SubscribeTime Magazine’s Last Licks On Bill Buckley
From the former news magazine known as Time:
William F. Buckley: Mandarin of Right-Wing TV
One night in early 1962, William F. Buckley was Jack Paar’s guest on The Tonight Show. At 36, Buckley had been an infant phenom, writing the book God and Man at Yale (he was pro-God, anti-Yale) and an indulgent biography of Senator Joseph McCarthy. But as a TV personality, he was brand, startling new. Buckley pontificated for perhaps a dozen minutes, and when he left, Paar and his accomplice, Hugh Downs, were nearly apopletic — for Buckley, with his daredevil conservative views, had broken the unspoken rule of calm, liberalesque conversation. The following night, as it happened, the guest was Gore Vidal, as assertive and bombastic on the liberal side as Buckley had been on the Tory. When Vidal departed, Downs formed a circle with his fingers and said that the far left and the far right tended to meet; they were indistinguishable in their radicalism.
Few viewers realized that those two evenings 46 years ago would birth a durable TV genre: the partisan political harangue as infotainment. The Left, in Vidal’s image, never took hold, but Buckley soon set up shop at PBS, of all places, hosting the primordial political chat show Firing Line. From that, and from Buckley’s blithe, castrating wit, a horde of right-wing radio spielers and Fox News ideologues, not to mention the Manichean shouters on The McLaughlin Report and many a Sunday panel show.
Buckley must have known he cut an eccentric figure on TV, as peculiar as Truman Capote or Tiny Tim. He certainly knew how to make the most of it. Whatever people thought of him, they watched him, first with Paar or David Suskind, then on the long-running Firing Line. First he was the token conservative, proud but lonely; then other joined his ranks and he became their paterfamilias.
Here was the Buckley image: a Mandarin figure, chin upraised, tongue occasionally darting out, ready to catch any unwary fly in the vicinity. Sometimes his eyes goggled out, a la Harpo Marx; at other times he closed his eyes and folded his hands, as if in supplication to the god of synonyms (”Please, Roget, instantly grant me a word as eloquent as it is obscure”). His words cascaded out, in periodic sentences with numerous subordinate clauses. They were given a kind of sprung rhythm by his slight, impatient stammer, and delivered in a turn-of-the-century Shakespearean actor’s mid-Atlantic accent, his voice so preposterously mellifluous that it seemed that, even as he was speaking, he had some brandy in the back of his mouth that he needed to evaluate before swallowing it.
Coming of out of the bland ’50s, when President Ike’s demeanor was both genial and baffled, and when the Democrats owned so much of the ideological real estate that they were usually ready to concede minor points, Buckley was the rhetorician as revolutionary. His manner suggested that he was 100% right — right as in correct — and all who opposed him were fools or brigands. It’s an old debater’s trick, and he was the master debater. Like another ’60s icon, Vince Lombardi, he believed that winning was the only thing. Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.
For a while, the tactic didn’t win Buckley many adherents. But it worked in the long run. As the conservative movement took hold, thanks in large part to his biweekly magazine National Review, conservatives began to speak out more forcefully, belligerently, confidently. By the ’80s they had most of the smarties, while liberals still wallowed in position-paper platitudes. What had the right learned from Buckley? The importance of showmanship.
None, though, had Buckley’s strangely seductive, amusingly upper-class persona. In tone and aplomb, he was Leslie Howard to Rush Limbaugh’s Larry the Cable Guy, a caviar-and-truffles type to Sean Hannity’s Lunchpail Joe. In that sense, Buckley was a throwback even before the 1960s, to a breed of would-be royalists stranded in the tight-lipped New World. The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley’s Edward VIII airs — and a pleasant anachronism in his later career as conservative elder statesman, his orotundity drowned out by the noise of the Limbaughs.
But that only proved Buckley’s importance as a political and cultural innovator. His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn’t been successful in creating it.
It of course an inadvertent tribute to Mr. Buckley that Mr. Corliss felt the need to dust off his thesaurus and to try to use unfamiliar words to impress his unfortunate readers.
But as with the rest of the great man’s life, Mr. Corliss has missed the motive behind Mr. Buckley’s use of sometimes seemingly arcane words.
It was not a matter of:
“Please, Roget, instantly grant me a word as eloquent as it is obscure”.
It was in fact just the opposite.
Mr. Buckley believed in using the mot juste, that is, just the right word to more precisely and accurately communicate his thought. A lesson Mr. Corliss could stand to learn.
For accuracy is something that Mr. Corliss clearly has not mastered.
Even his headline makes no sense. Mr. Buckley was not a “Mandarin of right-wing TV.” His show “Firing Line” appeared on PBS, which is quite opposite of right-wing TV.
At most “Firing Line” was a sop to try to help PBS appear to meet the “fairness doctrine,” since both the public airways and public funding were involved in its production.
Perhaps Mr. Corliss meant “progenitor” instead of “Mandarin.” Though it is hard to see where there is any right-wing TV today. Even the Fox News channel would beggar that description in most right-wingers’ eyes.
But vocabulary aside, Mr. Corliss even manages to get his basic facts laughably wrong:
The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley’s Edward VIII airs…
Er, Mr. Buckley lost his mayoral bid to the singularly aristocratic John Vliet Lindsay, whom no one in their right mind would ever describe as “earthy.”
But why bother with getting such details correct when it is so much fun to sneer?
Unfortunately Mr. Corliss, like so many so-called journalists in our modern age, is stupid and yet smug about it.
That is a very unattractive combination. And one that Mr. Buckley would have known just how to skewer.
And he would not need to get out a copy of Roget’s to do so.
Related Articles:
17 Responses to “Time Magazine’s Last Licks On Bill Buckley”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mandarin is capitalized as to suggest that Buckley was Chinese.
WFB was a first-rate intellectual giant at a time when the smart set was enthralled with communism. Since they couldn’t beat him in an argument, they tried to marginalize him for being a snob, which he wasn’t. Although he was born in New York, his father graduated from UT Austin and his mother was also a southerner. His father was a successful international lawyer and oil man and traveled quite a bit; he began his schooling in Paris and London. His first and second languages were Spanish and French, which no doubt contributed to his far ranging use of vocabulary. His ideas transcended language socio-economic class, which is why his legacy will endure.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Mandarin is capitalized as to suggest that Buckley was Chinese.”
Good point.
Maybe his thesaurus didn’t make that distinction clear.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
What a disgusting piece. The writer dares not discuss the ideas Buckley brought into public consciousness, so he attacks his manner. And it’s full of false underlying assumptions.
“The following night, as it happened, the guest was Gore Vidal, as assertive and bombastic on the liberal side as Buckley had been on the Tory.”
Hilarious - and so typical of the liberal upside-down mindset. The “liberal” Gore was the one pushing for bigger. more centralized, hence more “royalist” government. Buckley, the “Tory” advocated de-centralization of power - power to the people, if you will.
I know so many Cuba admirers. I always ask them what the practical difference is between Castro and a king.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
From the classic line in the movie “The Jerk”
He does not know shit from shinola.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“His manner suggested that he was 100% right — right as in correct — and all who opposed him were fools or brigands. It’s an old debater’s trick, and he was the master debater. Like another ’60s icon, Vince Lombardi, he believed that winning was the only thing. Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.”
Doubt the author ever watched an episode of Firing Line. Buckley’s style was never to crush his opponent in debate–rather he drew out his opponents arguments and picked over them like a professor schooling a student. The comment that he was like Lombardi is belied by his quixotic run for Mayor of New York–he never expected to win.
Also note the insult in the ‘old debater’s trick’ line. How kind of Time to have this envious snob write this obituary. His closing is nonsensical also.
“His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn’t been successful in creating it.” –ehhh?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
You know the caliber of a person by his enemies and his friends.
Time’s latest only underscores the preeminence of WFB.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
SG;…”Mr. Corliss is like so many of what passes for journalists in our modern age. He is stupid and yet smug about it….”
This smacks of a last, desperate effort at a claim to legitimacy for Time. A swipe at WFB when he is no longer able to respond (should he have choosen to lower himself) only highlights the inferiority of Corliss’ journalistic prowess and his unwillingness to engage and debate him on anything even approaching equal terms while he was still around. Buckley could, and would, have embarrased Corliss in short order, showing his (Corliss’) ineptitude and inability to support his own conclusions. The world will wait a long time before it sees the likes of a William F. Buckley again.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mr. Buckley was great in so many ways. Not only was his rhetoric beyond reproach, but I loved running to the dictionary (in the old days, before the internet) to find out the definition of his words - and to incorporate them into my own lexicon. And, of course, I absolutely loved his threat to punch Vidal in the face - pusillanimous he was not. The world is a darker place today…
Requiescat in pace.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I haven’t commented on Mr. Buckley’s effect on me or his passing as I must admit - I know I vaguely heard his name mentioned in my home growing up but it is blurred by the connection to my father and his passing. . .
I am amazed at what I read about Mr. Buckley (he is in the chapter of a book I am currently reading) but more on his profound effect on people - I keep reading over and over again - ‘when I first read him’ or ‘when I first heard him’ - and isn’t that THE mark of a great person?
Not the words they use, or what ‘position’ they rise to, or how much money they made? Rather that people remember him. . .
Mr. Corliss shows his disdain and immaturity by using words inappropriately in a sad attempt to prove he is as good as the man he is skewing - sad to say he probably doesn’t even realize how jealous he comes off sounding.
And I think that for Mr. Buckley, the fact that those who have learned from his words and grasp fully the pathetic nature of Mr. Corliss’s piece of tripe, is his best revenge.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
A remarkably stupid and offensive piece. Corliss makes a complete ass of himself. He has less understanding of Mr. Buckley than does my basset hound.
The following line is most revealing: “In that sense, Buckley was a throwback even before the 1960s, to a breed of would-be royalists stranded in the tight-lipped New World.”
Given the liberal penchant for authoritarian approaches to all political issues, it is striking that Corliss would presume to accuse the dean of American conservatism of harboring royalist sympathies.
If one could transport today’s liberal to sixteenth century Europe, that liberal would find the doctrine of the divine right of kings most congruent with his stated beliefs. I hesitate to speculate what that same liberal would choose to adopt if transported to the Aztec empire of the same period. Liberalism is a variant of an ancient sickness: the lust for power over others. Their motto: “Better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven.”
The liberal accusation that conservatism is somehow retrograde is a noxious instance of the psychological phenomenon of transferance.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
BudH1948;….”The liberal accusation that conservatism is somehow retrograde is a noxious instance of the psychological phenomenon of transferance….”
If there are any trolls around, Bud, you’re gonna have to translate for them. ;-}
February 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
JohnMG -
Point well taken, sir. The verbiage of a drill instructor might be more appropriate for the trolls, not to mention temporarily satisfying. But that might ruffle the tender feelings of the little darlings :-)
v/r,
– B
February 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
….”The verbiage of a drill instructor….”
You might have to explain “drill instructor” too. :-}
February 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
JohnMG -
Unfortunately you may be right. Then again, I recall something about the definition of “is” being a problematic concept for some folk in the recent past :-)
February 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This is the kind of piece a jealous, small man writes about an important man. And in doing so after his death, he even gets away with it. Bill Buckley scared the hell out of talking points-spewing, pseudo-intellectual liberals…when they could fathom what it was that he was saying to them that is.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Can we now coin a new word for coward and ignorant ? I’m suggesting ” corliss ” .
February 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Richard Corliss used to write film and book reviews for The National Review in the late 60’s/early 70’s. He is apparently more graceless than even this screed suggests.