- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
It may be true that no one is indispensable. That is, people come and go, and the world goes on. Perhaps irreplaceable, then, is a better word. Individuals whose unique persona, contributions and impact on events make them one of a kind.
In the past several months, we've seen the passing of two such people, both of whom were my intellectual heroes and mentors. In November, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman died, and earlier this month we lost William F. Buckley, Jr. Friedman described himself as a libertarian; Buckley was a conservative. Friedman was Jewish; Buckley, Catholic. They had different specialties, different agendas and different styles but had much in common and often overlapped on matters of policy and politics.
I read and was greatly influenced by their writings and ideas, and I had the distinct privilege of knowing them personally. They were kind enough to appear on my radio show on several occasions. Those interviews were always a treat. Friedman restored respectability and stature to free-market economics and had a rare gift for explaining economics in common-sense terms that laymen could understand. (My copy of Free to Choose has the unique distinction of being autographed by Milton and his wife and co-author, Rose).
Buckley, more than any other figure, redefined, reshaped and restored conservatism in the second half of the 20th century. I first subscribed to his signature magazine, National Review, in the late 1960s. I haven't missed an issue since. It's been my primer, undergraduate and ongoing post-graduate course in refined conservative thought.
In memory of Bill, I thought I'd recall a few of my favorite Buckley quotes and retorts.
In a column written in 1984, Buckley boldly addressed the use of force as a foreign policy option. In response to the question of whether he would deny that the use of force is only a last resort, he answered: "I not only deny it, I denounce it as a mischievous, dangerous cliche. People who utter it mean, or ought to mean, something else. Force should be resorted to when the absence of force does not effect an imperative national objective and should always be used when less force guards against the use of more force at a later time. A lesser force used against Hitler in 1937 would have prevented the need for greater force used against him beginning in 1941. The difference between the two modes of force is measured by about 45 million lives. Lives lost by using force too late."
Buckley often quoted Willi Shlamm, an ex-communist who profoundly observed, "The trouble with communism is communism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." Buckley recognized that capitalism was an imperfect system practiced by imperfect beings but was, nonetheless, far superior to the evil and inherent incompetence of communism or to any other practical alternative.
Acknowledging human fallibility in any endeavor, he conceded that, "To believe that capitalists will behave honorably just because they are engaged in capitalism is akin to believing that no priest will engage in pedophilia simply because he is a priest."
In a debate on Buckley's PBS Firing Line show in the 1970s, feminist Germaine Greer, denying fundamental differences between the sexes, argued that, "Some women are stronger than some men," to which Buckley countered, "Yes, and some apes are smarter than some people."
Finally, in one of my radio interviews with Bill, in 1983, I sought to parody his legendary vocabulary with a painstakingly contrived (in advance, with much dictionary assistance) tongue-in-cheek question self-consciously laden with multi-syllabic words, to wit: "Mr. Buckley, your supporters regard your style as epideictic, gnomic, perhaps even profluent or perspicuous. Your detractors, however, might contend that your approach leans toward the pleonastic, periphrastic or euphuistic and, in any event, is obstruent to luculent communication. How do you feel about that?" Without hesitation, his modest reply was, "I'm not sure what obstruent means."
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Comments
Posted by Ted_in_Vegas on March 28, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All thinking persons will miss the late Milton Friedman and William Buckley, Jr.
Great minds come by too infrequently and too many average minds pass as great minds because they offer utopian pipe dreams. Neither Friedman nor Buckley can be said to have offered uptopian pipe dreams.
Posted by peterpi on March 28, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm liberal, but I loved reading Will Buckley. I often disagreed with his assertion, but the man sure knew how to put an English sentence together. He knew how to write logically.
So much better than the "Obama's a jerk/McCain's senile/Hillary's shrill and her haircut is absurd" level of debate we have these days that passes for serious discussion.
Posted by Michael on March 28, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not a lot of activity in here today??? I am wondering if many of the "usual suspects" who appear in here every Friday to deride Mike's column when it is about politics and current events even know who Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley were. It is difficult to throw stones or comment at all on 2 men if you don't know of them or their contributions to America and their respective fields of study. My first economics text book at CU in 1979 was written by Milton Friedman - if I am not mistaken on that. He was brilliant and though econ can be as dry as the desert, I found his take exciting and interesting - enough so that I majored in econ. They both will be missed. God bless them for their work and for being Americans.
Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great column, Mike. Regarding favorite quotes, I have often seen the William F. Buckley line used when he was running a somewhat symbolic race against John Lindsay for mayor of New York. When asked what he would do if the won, Buckley replied, "I will demand a recount."
Posted by Eli on March 28, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some Buckley quotes from brainyquote.com I got a kick out of:
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."
"Life can't be all bad when for ten dollars you can buy all the Beethoven sonatas and listen to them for ten years."
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
Posted by SDaedalus on March 29, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Buckley likely died of a broken heart.
He spent a lifetime effectively articulating a coherent conservative philosophy only to see the 'conservative' brand recklessly diluted by the six short years of rudderless incompetence produced by GOP control of both Congress and White House. The defend-at-all-costs rationalizations of the indefensible by self-described conservatives -- politicians, pundits, and yes, blog commenters -- reduced Buckley's coherent vision to an ironic hodge-podge of conflicting slogans and naive sentiments.
Buckley's columns in the recent couple of years were poignant, a bit like the confused dog that catches the bus it was chasing. Conservative domination of the government was achieved…but to what end? Did Buckley’s conservative ideology contain within it the seeds for its own eventual self-destruction, as evidenced by the dismantling of the intellectual framework he built by the political expediency required to acquire and maintain power? Or was the ideology so fragile that it could not effectively withstand the governance demands triggered by the country’s inevitable reflexive reaction to 19 religious fanatics with box-cutters?
In his final months I suspect Buckley understood that instead of leaving a permanent intellectual legacy, he was already being embalmed like Lenin for ceremonial public display -- merely a misused and misunderstood icon for modern conservatives, such as they are.
Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SDaedalus, I wonder if you ever read anything written by William F. Buckley.
Posted by Sean on March 29, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad the modern the Republican Party does not practice what these two "heroes" of the right preached. This is because the modern Republican Party is neither libertarian nor conservative. The modern Republican Party has morphed into the party of the authoritarians. The Republican Party, through its actions rather than its words, have proven themselves time and time again to be willing to use the power of the state to coerce their morals and values onto others; whether those others want it or not. The Republican transgressions against freedom and common sense range from the large, such as in Iraq where they tried to bring about a liberal democratic society out of conservative authorization society, to the small such as your own bedroom where the Republican Party as been an active supporter of anti-sodomy laws geared at consenting adults.
Posted by Gene on March 30, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
. . . so if the Republican Party endorsed sodomy, you would vote Republican?
Posted by Sean on March 30, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah like that would ever happen. This is the same party that is consists of people who are offended by art that has nudity in it. Besides, the Republicans are already creepy enough as it is. They should not be endorsing sodomy any more than they should endorse riding a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact Gene, you are a weirdo for even bringing the subject up.
Posted by SDaedalus on March 30, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene, I wonder if you ever understood anything written by William F. Buckley.
Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Be honest, Sean, you hated Republicans before the Iraq War. Do you really want the Republican Party to practice what Friedman and Buckley preached? You want a small federal government? You want a free market health care system? I believe the term Hillary would describe such a system is "on your own society".
Here's a challenge for you, Sean: name three major policy proposals by Hillary and Obama that are constitutional and does not give government more control. Then, name three major Democrat economic policies that grant more freedom rather take it away.
The Iraq War will be history someday. And virtually no one is prosecuted for sodomy by consenting adults. But, these unconstitutional socialist policies that the liberals have hoisted on us will be with us for a long time. You are angry at the wrong things, my friend.
Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In fact Gene, you are a weirdo for even bringing the subject up." - Sean
Yes, Gene, why did you bring up sodomy? I mean, aside from this one comment by Sean, "the Republican Party as been an active supporter of anti-sodomy laws geared at consenting adults", no one was talking about sodomy.
Posted by Gene on March 30, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Logic does not always apply with these guys. SDaealus did not deny he had never read any William F. Buckley. And Sean, the one who brought it up, seems offended by the implication he may be a single issue voter from down under.
Posted by Sean on March 30, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman have died, the number of articulate "Republicans" has dropped to about eighty, and nobody who appears here counts among that number. Will and Milton must be spinning in their graves at what the Republican Party has become, which is neither conservative nor libertarian. In fact, both wrote extensively of the bastardization of the Republican Party before their respective deaths. Both lamented the fact that the Republican Party is now a theocratic party that will use the power of the state in order to force its morals and its standards onto others. This is neither libertarian nor conservative.
In fact, I would love it if the Republican Party practiced what Friedman and Buckley preached. If the Republican Party came out tomorrow and stated that an adult's body is his or her own and that anti-marijuana laws are an affront to the freedom of an adult, I would change my voter affiliation the day after. That is a little tid-bit that Friedman preached. Friedman also believed in the free movement of capital and labor, something Republicans conveniently forget when they try and hide their xenophobia in their support of the likes of Tancrado. Buckley was all about limited foreign intervention, which is exactly what did not happen in Iraq.
So please spare me your pathetic attempts to defend a pathetic party which has increased the size of the government, the deficit, its intrusions into our private lives and which is so willing to trash free trade when it is their district when it is negatively affected by free trade. Remember, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Republican Party in the eight years of the 21st Century speak of a party that is pathetic and which deserves to be utterly defeated in the next election.
Posted by jconder45 on March 30, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Buckley tried to mate traditional Christianity with modern American capitalism. The two are antithetical, and that is becoming clearer by the day.
Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sean,
Do you have any idea idiotic you sound. The very policies for which you abhor the Republican Party, are the same policies favored by the Democrats. Does Hillary or Obama favor legalizing marijuana? Does Hillary and Obama favor free trade? Does Hillary or Obama want to legalize gay marriage? Does Hillary or Obama want to increase the size of the federal budget? Ask yourself those questions. Then answer my questions to you on 5:47pm.
Your values are all out of whack. You sound like a 20-something college student. Are you really that worried about anti-sodomy and anti-marijuana laws? There are much bigger issues than that, my friend.
Perhaps, someday when you settle down with your wife (or domestic partner), when you buy a house, when you have a career, maybe even if you have or adopt kids; issues like low taxes, national security, and traditional family values will mean more to you than getting high and engaging in sodomy.
I do not know how old you are, Sean; time does not always bring on manhood on a fixed schedule. But, I think it is time you start asking yourself if your thoughts are those of a boy or a man.
Reread my 5:47pm post and try to answer my questions.
Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How so, jconder45?
Posted by jconder45 on March 31, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John_II: Well, on a theoretical level, capitalism as expounded by Adama Smith is materialistic, and Christianity is not. Capitalism degrades all non-economic values, such as family, altruism, cooperation, and spiritual pursuits, which are values which Christianity holds dear. On a practical level, we can see this playing out. Under our corporate capitalist culture, which has dominated for 50 years or so, the traditional family has been irreparably damaged, our society at large is dominated by greed, self-seeking and corruption. Every aspect of human existence, including sex, has been turned into a product to be packaged and marketed (porn). Our culture has become hedonistic and shallow. Respect for any kind of noneconomic authority, from parents to teachers to religious, has been undercut. How's that for starters?
Posted by John_II on March 31, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jconder45,
The problems you listed are due to a lack of Christian values, not an increase in "corporate capitalist culture". Corporations only sell what people will buy. How can a corporation degrade a good Christian family?
You have aligned the wrong set of data. Yes, our culture has become degraded by hedonism, porn, and poor taste. But, instead of aligning that trend with the trend of capitalism, you should try aligning it with the rise of liberalism. All of the social ills you listed can be traced to the 60's.
Posted by Gene on March 31, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jconder45 says". . . our corporate capitalist culture, which has dominated for 50 years or so, the traditional family has been irreparably damaged, our society at large is dominated by greed, self-seeking and corruption. Every aspect of human existence, including sex, ". . . WOW where do you get this stuff? This will be too easy for you, John_II. I do not have the ability or patience delve into this type of bilge.
Posted by jconder45 on March 31, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John_II: All traceable to the 60s? Bull----. Playboy magazine was founded in 1954. The James Bond novels with a philandering hero and female characters such as "Pussy Galore", were popular in the 50s and early 60s, before the onset of your dreaded "liberalism". As to how a corporation can undermine the family, how about demanding 70 work weeks from its employees, how about marketing all kinds of useless products to the "youth market", over the heads of the parents, how about constantly telling people how they need bigger faster cars, more material possessions, telling guys how they need this or that product to score with women. Read some CS Lewis: a truly Christian economy would be "socialistic" compared to Britain's (and America's), it would not, for example, depend for its existence on "silly products and even sillier advertisements to sell them." (the paraphrase and direct quote are from *Mere Christiniatiy* which I don't have in front of me right now). Open your eyes.
Posted by jconder45 on March 31, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene- where do I get it from? Uh, the reality we live in. Where you live, Mars?
Posted by John_II on March 31, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jconder45,
My eyes are open. And I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis. Yes, corporations tell us a lot of things. The Devil also tempted Jesus with many things.
Christianity and capitalism are not incompatible. Actually, I am arguing that we need the former to keep the latter in check. Think about it: what can a corporation do to a good Christian? Tempt him? Sure. Move him? Never. Capitalism will exist in whatever world we create for it. Set up a world of secular materialists, and capitalism will respond to that. Create a world modest Christians values and capitalism will adjust to that.
I also think you are greatly exaggerating the negative aspects of capitalism. Yes, there are companies that tell me what they need to score with women; so what? Yes, there are silly products and sillier advertisements; so what? No big deal. Capitalism has also created many beneficial products like cures for diseases, medical equipment, abundance of food, and let us not forget the book industry which still prints C.S. Lewis books.
Finally, do not forget that there are plenty of people who build those bigger and faster cars. If I buy a car, my money gets distributed to other people. If you think about it, that is a form of Christian values. Instead of sitting on my wealth, I distribute it to others. The factory worker is able to buy a home for his family, thereby distributing his income to construction workers, all because people chose to buy faster American-made cars. We all work for our income and we all distribute that income to others. That sounds like Christian values to me. Or, would you prefer I stuff my money under my bed, and keep it out of circulation?
Posted by Gene on March 31, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jconder45;
If you have a problem with a free society, try going to live in some communist society and see if your religion can be practiced with all the freedoms you have here. There would be no evil corporations. You may be happy there, I wouldn't be.
Posted by oatis on March 31, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
William the Warrior: Rest in Peace.
As certainly as nothing uttered nor thought by Buckley ever bore serious attention ( among other things, as we all know, he stood AGAINST the speedy acquisition of "Full Rights for Negroes" during the 1960's, thought the right to collective bargaining was tantamount to Communism, and thought that laws against discrimination in the workplace placed unfair hardship on employers)he WAS a kick in the rear to listen to. Born into vast wealth, he chose the media as his hobby: if he'd settled for polo or yachting we would've missed the show.
The latter-day wackos (Limbaugh,Coulter, et al) don't hold a candle!
Posted by Gene on March 31, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oatis,
What is the source of your statements?
Posted by jconder45 on March 31, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene- American capitalism or atheistic communism- that is known as a false dilemma.
Posted by oatis on March 31, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene: As to the appraisal of the ineptitude of modern right-wing commentary, the "hold a candle" comment is my own considered opinion.
As to William F.Buckley's pedigree as a New England patrician, this is common knowledge--and detailed in numerous obitiaries.
On the subject of Buckley's viewpoints, the Internet is rich in sources...mostly conservative..in which you will find quoted his writings on the few subjects I mention above, as well as many opinions even MORE outrageous.
Give it a Google!
Posted by jconder45 on March 31, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John_II- you say "so what"? I'm at a loss. Do you believe that Christians cannot be tempted to fall into sin, or that if they do fall, it's no big deal? That's a different Christianity than mine (and Lewis's).
And noncapitalist economies are quite capable of printing books.
Posted by Gene on April 1, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oatis,
Thanks for being so forthcoming about your sources. As a William F. Buckley admirer but not expert on everything he said, your quote seemed suspect. As the old saying goes, 'don't believe everything you read in the newspaper' now is even more relevant with the internet. Really, 'don't believe everything you read on the internet.' It seems your preconceived ideas of a conservative, coupled with a hasty Google search for has led to your opinion statement that is not worth much, even to you, I might add.
Posted by Gene on April 1, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jconder Jaconder
This started with your . . . "Buckley tried to mate traditional Christianity with modern American capitalism. The two are antithetical, and that is becoming clearer by the day." . . Lets go back to that. When you elaborated, culture and corporations were the problem. Maybe you really don’t have an understanding of William F. Buckley, to start with. For one, he was big on personal freedoms. In fact, he was even one of the first to discuss the magnitude of porn on the internet, not that he supported it. He also discussed how people handled freedom.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.