What do you think?
Rate this book
Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism
William F. Buckley Jr., was the foremost architect of the conservative movement that swept the American political landscape from the 1960s to the early 2000s. When Buckley launched National Review in 1955, conservatism was a beleaguered, fringe segment of the Republican Party. Three decades later Ronald Reagan-who credited National Review with shaping his beliefs-was in the White House. Buckley and his allies devised a new-model conservatism that replaced traditional ideals with a passionate belief in the free market, religious faith, and an aggressive stance on foreign policy. Buckley was an eloquent writer and brilliant polemicist whose works are still required texts for conservatives. His TV show Firing Line and his campaign for mayor of New York City made him a celebrity; his wit and zest for combat made conservatism fun. But Buckley was far more than a controversialist. Deploying his uncommon charm, shrewdly building alliances, and refusing to compromise on core principles, he almost single-handedly transformed conservatism from a set of retrograde attitudes into a revolutionary force. Scholar Carl T. Bogus gives us the most authoritative biography ever published of this vital, larger-than-life figure.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published October 25, 2011
23 people are currently reading
265 people want to read
About the author
Carl T. Bogus
8 books4 followersCarl T. Bogus is Distinguished Research Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 6, 2015
I am intrigued by the man who could say this about the better novelist:
"Graham Greene always struck me as being at war with himself. He had impulses that he sometimes examined with a compulsive sense to dissect them, as though only an autopsy would do to dissect their nature. He was a Christian more or less malgré soi ((reluctantly, against one's will)). He was a Christian because he couldn't quite prevent it. And therefore he spent most of his time belittling Christianity and Christians. He hated the United States, and his hatred was in part, I suppose, a reaction similar to that of some finely calibrated people to American vulgarity. But with him it was so compulsive it drove him almost to like people who were professional enemies of the United States...
Given the refinement of his mind, it's always been a mystery to me that he should have been so besotted in his opposition to that towards which he naturally inclined - Christianity and all that Christianity bespeaks - in order to identify himself with those he saw as the little men. Okay, but when the little men were such people as Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega? It all defies analysis." (Conversations with William Buckley p.123)
Faulkner in his Nobel Prize speech spoke about the nuclear bomb - the Cold War - and how it prevented young men and women writing "the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat." Buckley as Cold War warrior couldn't allow that heart in conflict for himself.
A Catholic like Greene, Buckley should be seen as a missionary for a faith he never thought to question, unlike Greene. Throughout this fascinating story of American intellectual life (yes, there is such a thing) Buckley's work straddles the line between movement and cult. His Americanism lent itself to conspiracy and paranoia. He had much in common with the fanatically conservative John Birch Society until he realized he had to sever himself from the loonies. Same goes with his courting and rejection of Ayn Rand. As Bogus says, you can criticize her all you want but her books continue to influence, is still the basis of thousands upon thousands of young Americans' faith in, and warmth toward, capitalism. Buckley famously said about Atlas Shrugged "I had to flog myself to read it." His conservative magazine The National Review attacked Rand's trash repeatedly but she hasn't gone anywhere. She's a Frankenstein that only post-Second World War America could have created. Bogus's book has much to say on this.
Buckley took his Catholicism for granted like Christopher Hitchens took his atheism. They are remarkably similar figures. They respected one another perhaps for the way their radicalism mirrored each other at political extremes. They were prolific writers, but I doubt either wrote a book that will outlast their memory. This is not to say they aren't significant figures - if remembered at all a hundred years from now their social genius born of charm, charisma and ease on public stage will have something to say for them historically. There were much better conservative thinkers than Buckley like Russell Kirk, Peter Vierek and Clinton Rossiter, men who were unfortunately born with an anti-social streak and so you probably haven't heard of them either.
Buckley and Hitchens were outstanding on their feet; since they were so dazzling and antagonistic, cultured and witty in debate it's easy to overlook their glaring limitations as intellectuals. Buckley took abstractions like "the rule of law" as found in the U.S. Constitution too far when using it to defend the police actions taken against black protesters in Selma, 1965. He knew the police were brutal and went out of his way not to criticize them for their brutality. Since he was not idiotic in the way today's conservatives are when attacking Obama and liberals, you couldn't call him a racist but he resembled one for the exclusive version of freedom he was defending. Same goes for Hitchens and his childish stubbornness when it came to the invasion of Iraq, defending it long past it looked reasonable to do so. Their elite educations taught them to retreat into the finer point made. In cases like Civil Rights and the Iraq War this education comes back to haunt them, as well it should.
All in all it's hard not to admire Buckley. Those who think ideas do not matter should read this book and think again. It helps to be born into money and with a certain charm, but though Buckley could be stingy with his Americanism he wasn't that way with people he respected, often employing those he held fundamental differences with to a post at his The National Review. He ran for mayor of New York City in 1965 knowing he was going to lose. His purpose was to advance the conservative cause while in defeat. It produced this amusing exchange during a press conference that soon put him on the map outside of a minority interest:
REPORTER: Do you want to be Mayor, sir?
BUCKLEY: I have never considered it.
REPORTER: But you are asking people to vote for you. If you win, will you serve?
BUCKLEY: If elected, I will serve.
REPORTER: Do you think you have a chance of winning?
BUCKLEY: No.
REPORTER: How many votes do you expect to get, conservatively speaking?
BUCKLEY: Conservatively speaking, one.
"Graham Greene always struck me as being at war with himself. He had impulses that he sometimes examined with a compulsive sense to dissect them, as though only an autopsy would do to dissect their nature. He was a Christian more or less malgré soi ((reluctantly, against one's will)). He was a Christian because he couldn't quite prevent it. And therefore he spent most of his time belittling Christianity and Christians. He hated the United States, and his hatred was in part, I suppose, a reaction similar to that of some finely calibrated people to American vulgarity. But with him it was so compulsive it drove him almost to like people who were professional enemies of the United States...
Given the refinement of his mind, it's always been a mystery to me that he should have been so besotted in his opposition to that towards which he naturally inclined - Christianity and all that Christianity bespeaks - in order to identify himself with those he saw as the little men. Okay, but when the little men were such people as Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega? It all defies analysis." (Conversations with William Buckley p.123)
Faulkner in his Nobel Prize speech spoke about the nuclear bomb - the Cold War - and how it prevented young men and women writing "the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat." Buckley as Cold War warrior couldn't allow that heart in conflict for himself.
A Catholic like Greene, Buckley should be seen as a missionary for a faith he never thought to question, unlike Greene. Throughout this fascinating story of American intellectual life (yes, there is such a thing) Buckley's work straddles the line between movement and cult. His Americanism lent itself to conspiracy and paranoia. He had much in common with the fanatically conservative John Birch Society until he realized he had to sever himself from the loonies. Same goes with his courting and rejection of Ayn Rand. As Bogus says, you can criticize her all you want but her books continue to influence, is still the basis of thousands upon thousands of young Americans' faith in, and warmth toward, capitalism. Buckley famously said about Atlas Shrugged "I had to flog myself to read it." His conservative magazine The National Review attacked Rand's trash repeatedly but she hasn't gone anywhere. She's a Frankenstein that only post-Second World War America could have created. Bogus's book has much to say on this.
Buckley took his Catholicism for granted like Christopher Hitchens took his atheism. They are remarkably similar figures. They respected one another perhaps for the way their radicalism mirrored each other at political extremes. They were prolific writers, but I doubt either wrote a book that will outlast their memory. This is not to say they aren't significant figures - if remembered at all a hundred years from now their social genius born of charm, charisma and ease on public stage will have something to say for them historically. There were much better conservative thinkers than Buckley like Russell Kirk, Peter Vierek and Clinton Rossiter, men who were unfortunately born with an anti-social streak and so you probably haven't heard of them either.
Buckley and Hitchens were outstanding on their feet; since they were so dazzling and antagonistic, cultured and witty in debate it's easy to overlook their glaring limitations as intellectuals. Buckley took abstractions like "the rule of law" as found in the U.S. Constitution too far when using it to defend the police actions taken against black protesters in Selma, 1965. He knew the police were brutal and went out of his way not to criticize them for their brutality. Since he was not idiotic in the way today's conservatives are when attacking Obama and liberals, you couldn't call him a racist but he resembled one for the exclusive version of freedom he was defending. Same goes for Hitchens and his childish stubbornness when it came to the invasion of Iraq, defending it long past it looked reasonable to do so. Their elite educations taught them to retreat into the finer point made. In cases like Civil Rights and the Iraq War this education comes back to haunt them, as well it should.
All in all it's hard not to admire Buckley. Those who think ideas do not matter should read this book and think again. It helps to be born into money and with a certain charm, but though Buckley could be stingy with his Americanism he wasn't that way with people he respected, often employing those he held fundamental differences with to a post at his The National Review. He ran for mayor of New York City in 1965 knowing he was going to lose. His purpose was to advance the conservative cause while in defeat. It produced this amusing exchange during a press conference that soon put him on the map outside of a minority interest:
REPORTER: Do you want to be Mayor, sir?
BUCKLEY: I have never considered it.
REPORTER: But you are asking people to vote for you. If you win, will you serve?
BUCKLEY: If elected, I will serve.
REPORTER: Do you think you have a chance of winning?
BUCKLEY: No.
REPORTER: How many votes do you expect to get, conservatively speaking?
BUCKLEY: Conservatively speaking, one.
May 1, 2022
I liked this one quite a bit at the outset. There was a lot here on Bill's father, William Buckley the oilman and his escapades in Mexico. It was a good choice to give us an idea of how Bill was influenced at a young age by rugged individualism.
Bogus goes on to give the reader an in-depth look at Buckley's years-long conflict with Ayn Rand starting with Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged. Then he tells us much about Chambers career and his influence on Buckley. Other in-depth topics include the feud between Burkean Russell Kirk versus Libertarian Frank Meyer. And a good long bit about James Burnham and his moderating influence on Buckley. Better to win with Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 than lose with Goldwater. All of this was similar to George Nash's book on conservatism.
Then Bogus gets deep into civil rights and the Vietnam war and the subject of Buckley gets lost and it becomes an analysis of history versus the positions of National Review. That is a different book than the one he began.
Bogus goes on to give the reader an in-depth look at Buckley's years-long conflict with Ayn Rand starting with Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged. Then he tells us much about Chambers career and his influence on Buckley. Other in-depth topics include the feud between Burkean Russell Kirk versus Libertarian Frank Meyer. And a good long bit about James Burnham and his moderating influence on Buckley. Better to win with Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 than lose with Goldwater. All of this was similar to George Nash's book on conservatism.
Then Bogus gets deep into civil rights and the Vietnam war and the subject of Buckley gets lost and it becomes an analysis of history versus the positions of National Review. That is a different book than the one he began.
July 1, 2021
Many words describe William F. Buckley, and chances are he knew all of them, and could tell you a lot more. The author of this biography of the polymathic godfather of the modern conservative movement settled for less sesquipedalian vocabulary; not that that would have mattered. Anyone familiar with Buckley in print and podium knew enough to keep a dictionary handy.
This book should have been called Buckley Denuded. His characteristic wit that made conservatism FUN is absent. Instead, we get a catalogue of missteps regarding civil rights and segregation, the Cold War and Vietnam, and a parliament of senators, particularly Goldwater and McCarthy. I became suspicious of Bogus’ credentials after reading that Reid, one of the many sons of the senior William, recounted the reaction of his mother after the Second Vatican Council “decreed that black men could be ordained as priests.” This must have come as some surprise to the cardinal of Tanzania who helped elect Pope Paul VI who closed the council.
The rest of the book is a pretty good history lesson, regardless of its own missteps. There is a lengthy account of the Mexican civil war following the end of the Porfiriato, that is, the exile of the overlong-term president Porfirio Diaz. As a lifelong student of Spanish and devotee to Mexican history, I found the information useful and interesting. You’ll also find well-reasoned contrasts of Burkean and libertarian philosophy. The seeds of later conflict were sown early as community-oriented keepers of the flame fought against the rugged individualists.
A revolution, red in tooth and claw, always entails collateral damage, and that meant Buckley had to jettison figures that would hinder the growth of conservatism. Out went Robert Welch and the John Birch Society, as well as Ayn Rand and the Objectivist philosophy. This came at a high price for subscriptions to his fledgling National Review, but he more than made for the loss with the attraction of new followers, most notably Ronald Reagan.
This book should have been called Buckley Denuded. His characteristic wit that made conservatism FUN is absent. Instead, we get a catalogue of missteps regarding civil rights and segregation, the Cold War and Vietnam, and a parliament of senators, particularly Goldwater and McCarthy. I became suspicious of Bogus’ credentials after reading that Reid, one of the many sons of the senior William, recounted the reaction of his mother after the Second Vatican Council “decreed that black men could be ordained as priests.” This must have come as some surprise to the cardinal of Tanzania who helped elect Pope Paul VI who closed the council.
The rest of the book is a pretty good history lesson, regardless of its own missteps. There is a lengthy account of the Mexican civil war following the end of the Porfiriato, that is, the exile of the overlong-term president Porfirio Diaz. As a lifelong student of Spanish and devotee to Mexican history, I found the information useful and interesting. You’ll also find well-reasoned contrasts of Burkean and libertarian philosophy. The seeds of later conflict were sown early as community-oriented keepers of the flame fought against the rugged individualists.
A revolution, red in tooth and claw, always entails collateral damage, and that meant Buckley had to jettison figures that would hinder the growth of conservatism. Out went Robert Welch and the John Birch Society, as well as Ayn Rand and the Objectivist philosophy. This came at a high price for subscriptions to his fledgling National Review, but he more than made for the loss with the attraction of new followers, most notably Ronald Reagan.
March 25, 2017
Brilliant book -- worth reading for the chapters on Civil Rights and Vietnam alone!
Bogus does a great job charting the intellectual growth of National Review as a magazine, showing how it evolved from open racism to a more subtle hostility towards liberalism and big government. He also shows how the Vietnam War was known to be hopeless years before the final defeat, but that conservatives couldn't find any way to admit the truth without admitting defeat.
The only problem is, this book is not a biography, it's a study of a magazine. You can read the unspeakable things William F. Buckley said about black people, but you can't tell how he interacted with them as a child or a young man. (If he ever did.) Similarly, in the Vietnam chapters, you can read how National Review advocated more and more bombing in Vietnam, and how they ignored American atrocities like the My Lai Massacre. But you can't tell if William F. Buckley every actually spoke to any Vietnam Veterans, especially not disabled anti-war activists like Ron Kovic.
So ultimately this book, fascinating thought it is, provides more questions than answers.
Bogus does a great job charting the intellectual growth of National Review as a magazine, showing how it evolved from open racism to a more subtle hostility towards liberalism and big government. He also shows how the Vietnam War was known to be hopeless years before the final defeat, but that conservatives couldn't find any way to admit the truth without admitting defeat.
The only problem is, this book is not a biography, it's a study of a magazine. You can read the unspeakable things William F. Buckley said about black people, but you can't tell how he interacted with them as a child or a young man. (If he ever did.) Similarly, in the Vietnam chapters, you can read how National Review advocated more and more bombing in Vietnam, and how they ignored American atrocities like the My Lai Massacre. But you can't tell if William F. Buckley every actually spoke to any Vietnam Veterans, especially not disabled anti-war activists like Ron Kovic.
So ultimately this book, fascinating thought it is, provides more questions than answers.
Want to read
June 22, 2016Some time, back in the '80s I think, William F. Buckley Jr. -- then the host of the long-running PBS political debate show, Firing Line, and the most prominent intellectual public conservative in the United States -- engaged in a televised debate with the TV actor Dennis Weaver. It was long ago, and I don't remember the topics under debate. All I can remember is the slaughter that took place on that stage.
Weaver was an environmental activist with a left-leaning political bent, so of course I was rooting for him. Buckley, of course, was a Yale debate champ who honed his ideological engagement chops week after week on TV against the best minds in the country. Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal were among his worthy debate opponents. This was the high level at which he was operating.
Thus began this bizarre verbal slugfest between Buckley and Weaver.
It was like watching a Viking beat a puppy to death with a knotted club. It was brutal. It was cringe-inducing. It was something I could never un-remember.
Buckley was one of those guys I grew up with in TV land, and I watched him in fascination even though at the time I was too young to understand all his multi-syllabic words, arcane references and liberal usage of French phrases. I think part of the intrigue was due to his pseudo-British/Boston Brahmin snobbish accent and its cadences that lent an air of authority.
This life and times bio of Buckley was written by a liberal in what I understand to be an even-handed way, which is what I'm looking for. My library doesn't have it, of course, so I'll be on the lookout. I'd be interested to see how Buckley contributed to the growth of what has increasingly become a more erratic Frankenstein political monster.
To be continued...
Weaver was an environmental activist with a left-leaning political bent, so of course I was rooting for him. Buckley, of course, was a Yale debate champ who honed his ideological engagement chops week after week on TV against the best minds in the country. Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal were among his worthy debate opponents. This was the high level at which he was operating.
Thus began this bizarre verbal slugfest between Buckley and Weaver.
It was like watching a Viking beat a puppy to death with a knotted club. It was brutal. It was cringe-inducing. It was something I could never un-remember.
Buckley was one of those guys I grew up with in TV land, and I watched him in fascination even though at the time I was too young to understand all his multi-syllabic words, arcane references and liberal usage of French phrases. I think part of the intrigue was due to his pseudo-British/Boston Brahmin snobbish accent and its cadences that lent an air of authority.
This life and times bio of Buckley was written by a liberal in what I understand to be an even-handed way, which is what I'm looking for. My library doesn't have it, of course, so I'll be on the lookout. I'd be interested to see how Buckley contributed to the growth of what has increasingly become a more erratic Frankenstein political monster.
To be continued...
December 21, 2011
This is an exceedingly well written book that meets my personal criteria for a 5 star, i.e. it taught me a lot. Bogus is a liberal academic who tries to be quite even handed in his treatment of conservatism. The value in this book lies in his tracing the roots and many branches of conservatism, and exposing the internal inconsistency of the brand of conservatism espoused by Wm. F. Buckley. This old liberal found herself agreeing with a lot of Burkean thought. I think that anyone who truly wants to understand conservative and libertarian thought owes it to him/herself to read this very accessible book. Bravo to Bogus.
July 29, 2017
I rate this book so high because it was really educational for me, but there were many things I wish the author had done differently. I found myself wanting to know more about Buckley's life, while the author pretty much just summed up his National Review articles and talked about his influence on American politics. Also, I can tell the author is a liberal, and I feel like he focused too much on the blunders Buckley made, such as Brown v. Board of Education and the Vietnam War, despite the fact that Buckley later acknowledged his mistakes.. All in all, I liked it though.
September 10, 2022
Buckley was crazy -- in a way that the World Wars, the rise of Fascism and (purported) Communism, would make proper, if not just possible ... later, we get Reagan saying, "I read National REVIEW on the train when I was going places for General ELECTRIC *THEATER*," and yadda-yadda-yadda, most of us don't get to go places. Unless we make the Kerouacian effort.
Bogus does a bang-up job of pointing out what's different from these so-called "conservatives" and the figure always cited as their forerunner, England's Edmund BURKE: Burke, Bogus points out, was careful to say that he didn't agree with the American Revolution, but these people weren't going to calm down, and it was better to take the route that acknowledged this. (Someone said this, in an Atlantic MONTHLY article I believe, interviewed on the subject of Mitch MCCONNELL, "Strict OBSTRUCTIONIST" I believe the piece was called: "The thing is to try to take change on your own terms, not reject change entirely, like a character in a Victorian novel, which is what Mitch is like." This brand of conservatism, right down to Rush Limbaugh and the unnecessary, post-Cold War Newt Gingrich, is all due to Buckley -- his smarmy, spectacular one-liners became addictive, and the grounding in a reality that would change so easily was lost ... it just became surface material, entertainment and hostility.)
What a jerk . . .
Bogus does a bang-up job of pointing out what's different from these so-called "conservatives" and the figure always cited as their forerunner, England's Edmund BURKE: Burke, Bogus points out, was careful to say that he didn't agree with the American Revolution, but these people weren't going to calm down, and it was better to take the route that acknowledged this. (Someone said this, in an Atlantic MONTHLY article I believe, interviewed on the subject of Mitch MCCONNELL, "Strict OBSTRUCTIONIST" I believe the piece was called: "The thing is to try to take change on your own terms, not reject change entirely, like a character in a Victorian novel, which is what Mitch is like." This brand of conservatism, right down to Rush Limbaugh and the unnecessary, post-Cold War Newt Gingrich, is all due to Buckley -- his smarmy, spectacular one-liners became addictive, and the grounding in a reality that would change so easily was lost ... it just became surface material, entertainment and hostility.)
What a jerk . . .
January 28, 2019
If you are looking for a biography of Buckley, this is not your book. If you are looking for a glowing and comprehensive appraisal of his accomplishments, this will not suffice. This is a critical look at 1950's conservatism, with Buckley and the publications of National Review as its outline. Bogus is very much a law professor and is willing to go deeply on detailed tangents about the Mexican Civil war or Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to make an overarching point about conservatism. Bogus keeps focuses mostly on the weak points of Buckley (ie civil rights, Vietnam, McCarthyism) and ignoring his economics, views on welfare, etc. However, this is all fair game. Bogus offers plenty of clarity, opinion, and nuance. It's an entertaining read. If you let the author lead you where he wants, it becomes very beneficial to understanding the early years of the modern conservative movement.
July 2, 2024
Some random thoughts on Carl Bogus’s biography of William F. Buckley. Biographies are always challenging, and Carl as a self-proclaimed liberal managed to (mostly) hold his own politics in check as he examined Buckley’s legacy. This was not a hit piece. But it was not a puff piece either.
Buckley rebuilt (or built) modern American conservatism, which lasted from the 1950s maybe until perhaps 2008. Emerging from the FDR “New Deal” decades, conservatism was somewhat lost. The ideological battle for the mind of the west was heating up (the 20th century was the most ideological in history); and three great philosophies — all product of modernity — were vying for dominance. Fascism, communism and classical ‘liberalism’ (in the philosophical sense). Within ‘classical liberalism’ there was also a fight — between the progressives and the conservatives. A fight that has always existed. In “Liberalism: The Life of an Idea” Edmund Faucett identifies (correctly I think) the tension within modern classical ‘liberalism’ between egalitarianism and liberty. These two sides of the coin are reflected by the knife-fight within classical liberalism.
Buckley burst onto the stage, a dominant charismatic figure keen on shaping the conservative position within this debate. He did this through writing, speaking — and through his singular magazine, the National Review. That was the age of the magazine (today is the age of the tweet), when Time and Life and People and National Review all received significant circulation and impacted a thoughtful nation just coming out of its own adolescence. It is said that National Review turned Reagan from a Democrat to a Republican, little by little as he read the magazine while riding the trains from city to city selling insurance.
In the early days, American conservatism (according to Bogus) was pulling between different influences. A few of these (though not comprehensive, there were some Bogus was particularly apalled with and wanted to highlight in his book) were the John Birch Society founded by Robert Welsh and which was focused on rooting out the communist conspiracy within the US, as well as Ayn Rand’s libertarian “objectivism”. Anti-communism was the driving force of early American conservatism. These, according to Bogus, Buckley considered to a certain extent ‘cults’ to be destroyed. But there was also the mainstream conservatism, which was defined by Russell Kirk and Whittaker Chambers, and these Buckley brought into the National Review as a medium sized tent (we aren’t as “Big Tent” as the communists, which is why we struggle) to allow the battle of ideas, with guardrails. For Buckley, central tenets of American conservatism were the importance of the Christian faith, the centrality of individualism and the fight against communism. If one violated any one of these, Buckley would seek to have them excommunicated from the conservative movement.
Three points I think deserve highlighting:
First, on Ayn Rand. Bogus, like all liberals (this time using that term in a partisan way) really hates Ayn Rand. He uses the normal vitriol against her: ‘Her books are sophomoric but good for college freshmen’, her characters are ‘two-dimensional’ and (parroting Whittaker Chambers) her plot is preposterous. Couple of points nobody seems to understand. Ayn Rand is a Russian Jew emigrating to the US from the heyday of Russian ideological communism in the 20s (think Maxim Gorky and Vladimir Lenin). The days of Soviet Socialist Realism (like “What Is To Be Done” or “Cement”). Ayn Rand writes this this genre, but turned on its head. A powerful Soviet ‘scientism’ advancing as communism was denying God in favor of super-men (and women). The supermen Rand writes about are not parts of a collective, like the soviet versions (“Tractors of the world unite!!”) but instead supermen standing against the collective. She was writing a response to Gorky. Next, the idea that Rand is preposterous. I lived in communist Venezuela for 7 years during the days when Hugo Chavez was taking a messy democracy and turning it into a communist country (the suicide of a nation, read my viral post here). I was in my 20s. I would read Rand’s work in the evening, and watch Hugo Chavez doing EVERYTHING Rand’s looters did during the day (I even wrote my own novel about Chavez’s bizarre Venezuela — which I suppose is ‘preposterous’ too, except that it’s also true).
Ayn Rand’s work is not preposterous at all. Finally, Rand is a vaccine for young minds seeking to find themselves, giving them the antibodies they need to resist the virus of collective progressive madness that has threatened society for a hundred years, or more. This is more important now than ever, due to the progressive “March of Dimes” problem (below) which has given us a terrible, wicked culture war that is ruining American society. I will give my son a gold-leafed copy of “The Fountainhead” when he graduates from high school, to read the summer before college. I wish I could go back in time to give Hugo Chavez a copy of “El Manantial (The Fountainhead)” when he was rejected from the MLB and became a revolutionary. I think we might have made him more like Milei than Fidel.
Second, American politics has suffered a “March of Dimes” problem. This is particularly pronounced among the progressives (again, this is something that Bogus correctly highlights — which I find interesting). March of Dimes was set up by FDR to end polio. They succeeded. But instead of allowing the organization to declare victory and be disbanded, they have instead gone the way of other bureaucracies and perpetuated themselves without a purpose. That has happened to the progressives. They set up their main mission to advance the civil rights movement. With the success of civil rights, the progressives found themselves in the wasteland. Instead of redefining themselves (or just disbanding the party), they doubled down — trying to find new victims to ‘defend’. Which is where their bizarre new culture war policies come from and why they are captured by them (to the detriment of common sense and to the tremendous harm of the republic). To a lesser degree, the conservatives have suffered a similar problem. The Republican party was the party that was going to win the Cold War. We did. Reagan did. Which led to our lazy 1990s. Republicans to a certain degree found a reprieve, with the War on Terror, but Islamic terrorism has limited appeal (I worked in 3 mostly Muslim countries – for seven years – fighting Islamic terrorism. Even in those countries, the appeal is limited.) It was never going to be a real threat to the USA. Of course now Communist China is the new threat, which is something the Republicans are singularly equipped to understand and deal with — which will likely be the party’s motivating doctrine for the near future, and will have tremendous implications on domestic policy — see below.
Which brings me to the final point, also highlighted by Bogus. Where-to-fore goes post-2008 conservatism. Buckley’s faith, individualism and anti-communism — the three-legged stool of the conservatives of the 20th century — are changing. Specifically, as individualism (libertarianism) became libertinism (and was weaponized by progressives for their ‘you do you’ culture war rationale), there is a steady drumbeat reminding us that it is in the Toquevillian, Burkean ‘communities’ where we find our strength. Angus Deaton, who in his most recent book (remarkably) walks away from 40 years of ‘globalist’ economic policy admitting it ravaged America’s heartland (in the goal of maximization of productivity) causing the epidemic of ‘deaths of despair’; to Patrick Deneen who writes about the total failure of classical liberalism due to its tremendous success of divorcing people from their communities and creating a political system where all that exists are the individual and the state (which sets the stage for the existential fight over state capture); to J.D. Vance who gives us a beautiful personal tale of what it was like living in ‘ravaged’ America and the importance of rebuilding communities; to Robert Lighthizer who talks, through the lens of trade, about how our focus on consumption, holding down the cost of low-end goods (to bring overall inflation numbers — led by health care and education — down) and the subsequent wipeout of dignified village life in the United States, honorable work that empowers, that gives people pride and a future and the experiences of a life more abundant (vacations and recreation and community) — all of these are part of the narratives that are reshaping conservatism. To be sure, always with an eye on China as well — which fits the narrative as well, because China has weaponzed slavery and cheating to get the foreign exchange that they need to build their war machine. The stagnated American middle class has become a pass-through from the U.S. Federal Reserve to the Chinese Communist Party.
These are realities that modern conservatism is wrestling with. It is a healthy discussion; I wish we had a Buckley of the 21st Century to help us through it.
Buckley rebuilt (or built) modern American conservatism, which lasted from the 1950s maybe until perhaps 2008. Emerging from the FDR “New Deal” decades, conservatism was somewhat lost. The ideological battle for the mind of the west was heating up (the 20th century was the most ideological in history); and three great philosophies — all product of modernity — were vying for dominance. Fascism, communism and classical ‘liberalism’ (in the philosophical sense). Within ‘classical liberalism’ there was also a fight — between the progressives and the conservatives. A fight that has always existed. In “Liberalism: The Life of an Idea” Edmund Faucett identifies (correctly I think) the tension within modern classical ‘liberalism’ between egalitarianism and liberty. These two sides of the coin are reflected by the knife-fight within classical liberalism.
Buckley burst onto the stage, a dominant charismatic figure keen on shaping the conservative position within this debate. He did this through writing, speaking — and through his singular magazine, the National Review. That was the age of the magazine (today is the age of the tweet), when Time and Life and People and National Review all received significant circulation and impacted a thoughtful nation just coming out of its own adolescence. It is said that National Review turned Reagan from a Democrat to a Republican, little by little as he read the magazine while riding the trains from city to city selling insurance.
In the early days, American conservatism (according to Bogus) was pulling between different influences. A few of these (though not comprehensive, there were some Bogus was particularly apalled with and wanted to highlight in his book) were the John Birch Society founded by Robert Welsh and which was focused on rooting out the communist conspiracy within the US, as well as Ayn Rand’s libertarian “objectivism”. Anti-communism was the driving force of early American conservatism. These, according to Bogus, Buckley considered to a certain extent ‘cults’ to be destroyed. But there was also the mainstream conservatism, which was defined by Russell Kirk and Whittaker Chambers, and these Buckley brought into the National Review as a medium sized tent (we aren’t as “Big Tent” as the communists, which is why we struggle) to allow the battle of ideas, with guardrails. For Buckley, central tenets of American conservatism were the importance of the Christian faith, the centrality of individualism and the fight against communism. If one violated any one of these, Buckley would seek to have them excommunicated from the conservative movement.
Three points I think deserve highlighting:
First, on Ayn Rand. Bogus, like all liberals (this time using that term in a partisan way) really hates Ayn Rand. He uses the normal vitriol against her: ‘Her books are sophomoric but good for college freshmen’, her characters are ‘two-dimensional’ and (parroting Whittaker Chambers) her plot is preposterous. Couple of points nobody seems to understand. Ayn Rand is a Russian Jew emigrating to the US from the heyday of Russian ideological communism in the 20s (think Maxim Gorky and Vladimir Lenin). The days of Soviet Socialist Realism (like “What Is To Be Done” or “Cement”). Ayn Rand writes this this genre, but turned on its head. A powerful Soviet ‘scientism’ advancing as communism was denying God in favor of super-men (and women). The supermen Rand writes about are not parts of a collective, like the soviet versions (“Tractors of the world unite!!”) but instead supermen standing against the collective. She was writing a response to Gorky. Next, the idea that Rand is preposterous. I lived in communist Venezuela for 7 years during the days when Hugo Chavez was taking a messy democracy and turning it into a communist country (the suicide of a nation, read my viral post here). I was in my 20s. I would read Rand’s work in the evening, and watch Hugo Chavez doing EVERYTHING Rand’s looters did during the day (I even wrote my own novel about Chavez’s bizarre Venezuela — which I suppose is ‘preposterous’ too, except that it’s also true).
Ayn Rand’s work is not preposterous at all. Finally, Rand is a vaccine for young minds seeking to find themselves, giving them the antibodies they need to resist the virus of collective progressive madness that has threatened society for a hundred years, or more. This is more important now than ever, due to the progressive “March of Dimes” problem (below) which has given us a terrible, wicked culture war that is ruining American society. I will give my son a gold-leafed copy of “The Fountainhead” when he graduates from high school, to read the summer before college. I wish I could go back in time to give Hugo Chavez a copy of “El Manantial (The Fountainhead)” when he was rejected from the MLB and became a revolutionary. I think we might have made him more like Milei than Fidel.
Second, American politics has suffered a “March of Dimes” problem. This is particularly pronounced among the progressives (again, this is something that Bogus correctly highlights — which I find interesting). March of Dimes was set up by FDR to end polio. They succeeded. But instead of allowing the organization to declare victory and be disbanded, they have instead gone the way of other bureaucracies and perpetuated themselves without a purpose. That has happened to the progressives. They set up their main mission to advance the civil rights movement. With the success of civil rights, the progressives found themselves in the wasteland. Instead of redefining themselves (or just disbanding the party), they doubled down — trying to find new victims to ‘defend’. Which is where their bizarre new culture war policies come from and why they are captured by them (to the detriment of common sense and to the tremendous harm of the republic). To a lesser degree, the conservatives have suffered a similar problem. The Republican party was the party that was going to win the Cold War. We did. Reagan did. Which led to our lazy 1990s. Republicans to a certain degree found a reprieve, with the War on Terror, but Islamic terrorism has limited appeal (I worked in 3 mostly Muslim countries – for seven years – fighting Islamic terrorism. Even in those countries, the appeal is limited.) It was never going to be a real threat to the USA. Of course now Communist China is the new threat, which is something the Republicans are singularly equipped to understand and deal with — which will likely be the party’s motivating doctrine for the near future, and will have tremendous implications on domestic policy — see below.
Which brings me to the final point, also highlighted by Bogus. Where-to-fore goes post-2008 conservatism. Buckley’s faith, individualism and anti-communism — the three-legged stool of the conservatives of the 20th century — are changing. Specifically, as individualism (libertarianism) became libertinism (and was weaponized by progressives for their ‘you do you’ culture war rationale), there is a steady drumbeat reminding us that it is in the Toquevillian, Burkean ‘communities’ where we find our strength. Angus Deaton, who in his most recent book (remarkably) walks away from 40 years of ‘globalist’ economic policy admitting it ravaged America’s heartland (in the goal of maximization of productivity) causing the epidemic of ‘deaths of despair’; to Patrick Deneen who writes about the total failure of classical liberalism due to its tremendous success of divorcing people from their communities and creating a political system where all that exists are the individual and the state (which sets the stage for the existential fight over state capture); to J.D. Vance who gives us a beautiful personal tale of what it was like living in ‘ravaged’ America and the importance of rebuilding communities; to Robert Lighthizer who talks, through the lens of trade, about how our focus on consumption, holding down the cost of low-end goods (to bring overall inflation numbers — led by health care and education — down) and the subsequent wipeout of dignified village life in the United States, honorable work that empowers, that gives people pride and a future and the experiences of a life more abundant (vacations and recreation and community) — all of these are part of the narratives that are reshaping conservatism. To be sure, always with an eye on China as well — which fits the narrative as well, because China has weaponzed slavery and cheating to get the foreign exchange that they need to build their war machine. The stagnated American middle class has become a pass-through from the U.S. Federal Reserve to the Chinese Communist Party.
These are realities that modern conservatism is wrestling with. It is a healthy discussion; I wish we had a Buckley of the 21st Century to help us through it.
May 10, 2017
An informative study on the genesis of modern American conservatism, though Bogus often loses focus and extensively wanders onto topics only tangentially related. While events like the Mexican Revolution and Ayn Rand's literary career are relevant to the text, they certainly do not merit the level of attention paid them. If I come away with a greater understanding of the conservative and libertarian movements and their respective evolutions, I still feel quite distant from Buckley himself. Bogus maintains enormous distance from his subject, skimming only the surface of the finely-tuned, silver-tongued patrician that Buckley presented as his public persona. Enormous importance is ascribed to his role in the rise of modern conservatism, but we learn next to nothing about the man himself, outside his work in publication. This, coupled with the limited reach of the book—I believe we never reach the Reagan years with any depth—makes Bogus' venture quite an unsatisfying, hurly-burly slog at times. It's a fair account nonetheless, and it's comforting to parse through this subject matter through a liberal viewpoint.
September 17, 2020
I read this without any preexisting knowledge of Buckley beyond vaguely recognizing the name. It provides a good overview of Buckley's life and his politics, and does a decent job of explaining various conservative "thought leaders" from his era. Once it reaches the late 1980's the density falls off considerably and becomes a bit muddled. There's also a diversion when Vietnam is explored which was more a tangent on the war than anything about Buckley.
My experience reading this was akin to reading about an actor or musician that I have never seen or heard. There seem to be unspoken assumptions the reader has about the man due to his celebrity, and for someone ignorant of the person it's hard to be sure you're drawing the connections/conclusions the author thinks they are drawing you to.
Unfortunately, while I did learn a lot from the book, my goal of learning the "why" of modern American conservatism are still completely unanswered, if anything I have even more questions than when I started.
My experience reading this was akin to reading about an actor or musician that I have never seen or heard. There seem to be unspoken assumptions the reader has about the man due to his celebrity, and for someone ignorant of the person it's hard to be sure you're drawing the connections/conclusions the author thinks they are drawing you to.
Unfortunately, while I did learn a lot from the book, my goal of learning the "why" of modern American conservatism are still completely unanswered, if anything I have even more questions than when I started.
August 23, 2021
A very well written book and the narrator, Mark Ashbery, did an outstanding audio presentation. In Mr. Bogus’ introduction he declares himself a “Liberal” writing about a “Conservative”. I almost stopped listening, but between the narrator and the content I continued and for the most part enjoyed the book. This was not a biograph of WFB but an overview and historical discussion of conservatism in America from the late 1800’s thru WFB lifetime. The author made the point that WFB changed American “Conservatism” and used numerous discussions and examples. It was good and the author did a good job trying to present conservative facts with a narrative flare. Toward the end “Liberal” bias may have slipped in ever so slightly but all in all in my opinion it gave a very readable historical travel guide of the American “Conservative” movement. Experienced as an Audio book.
January 12, 2018
This was my starting point to learn more about conservatism in the US. And what an education this book provided. I appreciated the objectivity that Bogus strove to bring, given that right off the bat, he admits to being more a liberal than WFB. My dictionary was close at hand throughout the book, but I attribute that more to my own vocabulary limitations than to Bogus' writing style. I thought the book moved along well throughout; there were only a handful of places that I wished the author would hasten to make his point. Recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about the history behind the conservative political movement(s) that influence our world today.
February 23, 2025
This biography is an honest account of the life of a man so influential in modern conservatism. It shows Buckley in all his strengths and weaknesses and paints a great picture of him as a human being. I never appreciated just how influential he was in shaping modern conservatism. Having been an admirer of Buckley my entire adult life, the book both humanized him by pointing out his foibles and flaws and elevated him by showing how influential he truly was in reshaping conservatism in the latter half of the 29th century. Really worth reading for anyone who wants to better understand the roots of modern conservatism as juxtaposed against what it has devolved into today.
March 16, 2023
Well written chronologically documented history of the rise of conservatism, as delivered by William F. Buckley jr. upbringing, education and rise to a well respected political published journal. The author clearly liberal but gives a pretty neutral perspective. Mr. Bogus gave a very detailed history of the Vietnam war and events leading up to it beginning with colonial times. He most likely is a product of the Baby boomer generation so it hits close to home. Probably claimed deferment for college or went to Canada.
November 23, 2025
Agree or disagree with his tactics and politics, one must admire Bill Buckley. He was erudite, a loyal friend, a man of deep faith and principles and a loving family man.
October 10, 2012
As Carl T. Bogus observes, when William F. Buckley Jr. brought out the first issue of a new conservative weekly, National Review, in 1955, he virtually had the field to himself. Cultural critic Lionel Trilling had declared in "The Liberal Imagination" in 1950 that conservatism as an intellectual and political force was moribund in this country. In politics, Sen. Robert A. Taft, known as Mr. Conservative, and in political philosophy, Russell Kirk, a disciple of Edmund Burke, were among the few conservative voices heeded by their peers and by the public.
Schooled at home amid a large, wealthy Connecticut family, Buckley seemed to imbibe his conservatism at the dinner table, even when the conversation was not specifically about politics. At Yale University, he created a sensation by attacking the liberal faculty in a best-selling book, "God and Man at Yale" (1951), brashly contending that education was all about indoctrination, and that the Yale faculty was promulgating a godless secularism that should not merely be attacked but expunged from the college curriculum.
Raising money from his father and other donors, Buckley at 30 began promoting the conservative point of view in a magazine that sought to enlist the services of prominent conservatives, including Kirk and Whittaker Chambers -- the latter pilloried in the liberal press for accusing Alger Hiss, a State Department official, of espionage.
How did Buckley not only make a success of his magazine, but also enlist as his first subscribers Ronald Reagan and others who would take conservatism from the extreme edges of electoral politics to the mainstream? Bogus provides the customary tributes to Buckley's wit and commanding rhetoric, but, more important, he points to Buckley's organizing skills and the way he co-opted even those conservatives who opposed certain of his positions. In other words, Buckley used his magazine to drive a wedge into the heart of American liberalism, making National Review a force conservatives dare not oppose.
Perhaps the biographer's greatest accomplishment is exposing the shameful aspect of Buckley's legacy: a racism that his conservative contemporaries have tried to obscure. Bogus never calls Buckley an out-and-out racist, but this conclusion is inescapable, given the evidence the biographer supplies. Buckley thought African Americans were inferior, and he used the National Review as an apologist organ for Southern segregationists.
This sorry chapter in Buckley's biography and in the history of the National Review is, however, put in perspective, one that gives Buckley due credit for, in the main, making a powerful contribution to American political thought and to the culture of politics that would have been considerably diminished without his sparkling contributions.
Schooled at home amid a large, wealthy Connecticut family, Buckley seemed to imbibe his conservatism at the dinner table, even when the conversation was not specifically about politics. At Yale University, he created a sensation by attacking the liberal faculty in a best-selling book, "God and Man at Yale" (1951), brashly contending that education was all about indoctrination, and that the Yale faculty was promulgating a godless secularism that should not merely be attacked but expunged from the college curriculum.
Raising money from his father and other donors, Buckley at 30 began promoting the conservative point of view in a magazine that sought to enlist the services of prominent conservatives, including Kirk and Whittaker Chambers -- the latter pilloried in the liberal press for accusing Alger Hiss, a State Department official, of espionage.
How did Buckley not only make a success of his magazine, but also enlist as his first subscribers Ronald Reagan and others who would take conservatism from the extreme edges of electoral politics to the mainstream? Bogus provides the customary tributes to Buckley's wit and commanding rhetoric, but, more important, he points to Buckley's organizing skills and the way he co-opted even those conservatives who opposed certain of his positions. In other words, Buckley used his magazine to drive a wedge into the heart of American liberalism, making National Review a force conservatives dare not oppose.
Perhaps the biographer's greatest accomplishment is exposing the shameful aspect of Buckley's legacy: a racism that his conservative contemporaries have tried to obscure. Bogus never calls Buckley an out-and-out racist, but this conclusion is inescapable, given the evidence the biographer supplies. Buckley thought African Americans were inferior, and he used the National Review as an apologist organ for Southern segregationists.
This sorry chapter in Buckley's biography and in the history of the National Review is, however, put in perspective, one that gives Buckley due credit for, in the main, making a powerful contribution to American political thought and to the culture of politics that would have been considerably diminished without his sparkling contributions.
January 12, 2014
A readable guide to William F. Buckley's personal history and early career. Bogus discusses in depth Buckley's general ideas and a few of the major public subjects Buckley and National Review were associated with ("God and Man at Yale"; Senator McCarthy; Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement; criticism of Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society; his campaign to be New York City mayor; Vietnam), although unfortunately it cuts off during the Nixon administration, aside from a cursory discussion of the Reagan years and a few other episodes during the conclusion. I suppose the author's point was that Buckley was the necessary force in creating the modern conservative movement, and that his efforts were largely in place by the 1970s. Still, as intellectual history this book is a little too scattershot to be really convincing regarding causal influences. Its real interest is in the narration of events in the lives of Buckley and his subjects, and it could have made room for a lot more by, for instance, cutting out long histories of Jim Crow, French colonial policy in Indochina, or the early years of John Lindsay.
As a biographer, Bogus subjects Buckley's writing to the harsh criticism of context and evidence. In many cases Buckley comes across, not unfairly, as a twit: a man whose commitments to the abstract principles of individual liberty and equality before the law were rendered obtuse, if not malicious, by the practical realities of life for many Americans; a purported political thinker and skilled debater who often relied on the deceptive tricks of ad hominem insults, mockery, and the collapsing of separate concepts into one.
Bogus is very clear about his view of his subject's opinions, which is fair enough; but I remain puzzled as to his personal affection for Buckley, who was, by all accounts, a charismatic and witty figure. While such traits are in evidence here, they are overshadowed by a priggish and self-satisfied defender of ideas that were often self-contradicting and downright nasty (if anything, the real hero of the book is longtime National Review contributor, if vehement opponent of the libertarian movement, Russell Kirk). I've seen arguments made by Buckley that I could respect, while disagreeing with; this book is rather a collection or even indictment of his worst hits, in addition to some inter-party jockeying with even more conservative rivals. I'd have been curious to see the author discuss some other, less obviously hackish, positions taken by his subject.
As a biographer, Bogus subjects Buckley's writing to the harsh criticism of context and evidence. In many cases Buckley comes across, not unfairly, as a twit: a man whose commitments to the abstract principles of individual liberty and equality before the law were rendered obtuse, if not malicious, by the practical realities of life for many Americans; a purported political thinker and skilled debater who often relied on the deceptive tricks of ad hominem insults, mockery, and the collapsing of separate concepts into one.
Bogus is very clear about his view of his subject's opinions, which is fair enough; but I remain puzzled as to his personal affection for Buckley, who was, by all accounts, a charismatic and witty figure. While such traits are in evidence here, they are overshadowed by a priggish and self-satisfied defender of ideas that were often self-contradicting and downright nasty (if anything, the real hero of the book is longtime National Review contributor, if vehement opponent of the libertarian movement, Russell Kirk). I've seen arguments made by Buckley that I could respect, while disagreeing with; this book is rather a collection or even indictment of his worst hits, in addition to some inter-party jockeying with even more conservative rivals. I'd have been curious to see the author discuss some other, less obviously hackish, positions taken by his subject.
February 2, 2012
Excellent overview o Buckley, and his particular flavor of conservativism, and how he was able to unite disparate wings of conservativism into one "movement."
Bogus has written for The Nation, among other things, but, from my POV, there's no liberal ax-grinding; Buckley is acknowledged for his successes, while still criticized for his flaws.
Besides the "political sociology" success of creating this modern movement, Bogus notes that Buckley himself was primarily a libertarian, but with social conservative leanings to, albeit of a religious nature. He was NOT, Bogus says, a Burkean, in his take on individualistic vs. collective strands in conservativism. Bogus says that Americans' "rugged individuality" probably has militated against a Burkean line of thought gaining too much steam in America. And, after Russell Kirk decided to pitch his tent under Buckley's Burkeans had no independent leader in the U.S. (And really still don't today.)
Buckley's biggest failing? That of Ron Paul today - race issues. I knew about mid-1950s National Review issues, which were bad enough to be called, if not racist, at least pandering to racists. But, as late as the late 1960s, Buckley was lamenting that too many blacks were in leadership positions in the fight against the Vietnam War, and claimed they were communist dupes, in part because they weren't smarter. THAT I did not know.
And, that was Buckley's second-biggest mistake - Vietnam. He never did admit he was wrong for backing that war to the bitter end. Bogus says that's because Buckley, beyond "evil empire" takes on monolithic communism, had no coherent foreign policy, nor did he attempt to make one.'
That, in turn reflects not a single mistake, but a larger failing. Bogus rightly calls Buckley not a deep thinker. (There are conservative deep thinkers, but, to riff on Bogus, they're not to be found at the main conservative opinion journals.)
Anyway, I don't want to give away too much about the book. Moderates, liberals, and even honest conservatives who don't worship at Buckley's altar will find plenty to like here.
Bogus has written for The Nation, among other things, but, from my POV, there's no liberal ax-grinding; Buckley is acknowledged for his successes, while still criticized for his flaws.
Besides the "political sociology" success of creating this modern movement, Bogus notes that Buckley himself was primarily a libertarian, but with social conservative leanings to, albeit of a religious nature. He was NOT, Bogus says, a Burkean, in his take on individualistic vs. collective strands in conservativism. Bogus says that Americans' "rugged individuality" probably has militated against a Burkean line of thought gaining too much steam in America. And, after Russell Kirk decided to pitch his tent under Buckley's Burkeans had no independent leader in the U.S. (And really still don't today.)
Buckley's biggest failing? That of Ron Paul today - race issues. I knew about mid-1950s National Review issues, which were bad enough to be called, if not racist, at least pandering to racists. But, as late as the late 1960s, Buckley was lamenting that too many blacks were in leadership positions in the fight against the Vietnam War, and claimed they were communist dupes, in part because they weren't smarter. THAT I did not know.
And, that was Buckley's second-biggest mistake - Vietnam. He never did admit he was wrong for backing that war to the bitter end. Bogus says that's because Buckley, beyond "evil empire" takes on monolithic communism, had no coherent foreign policy, nor did he attempt to make one.'
That, in turn reflects not a single mistake, but a larger failing. Bogus rightly calls Buckley not a deep thinker. (There are conservative deep thinkers, but, to riff on Bogus, they're not to be found at the main conservative opinion journals.)
Anyway, I don't want to give away too much about the book. Moderates, liberals, and even honest conservatives who don't worship at Buckley's altar will find plenty to like here.
October 22, 2012
Impressive history book of the traditional conservatism I was brought up on and Buckley's impact in helping the Conservative party morph into what we see today. The book is written by a liberal but was even-handed and seems to get good reviews from liberals and conservatives. If nothing else, it is a fascinating way to update your understanding of events in our nation's past.
December 30, 2012
I learned a lot about WFB's interactions with the people that made National Review happen. It had the best short explanation of the Suez crisis that I had ever read. Explained how WFB's views had their roots in his father's experiences as a oilman in early 20th century Mexico. I learned a great deal from it.
September 24, 2012
I really enjoyed this book. Gives a great overview of what conservatism meant before Buckley and how he changed it. Completely even-handed, which is saying something because the author makes clear he is a liberal.
April 8, 2013
I used this book for my research. Despite the fact that I disagreed mightily with Buckley, I found much to like about the man. This book is well worth a look. I often think that Buckley is rolling in his grave at the current state of his conservative movement.
October 23, 2013
I reviewed this book for the New York Times in December 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/boo...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/boo...
June 13, 2014
A very interesting, often insightful, but somewhat disorganized and disjointed biography/history of the Godfather of U.S. conservatism. A valuable contribution to the literature, but rather jumbled and tangential.
October 4, 2014
This is a very fair and reasonably balanced portrayal of Bill Buckley.
December 3, 2015
good learning
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews