Arizona Senator Defeated

The Defeat of Senator Goldwater

by William F. Buckley, Jr.

November 7th, 1964

First-Rate Absurdity

Christopher Buckley, seen here auditioning for Stamford Community Theater's production of Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of Baskervilles

Despite my better judgment I found myself reading the New York Times this afternoon (I promised myself a retreat from reading the Times daily until the election’s conclusion…ah the best laid plans) and discovered a most disturbing headline: ‘Buckley’s Son Leaves National Review’. The horror. Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, the figurative father of modern conservatism and its authoritative journal National Review, has fallen from his literal father’s own political movement. While not the worst news I have received this week, it profoundly illustrates conservatism’s absence of direction and more distressingly of Christopher Buckley’s absence of prudence.

Buckley, the talented satirists of such novels as Thank You for Smoking and Little Green Men, chose to leave National Review following a controversial post (at least among conservatives) on The Daily Beast blog in which he endorsed the election of Barack Obama. Once more, the horror. Explaining in his resignation from National Review Buckley stated: ‘Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs…and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance.’

Regarding his endorsement of Mr. Obama, Buckley insists while remaining a true believer in the pure form of conservatism the intellect and superior writing talent of the Illinois Senator provide an offer he cannot refuse. And what of Obama’s decidedly left wing record? Such is Obama’s intellectual prowess that he will reject his partisan inclinations upon assuming the presidency. Buckley explains:

‘Having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.’

Buckley finds Obama’s two memoirs utterly arousing. ‘I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books.’ I assume Obama also spells 'Genghis Khan' correctly improving upon his already lush writing style. Buckley adds that his endorsement for Obama is not derived from race, given the futility of such logic. And what of the logic of casting a vote due to a candidate’s knack for prose, Mr. Buckley?

Now, what to make of Mr. Buckley’s aforementioned criticism of National Review and Bush-style conservatism? Note the elusive quotation marks surrounding the word conservatism in that sentence. His punctuation acts as a sly device to imply the policies of the Bush administration, often endorsed by National Review, have been anything but conservative.

A problem arises for Mr. Buckley if one considers National Review and George Bush’s fatal flaw to be a lack of adherence to his father’s brand of true conservatism. How then is this reconciled by the election of Barack Obama? In spite of that colossal intellect Buckley finds so titillating, Obama’s record shows nothing but relentless adherence to far left-politics. The very left-politics Buckley admits will fail miserably in addressing the challenges facing the United States. Perhaps it requires Obama’s first-class intellect to deduce how if shrinking from conservatism has fostered America’s present ills, the most radically liberal candidate in a generation will cultivate prosperity.

If Mr. Buckley believes in lieu Obama’s far-left record he will cautiously govern from the center, he can look no further than the 2003 vote on an ill-premised, ill-waged war as an example of bi-partisanship in action.

It brings me little pleasure to disparage the unsound judgment of Christopher Buckley. After all I’ve read three of Buckley’s books, and they are first-rate.

Invasion in DC

This weekend the esteemed essayist of the interweb’s most thought provoking and controversial web log suffered forty-eight hours in a hotbed of leftwing befuddlement, also known as our nation’s capital: Washington DC. Not only did I maneuver the bewildering George Washington parkway successfully enough to penetrate the District of Columbia, additionally I invaded the guest list of a social gathering whose invitees consisted primarily of the loathsome inside-the-beltway sort.

Normally the Nuremberg defendants would sooner find an invitation to such a party before an invitation extended to the scribe of the divisive extremist hate-speech found on Rick’s Café Americain.

Pop-culture essayist Chuck Klosterman brilliantly diagnosed Las Angeles residents as extraordinarily nice people, invariably preferring themselves be the lone subject of conversation. The same could be said of DC residents barring two factors. First, in addition to incessantly discussing themselves (the fashionable neighborhood they currently reside in, their challenging and prestigious master’s program, namedropping various politicians and portraying them as old family friends) they also enjoy chattering endlessly about politics, contriving a bogus insiders perspective. Secondly, they are nasty as fuck.

In addition to being a cesspool of self-importance a second and less odious characteristic of DC is the transient nature of the city. Happily most residents of the city were not born there, so perhaps the DC culture oozes into residents though osmosis. Anyway, the sure fire conversation starter for Washington DC types is to inquire where you are from.

The other reliable ice breaker being, ‘Can you name four historical leaders which produced more turmoil than Bush?’ ‘Hmmm, that’s a toughie. Let’s seem: Franco, Gangues Kahn, Hitler of course, and oooh let’s go with Mussolini…but Bush is a close fifth.’

A young woman perhaps spotting my outsider status at the party invited me into the conversation with the said ‘Where are you from?’ icebreaker. I proudly replied ‘Pittsburgh.’ Responding like an insecure multiculturalists attempting to reassure an African American by insisting they have ‘many black friends,’ she responded, ‘Oh…well I heard a feature regarding Pittsburgh on Fresh Air just the other day!’

I breathed a sigh of relief knowing if I hail from a city worthy of high brow reporting on NPR, I too could achieve the desired approval of DC young professionals.

After establishing where everyone was from, whose master’s degree was in what and which congressman they were close confidants of, the conversation naturally trailed into politics. Following the fallout of Watergate, Hunter Thompson pondered who they would have to hate after Nixon left? Those clamoring for a presidential punching bag were rewarding with eight years of George W. Bush. Now with a mere 3 and a half months left in the Bush Administration it seems Sarah Palin now provides fodder for their unbridled scorn.

Given the attendees of this social gathering all enjoyed a pedigree of prestigious post-graduate academic work I expected nothing short of shrewd analysis into Sarah Palin’s political inadequacies. The first criticism of Palin centered on speculation of whether or not she was indeed the mother or grandmother of her Down syndrome stricken newborn. Next the conversation veered into a criticism of Palin flying from Texas to Alaska while in labor. Both events were worthy of disparaging, conveniently overlooking the occurrence of the latter episode negates the validity of the former.

The second salient criticism of Sarah Palin’s viability for the Vice-Presidency of course involved her contemptuous un-wed and pregnant teenage daughter. The gist of the criticism concluded Palin unabashedly endorses young teenage girls to abundantly engage in unprotected sex, get pregnant, and Heaven forbid: not abort the child.

Another attendee recounted that a friend of theirs is acquainted with a family that is neighbors with Sarah Palin’s parents. Being a mere three parties away from the Palins, she discerned that the family to be quite dysfunctional.

Silently I wondered if the party guests were equally outraged by a certain former president insisting under oath ejaculating on a 21 year old in the Oval Office did not amount to sex…Or a certain presidential candidate funneling money from his Political Action Committee to his mistress and illegitimate child behind the back of his cancer-stricken wife. My guess is no. Besides, these were matters involving their private life. It isn’t our place to judge.

By the grace of God the conversation eventually veered off of the many sins of Sarah Palin and onto scandals concocted by government contractors. Interestingly while discussing various transgressions such as overcharging the government millions for Boeing planes or fighter jets, their collective tone lacked the moral outrage brought out by Sarah Palin. Rather, the DC folk seemed simply exasperated the contractors were witless enough to get caught.

My attendance of the Washing DC young professionals gathering resulted in a keen learning experience. Left-wingers pride themselves on empathy for the middleclass and working families. Their current trite catchphrase citing the concern for ‘Main Street not Wall Street’ best exemplifies this.

The idea a woman lacking their stellar academic records, high profile political connections and swank Washington DC lifestyle could achieve the nomination for vice-president leaves them beside themselves. They are left utterly clueless as to why she resonates with so many of the people they claim to understand. After an evening observing these DC types, their inability to fathom her rise seems quite revealing. What is most revealing: the deep resentment harbored towards those they profess compassion for.