
When William F. Buckley Jr. died in February 2008, I happened to be in another of the endless arguments with myself about whether to sue him. I knew it was probably a bad idea. But I was sick of letting him make me look (and feel) like an idiot.
In his dotage, Buckley, once the young firebrand who published God and Man at Yale at 26 and began National Review at 29, had become a beloved, almost cuddly figure in popular culture; a throwback to a period when apparently, grace, erudition, and civility ruled our public discourse. The Washington Post eulogized him as “urbane, charming, and erudite”; the Associated Press offered “good-natured,” “intelligent,” and “witty.” And in a show devoted to his memory, Charlie Rose announced, “We celebrate his ideas.”
Who says irony is dead? After all, these encomia, and many more just like them, were directed at a figure who originally came to the attention of much of the television-viewing public by replying to Gore Vidal on ABC News (during the 1968 Democratic Convention), “Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face.” Okay, so Vidal did call him a Nazi. But the love shown the man upon his demise failed to note that he had never gotten around to repudiating a series of political views that were well beyond the bounds of common decency.
Buckley remained, for instance, an anti-civil-rights white supremacist to the end. In August 1957, he authored an editorial in National Review, “Why the South Must Prevail,” citing the alleged “cultural superiority of white over Negro” and with it, the need for the South’s white population to “take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where [they do] not predominate numerically.” When Terry Gross asked him about the editorial on NPR 32 years later, he assessed it to be “absolutely correct.”
Nor, insofar as I am aware, did Buckley ever recant his enthusiasm for South Africa-style apartheid, which in 1961 he termed “that brilliantly conceived structure” that helped “black Africans” avoid their apparently well-known “tend[ency] to revert to savagery.” Buckley never reconsidered his embrace of Joe McCarthy’s thuggish tactics, mocking instead what he termed “liberals’ fetishistic commitment to democracy.” Then there was his enthusiastic support for fascist dictators like Franco and Pinochet and, fueled by his fanatical anti-Communism, his calls for nuclear attacks on both China (1965) and North Vietnam (1968). The outrages continued through the ages. In 1986, he said “everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm . . . and on the buttock.” According to New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, author of a forthcoming Buckley biography, he refused to consider David Brooks to be editor of National Review because he was Jewish (or, more precisely, not a “believing Christian”).
But polite society had long ceased to worry about views like these. In his final decades, Buckley was also a man who kept television discourse civil and conservatism (relatively) sane. He was the almost impossibly enviable fellow who wrote Overdrive (1983), excerpted in The New Yorker, in which he explained that he preferred a custom-fitted Mercedes to a plain old limousine, but could not recall whether it was more or less expensive. For all his reactionary political views, Buckley appeared strikingly ecumenical in his personal life. He skied in Gstaad with his superliberal friend John Kenneth Galbraith. He lunched regularly with the editor and publisher of The New York Times. Mike Kinsley, then America’s sharpest liberal pundit and on-again, off-again editor of the leftish flagship, The New Republic, was more than happy to serve as Buckley’s liberal sidekick on Firing Line.

Very revealing.
I always knew I was doing the wrong things to get into that "personal and professional ecosystem," but never before have seen, spelled out so explicitly, exactly what the right things were.
Thanks for making me feel much better about my scant interactions with Hitch and total absence at Tina Brown's parties.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 01:32 PM
How many times will Eric Alterman stick his face into the same fan? Now we know!
#2 Posted by Mike Gebert, CJR on Thu 7 Mar 2013 at 02:45 PM
WFB seems to have been a lot smarter than Alterman. But I guess we knew that already. Interesting article nonetheless.
#3 Posted by E. O'Neal, CJR on Thu 7 Mar 2013 at 03:04 PM
Thanks for the laugh, Eric!
You sent a letter to an editor and he published it. That would be very weak grounds for a lawsuit, even if a mistake was made.
WFB is still getting back at you and Gore Vidal every day, it seems.
#4 Posted by Brother Matthias, CJR on Thu 7 Mar 2013 at 04:36 PM
went to an art fair the other day & saw a wall full of photos of estimable D.C. personnages. Far out, I thought, war criminals!
#5 Posted by walter, CJR on Fri 8 Mar 2013 at 09:01 AM
A nice summing up in the last paragraph of the appeal of WFB and a good explanation of why so many non-conservatives felt a grudging affection for him.
#6 Posted by Gary, CJR on Mon 18 Mar 2013 at 01:21 PM
WFB always seemed creepy to me. I watched him many times on TV and was fascinated by the attention he received when he was such a nothing of a stuffed shirt. But then I'm one of those lefty liberals so what do I know?
Seriously, this was fun. An honest recollection, so well written, and I could understand every word. (Can't say the same with Buckley, which, I suspect, is how he liked it.)
#7 Posted by Ramona, CJR on Wed 20 Mar 2013 at 08:09 AM
Please tell me I'm not only CJR subscriber who found this thoroughly self-involved and self-serving diatribe was a complete waste of four pages?! What does any of this crap have to do with journalism? Who cares what William F. Buckley, Jr. said or did to Alterman? A real blight on an otherwise better than average issue.
#8 Posted by Blue Heron, CJR on Thu 28 Mar 2013 at 04:29 PM