I had watched a doc on William Buckley and then your interview with him late in life popped up. Wow. You got as close or closer than Charlie Rose to the human being. As a conservative and a Catholic I so wish I had had one conversation with him. Saw him at Fordham in 1975 or so and I loved his kindness to largely a hostile (though polite) audience. Wonderful watch your interview.
Thanks for stopping by and offering your encouraging comment. There are many more interviews posted already along with my own commentary. Many more coming as well.
Yes, I agree. The reasons why even discussions of what are essentially "conservative" points of view (leaving aside the question of what conservative means) has a lot more to do with the vagaries and depredations of recent political economic thinking, which, to my mind, is constrained by a multitude of hidebound cultural and still, of course, economic forces. I've said it before: there are a lot of very good commentators on the scene - I always thought Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley were two of them, and were people like Buckley, i.e., learned, erudite and more or less willing to take on (almost) all comers. TV and commercial media are in a parlous condition. Fortunately for our youth, they do not rely on commercial media sources or outposts, so there is reason for cautious optimism. The only cavil I have with people like Buckley is that (from what I have reason to believe) they would not subject people like Lewis Powell to the same scrutiny they would a James Baldwin.
@@PaulWolinsky Agreed. I found Buckley would, like most commentators, give those on his “side” a slightly easier ride. He was very capable of representing a viewpoint he disagreed with but, rarely did. When discussing a subject we all reveal our biasses, to a greater or lesser extent. A good example is Mr Chomsky. I respect his great intellect but, it’s one way traffic. In the UK the BBC used to do a good job of presenting both sides of an argument whilst remaining impartial. That has gone now, sadly. They have specific political agendas.
@FranssensM The problem is not necessarily endemic to or inherent in the idea of "the marketplace of ideas." Quite the contrary. I just saw an entry on my FB page about a guy I knew in high school, Larry Atkins, who teaches at Arcadia U. outside of Philadelphia. Larry always talks about the need to be an intelligent consumer of information It has always been that way and always will be; I think the lesson there in at least considering Bill Buckley as someone who 'might' be a valuable guide to society and culture (God and Man at Yale, for starters) is that the "level of discourse" was, while sometimes effulgent or inflated, essentially food for thought. While I take your points about Chomsky, it is very interesting that you make the comparison: Noam Chomsky has all kinds of things to say - as a generative grammatian should. I've consumed only a tiny fragment of Chomsky's corpus, and much of what he says, that there's no difference between Biden and Trump, is certainly not to be tossed off lightly, other than that it's like 94 to 1 or 2 in terms of charges. But you'll take my point. His analysis of the US motives for war in Viet Nam is intriguing, if perhaps somewhat glib, I guess. But Buckley's period - 60's/70's - featured very articulate student protesters and radicals, who are happily still around in many cases. So checks and balances were in place. In my opinion, the biggest irritant is the New York Times. Around the time of the Bork hearings, the Times was quite good, despite being the bully pulpit of many neocons. In a neoliberal context, there is no chance of getting a "liberal education" at just about any level. Clearly, the constraints we face on aforesaid levels of discourse in the world of corporate-controlled media are tightening more and more, while the diversity of opinion in the country (world?) seems to be headed in the opposite direction. I was checking some of my favorite newspaper writers. They are almost all dead. Food for thought, anyone?
Indeed, conservatism in it's simpler sense is just law and order; knowing the difference between right and wrong within the instincts of a properly raised individual. It provides a foundation of loyalty to one's family and nation. As a latter day Crusader, Buckley had all this and more. That some of his strongest supporters were Reagan and Kissinger will ensure that on the eve of America's 250th Centennial, Buckley will secure his heralded place as the definitive conservative of the age in which he lived. Some may not consider this a miracle in itself, but it is a miraculous achievement nonetheless.
Wonderful interview. Mr Buckley is missed, I encourage friends to watch the old clips of Firing Line or grab one of his books in the library of bookstore. Thank you Mr Moore.
By God, I miss this man. I lived through the glory years of WFB and Reagan. I do not think either man would have any reason to support the cult of Trumpism, which is opposite to the conservatism both men advanced in their lifetimes.
You may already know that Bill wrote a piece in 2000 where he talked about Trump's "narcissism." Thanks for posting your comment! Many more interviews and short commentary will be coming.
@@kevinmadden1645It seems to be more common among politicians I have known, but Trump's narcissism is on a different scale, on the level with dictators like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Putin, et al.
Funny you should ask! You may be the first person who has asked me. It's an odd one that has large rings that can easily flip over the paper so that it doesn't bunch up.
No surprise if you have seen some of the other videos that I completely agree. As one author says with a book title by the same name, it just might be The Revenge of the Analog!
Buckley constantly and patiently put himself in the way of ideologies that he perhaps didnt understand , idiots he understood only too well and everything else inbetween in all of the colours and all of the sizes . We owe him a great debt, although I imagine he would be doing it even without the big viewing numbers because he always looks to be having the best time..... Although perhaps sometimes it does look like the best time a sly old tom cat can have slowly torturing a folorn mouse
Buckley didn't become unimportant. People simply became more interested in the trivial -- especially on the Internet. Society in general, as it became more self-absorbed, practically sacralized the trivial as it trivialized the sacred. He and his thoughts are likely not important to you, but that says more about you than him.
This man is so much more important to this world than anyone will ever know!! He gave some of my favorite interviews of some formidable figures of our time!! Thank you so much for the work!!
True. Perhaps there will be some in the upcoming generation. Humor, thoughtfulness, and a willingness to be friends with your political adversaries is a rare trifecta.
What a delightful interview! Mr. Vidal and Mr. Buckley are two figures I've always much admired, so to find new material/media of them is always a treat. Many thanks for the upload Mr. Moore and conducting a fabulous interview.
Due to the amount of lost media on the two, I find myself occasionally searching to see if anything has been discovered. I did so today and lo and behold this interview was the second search result right underneath the Firing Line/Hoover Institution channel :D
Reagan once told him “You didn’t just part the Red Sea, you rolled it back, dried it up, and left exposed for all the world to see the naked desert that is statism “ Of course thousands of people have advocated that a limited government is desirable but it’s hard to name someone else who managed to popularise the notion, such were Buckley’s talents. A truly remarkable man and a wonderful conversation.
I wonder if you're thinking of John Judis, not Hitchens, who mentioned the attraction of opposites with regard to WFB and Vidal, but suggested nothing sexual.
Not sure Hitch would be so presumptuous ? When talking about Vidal he became uncharacteristically tongue tied and was painfully bashful in the mans presence.
@@WintersWar Thank You! A great encouragement to hear that. I spent several months in preparation and am glad that it can find new people here like you on RU-vid!
As a denizen of the European continent born in 1980 I had never heard of Mr Buckley in his own lifetime. I thank your good-self, RU-vid and the Hoover Institution for bringing him to my attention latterly. His interviews with both his friends and others have a value I can hardly express.
When was this interview? Buckley's face is puffy and eczematic, he looks unwell. He slurs a few words, and seems slow to ignite and not so energetic, but is as normally very alert. I wonder if he would have adapted to President Trump or whether he would have deemed Trump as a practical version of an Ayn Rand character? What would he say now about the strife between Ayn Rand atheistic -Jewish concepts of individualism and his own inspiration for the conservative Christian counterpart. . .and did not Reagan like both?
I was privileged to sit in on one of Mr. Buckley's "Firing Line" episodes. This one involved the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. He was under a considerable time restraint -- to catch a plane -- but remained cool and calm in spite of the ticking clock. And funny, yes, the Buckley sense of humor. He's missed and to the end perceptive. He was correct about the mistaken invasion of Iraq.
