. To equate one with a Nazi is to declare one a heretic in the modern discourse for the tip toeing neocon, so threatening violence is necessary in order to make clear the validity of one's moral superiority.
Surprising one of the very few right-wingers leftists take somewhat seriously, perhaps it's because of his way of speaking which resonated with leftists. I agree with the way he presented himself to the opposing side (if that makes sense) but not entirely with what he stood for. I do believe that if more right-wingers believed in his kind of tact that they would reach a larger audience.
>>496043
>TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE NYYAAAAHHH
Was he really a crypto-fascist?
