What do you think?
Rate this book
Open to Debate: How William F. Buckley Put Liberal America on the Firing Line
A unique and compelling portrait of William F. Buckley as the champion of conservative ideas in an age of liberal dominance, taking on the smartest adversaries he could find while singlehandedly reinventing the role of public intellectual in the network TV era.
When Firing Line premiered on American television in 1966, just two years after Barry Goldwater’s devastating defeat, liberalism was ascendant. Though the left seemed to have decisively won the hearts and minds of the electorate, the show’s creator and host, William F. Buckley—relishing his role as a public contrarian—made the case for conservative ideas, believing that his side would ultimately win because its arguments were better. As the founder of the right’s flagship journal, National Review, Buckley spoke to likeminded readers. With Firing Line, he reached beyond conservative enclaves, engaging millions of Americans across the political spectrum.
Each week on Firing Line, Buckley and his guests—the cream of America’s intellectual class, such as Tom Wolfe, Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Henry Kissinger, and Milton Friedman—debated the urgent issues of the day, bringing politics, culture, and economics into American living rooms as never before. Buckley himself was an exemplary host; he never appealed to emotion and prejudice; he engaged his guests with a unique and entertaining combination of principle, wit, fact, a truly fearsome vocabulary, and genuine affection for his adversaries.
Drawing on archival material, interviews, and transcripts, Open to Debate provides a richly detailed portrait of this widely respected ideological warrior, showing him in action as never before. Much more than just the story of a television show, Hendershot’s book provides a history of American public intellectual life from the 1960s through the 1980s—one of the most contentious eras in our history—and shows how Buckley led the way in drawing America to conservatism during those years.
When Firing Line premiered on American television in 1966, just two years after Barry Goldwater’s devastating defeat, liberalism was ascendant. Though the left seemed to have decisively won the hearts and minds of the electorate, the show’s creator and host, William F. Buckley—relishing his role as a public contrarian—made the case for conservative ideas, believing that his side would ultimately win because its arguments were better. As the founder of the right’s flagship journal, National Review, Buckley spoke to likeminded readers. With Firing Line, he reached beyond conservative enclaves, engaging millions of Americans across the political spectrum.
Each week on Firing Line, Buckley and his guests—the cream of America’s intellectual class, such as Tom Wolfe, Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Henry Kissinger, and Milton Friedman—debated the urgent issues of the day, bringing politics, culture, and economics into American living rooms as never before. Buckley himself was an exemplary host; he never appealed to emotion and prejudice; he engaged his guests with a unique and entertaining combination of principle, wit, fact, a truly fearsome vocabulary, and genuine affection for his adversaries.
Drawing on archival material, interviews, and transcripts, Open to Debate provides a richly detailed portrait of this widely respected ideological warrior, showing him in action as never before. Much more than just the story of a television show, Hendershot’s book provides a history of American public intellectual life from the 1960s through the 1980s—one of the most contentious eras in our history—and shows how Buckley led the way in drawing America to conservatism during those years.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published May 31, 2016
23 people are currently reading
205 people want to read
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
November 20, 2016
Remember Debate? I know, that sounds like a weird question, maybe a typo, as if I left a word out or something, but I meant to write that. I’ll ask it a different way: remember the concept of careful deliberation and articulation of ideas in a two-way discussion in which two sides of an argument tried to convince the other side of the rightness of their side using thoughtful, respectful language and carefully-considered fact-based support of one’s points?
Yeah, you know: Debate. That thing that was taught in high school---a required class when I went to school, probably not so much anymore, assuming it’s even still taught at all.
There used to be Debate clubs, where kids would stand at podiums, be given a topic of discussion, several minutes to jot down notes, and then they would enter into a discussion. For many, probably not as exciting as tennis or volleyball, but for some, it was fun.
Heather Hendershot remembers Debate fondly. Indeed, she laments it. Like many of us, she misses it, and she wonders what the hell happened to it. Where the fuck is healthy Debate anymore?
I wish I could say that Hendershot went looking, found Debate living in a beat-up Airstream down by the river next to the old abandoned steel factory, barely alive, alcoholic, strung out on meth, living on Taco Bell value menu bean burritos, and then nursed it back to health with a steady diet of rest, ginger tea, graham crackers, and the soothing music of Zamphyr and his magical pan flute, and now Debate is back at work as a part-time high school English teacher, tutoring kids after school, going to a Unitarian church, clean and sober, and planning on writing a book about its experiences.
Alas, no.
Debate is dead.
Hendershot, a professor of film and media at M.I.T., looks back at the last great debator---the conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., editor of National Review magazine and host of the longest-running public affairs show, Firing Line---with great fondness in her book “Open to Debate”.
Buckley loved a good debate. He loved the free exchange of ideas and the meeting of minds in a good intellectual discussion. He was always respectful of his guests, even those with which he could find nothing to agree. He rarely if ever budged on his conservative views on morality (he was a devout Catholic), government (he hated federal overreach), and the economy (he was a staunch believer in trickle-down), but he was open-minded enough to let liberals make their case without interruption or dismissal.
He was pretty much the very opposite of what today’s conservative pundits---Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, et al---have devolved into. The mean-spirited, vitriolic, anti-intellectual bent to those on the Right today are the very antithesis of the endearing, gentlemanly, scholarly persona that Buckley shaped in the 33 years that he hosted Firing Line.
Hendershot, a liberal, lambastes today’s 24-hour news media that blatantly panders to conservatives and liberals with networks that don’t even bother hiding their political bias. To her, FOX News and MSNBC represent the death knell of objective journalism.
“In our splintered American mediascape,” she writes, “conservatives tend to seek out news media that they agree with, and liberals do the same. There seems to be very little space for political opponents to sit down and talk, without interrupting, shouting insults, or hurling chairs at each other. Restoring genteel notions of civility to TV will not provide a magic cure for all that ails us politically today. But Firing Line offers a model for what smart political TV once was. And could be again? (p. xxxv)”
In Hendershot’s opinion, the closest thing she has seen to intellectual debate has come from an unlikely source: fake comedy news shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert often succeeded where shows like Hardball, Meet the Press, or The O’Reilly Factor failed, in terms of providing opposing views a forum for friendly, respectful but still heated debate.
Now, with the impending doom of a Trump presidency and a hand-picked cast of nightmares from the Washington, D.C. equivalent of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, even the pretense of debate is threatened. A free press and the First Amendment are the only things standing between the neo-fascism that Trump promises and hope for our future.
Perhaps there is some comfort in knowing that the late Buckley (he died in 2008), had this to say about Trump: “Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line. (http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/201...)”
Yeah, you know: Debate. That thing that was taught in high school---a required class when I went to school, probably not so much anymore, assuming it’s even still taught at all.
There used to be Debate clubs, where kids would stand at podiums, be given a topic of discussion, several minutes to jot down notes, and then they would enter into a discussion. For many, probably not as exciting as tennis or volleyball, but for some, it was fun.
Heather Hendershot remembers Debate fondly. Indeed, she laments it. Like many of us, she misses it, and she wonders what the hell happened to it. Where the fuck is healthy Debate anymore?
I wish I could say that Hendershot went looking, found Debate living in a beat-up Airstream down by the river next to the old abandoned steel factory, barely alive, alcoholic, strung out on meth, living on Taco Bell value menu bean burritos, and then nursed it back to health with a steady diet of rest, ginger tea, graham crackers, and the soothing music of Zamphyr and his magical pan flute, and now Debate is back at work as a part-time high school English teacher, tutoring kids after school, going to a Unitarian church, clean and sober, and planning on writing a book about its experiences.
Alas, no.
Debate is dead.
Hendershot, a professor of film and media at M.I.T., looks back at the last great debator---the conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., editor of National Review magazine and host of the longest-running public affairs show, Firing Line---with great fondness in her book “Open to Debate”.
Buckley loved a good debate. He loved the free exchange of ideas and the meeting of minds in a good intellectual discussion. He was always respectful of his guests, even those with which he could find nothing to agree. He rarely if ever budged on his conservative views on morality (he was a devout Catholic), government (he hated federal overreach), and the economy (he was a staunch believer in trickle-down), but he was open-minded enough to let liberals make their case without interruption or dismissal.
He was pretty much the very opposite of what today’s conservative pundits---Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, et al---have devolved into. The mean-spirited, vitriolic, anti-intellectual bent to those on the Right today are the very antithesis of the endearing, gentlemanly, scholarly persona that Buckley shaped in the 33 years that he hosted Firing Line.
Hendershot, a liberal, lambastes today’s 24-hour news media that blatantly panders to conservatives and liberals with networks that don’t even bother hiding their political bias. To her, FOX News and MSNBC represent the death knell of objective journalism.
“In our splintered American mediascape,” she writes, “conservatives tend to seek out news media that they agree with, and liberals do the same. There seems to be very little space for political opponents to sit down and talk, without interrupting, shouting insults, or hurling chairs at each other. Restoring genteel notions of civility to TV will not provide a magic cure for all that ails us politically today. But Firing Line offers a model for what smart political TV once was. And could be again? (p. xxxv)”
In Hendershot’s opinion, the closest thing she has seen to intellectual debate has come from an unlikely source: fake comedy news shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert often succeeded where shows like Hardball, Meet the Press, or The O’Reilly Factor failed, in terms of providing opposing views a forum for friendly, respectful but still heated debate.
Now, with the impending doom of a Trump presidency and a hand-picked cast of nightmares from the Washington, D.C. equivalent of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, even the pretense of debate is threatened. A free press and the First Amendment are the only things standing between the neo-fascism that Trump promises and hope for our future.
Perhaps there is some comfort in knowing that the late Buckley (he died in 2008), had this to say about Trump: “Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line. (http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/201...)”
March 4, 2017
For those of you who distrust news sources because they don't align with your worldview, or think that a liberal can't tell the truth about a conservative, or a conservative can't tell the truth about a liberal, this excellent and engaging book will open your eyes. The author, a liberal, provides a fun, remarkably even-handed account of Buckley and his Firing Line show. It's clear that Hendershot appreciated the show for its adult, civil political discourse, and especially how Buckley went out of his way to invite liberal guests and genuinely wanted to hear their point of view. Firing Line was no Crossfire or McLaughlin Group, and he in no way tried to "destroy" his guests a la Jon Stewart and Oliver. It's be nice if something like this could come around again.
January 9, 2021
I'm a little too young to remember the Firing Line TV show with William F. Buckley, but as a long time reader of the National Review I had to check this book out. I'm so glad I did! Heather Hendershot is an amazing writer, with exactly the kind of wry and urbane style Buckley would have loved. She tells thousands of funny and fascinating anecdotes about the conservative author and thinker, and how his political talk show beat all the odds and survived on the air for more than thirty years.
Interestingly, I felt that the book really peeks in the Preface and the Introduction, where the author gives an overview of WFB's life and work. She explains what he wanted to accomplish, the nature of the Conservative movement he wanted to build, and how the Firing Line almost accidentally became great television and his enduring legacy.
Hendershot is clearly a huge fan of Buckley, intellectually if not politically. She captures his style, his wit, his genuine curiosity about different points of view. But what makes the book a true classic is that a lot of the most revealing anecdotes really capture moments when he doesn't get it. There's a whole section on the Civil Rights movement, and even though Buckley keeps his cool when being taunted and insulted by ex-rapist and "revolutionary" Eldridge Cleaver, it's more revealing (and much sadder in a way) when a community organizer tries to explain that ghetto housing is full of rats and Buckley just says, "why don't those people just kill those rats?" That was a real Marie Antoinette moment!
On the other hand, there's an equally truthful moment when Buckley has a bunch of young Marine officers on the show, (including a young Oliver North) and they all keep insisting (in Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil fashion) that they never saw, heard of, or participated in any unlawful killings in Vietnam. (This was just after the My Lai massacre.) Buckley shows them the utmost respect throughout the show, but at the end he says, "you know, I've lived in New York City for seven years, and I've never been mugged. But I would hesitate to suggest that no-one is being mugged in New York City tonight." The dramatic power of that moment is hard to beat!
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in conservative thinkers, the Sixties, television journalism, or the American experience.
Interestingly, I felt that the book really peeks in the Preface and the Introduction, where the author gives an overview of WFB's life and work. She explains what he wanted to accomplish, the nature of the Conservative movement he wanted to build, and how the Firing Line almost accidentally became great television and his enduring legacy.
Hendershot is clearly a huge fan of Buckley, intellectually if not politically. She captures his style, his wit, his genuine curiosity about different points of view. But what makes the book a true classic is that a lot of the most revealing anecdotes really capture moments when he doesn't get it. There's a whole section on the Civil Rights movement, and even though Buckley keeps his cool when being taunted and insulted by ex-rapist and "revolutionary" Eldridge Cleaver, it's more revealing (and much sadder in a way) when a community organizer tries to explain that ghetto housing is full of rats and Buckley just says, "why don't those people just kill those rats?" That was a real Marie Antoinette moment!
On the other hand, there's an equally truthful moment when Buckley has a bunch of young Marine officers on the show, (including a young Oliver North) and they all keep insisting (in Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil fashion) that they never saw, heard of, or participated in any unlawful killings in Vietnam. (This was just after the My Lai massacre.) Buckley shows them the utmost respect throughout the show, but at the end he says, "you know, I've lived in New York City for seven years, and I've never been mugged. But I would hesitate to suggest that no-one is being mugged in New York City tonight." The dramatic power of that moment is hard to beat!
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in conservative thinkers, the Sixties, television journalism, or the American experience.
September 29, 2016
I almost can't believe how much I enjoyed this book. Republican? Democrat? Doesn't matter! Heather Hendershot does a fantastic job of pushing no political agenda (Buckley is conservative, Hendershot is liberal), but instead makes a plea for thoughtful political discourse on television that is missing since Firing Line went off the air. I may disagree with Buckley's politics, but I appreciate his approach to dialogue and preference for intellectual debate over agreeable bombast.
September 2, 2020
What I like most about Hendershot’s book is that her hypothesis is precise, and her evidence is ample. Bill Buckley gave voice to those on the Left the networks considered too radical and he offered cordial discussion rather than a shouting circus. Bill was happy to talk ideas with anyone that was serious about ideas. He also understood that his adversaries make good TV and maybe we would all learn some things. The book becomes a mix of conversation transcriptions and analysis which in the wrong hands could get dull.
Hendershot too must have watched hundreds of hours to find the nuggets she delivers here. The larger premise of the book is such a forum no longer exists and it isn’t just because of social media and cable news. This kind of forum existed no where else when Buckley was doing it. The news in the 1960s was a host reading the Associated Press ticker. The other PBS political shows like Washington Week in Review were current events rather than intellectual deep dives. The McGalughlin group was a prototype for cable news.
I don’t think I saw Firing Line until the 1990s. I can remember the first episode was with guest Peggy Noonan talking about her book as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. I remember Mortimer Adler once or twice. I can also remember an author who wrote a book called What Every Woman Should Know about Her Husband's Money. I think Buckley had her on so he could end the show with the joke of saying the title and then adding, “Except for my wife.”
The book ends with the author suggesting HBO produce a modern day version of Firing Line and how they should go about it. PBS actually brought the show back after this publication with Margaret Hoover as the host. I have seen a few episodes and it’s interesting but not as compelling.
In conclusion, I think this is an important book in the study of William F. Buckley as well as well the study of intellectual political discussion that is otherwise lacking on the airwaves.
Hendershot too must have watched hundreds of hours to find the nuggets she delivers here. The larger premise of the book is such a forum no longer exists and it isn’t just because of social media and cable news. This kind of forum existed no where else when Buckley was doing it. The news in the 1960s was a host reading the Associated Press ticker. The other PBS political shows like Washington Week in Review were current events rather than intellectual deep dives. The McGalughlin group was a prototype for cable news.
I don’t think I saw Firing Line until the 1990s. I can remember the first episode was with guest Peggy Noonan talking about her book as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. I remember Mortimer Adler once or twice. I can also remember an author who wrote a book called What Every Woman Should Know about Her Husband's Money. I think Buckley had her on so he could end the show with the joke of saying the title and then adding, “Except for my wife.”
The book ends with the author suggesting HBO produce a modern day version of Firing Line and how they should go about it. PBS actually brought the show back after this publication with Margaret Hoover as the host. I have seen a few episodes and it’s interesting but not as compelling.
In conclusion, I think this is an important book in the study of William F. Buckley as well as well the study of intellectual political discussion that is otherwise lacking on the airwaves.
June 23, 2025
I’m conflicted about this rating. On one hand, Ms. Hendershot did not write an objective history of Firing Line and its host, William F. Buckley, and the book often fails to be more beneficial than simply watching episodes of the show for free on YouTube. It is unabashedly written for a left-learning audience, who the author apparently believes need to be guided very gently through so much complimentary coverage of an influential conservative. For example, after a certain number of complimentary paragraphs about Buckley, Ms. Hendershot pathologically forces in some fact check or tangentially-related scandalous trivia about him as if to soothe the left-leaning reader with reassurance that for all his virtues, he is still not someone to be persuaded by. The fact checks are often a matter of opinion or speculation, and these instances are not presented any differently than occasions when the criticism is on solid and objective ground. Her play-by-play analysis of the debates are merely her own observations and opinions as a professor of film and media, which gives the reader an experience similar to trying to watch the show while a color commentator prattles on an on in favor of one side. Ironically for a book about the virtue of debate, Ms. Hendershot is a glutton for providing additional context and depth to Firing Line arguments that she agrees with but never with those she does not, lest the reader arrive at the wrong conclusion. The writing in the book is very informal and needs more work. Her prose has the refinement of a diarist (admittedly more than I can say for myself).
The book has a lot of problems. On the other hand, is it not a good thing that a lefty uses Firing Line as an example of elevated political discourse? Is it not wise of Ms. Hendershot to write the book to be accessible to those who might be the hardest to convince? Shouldn’t I simply be glad that someone wrote a book on a topic that I’m passionate about? It’s debatable. [cue Loony Tunes music]
The book has a lot of problems. On the other hand, is it not a good thing that a lefty uses Firing Line as an example of elevated political discourse? Is it not wise of Ms. Hendershot to write the book to be accessible to those who might be the hardest to convince? Shouldn’t I simply be glad that someone wrote a book on a topic that I’m passionate about? It’s debatable. [cue Loony Tunes music]
November 14, 2019
Informative and timely book on William F. Buckley's pioneering talk show Firing Line. A prominent conservative, Buckley welcomed people of all political persuasions on his show for spirited debate and conversation. Firing Line also stands as a living document of America in the 20th Century. While I don't agree with Buckley on most issues, I commend him for welcoming debate and discussion without things turning into a shouting match.
May 10, 2025
Fun book but very oddly organized. Author also attempts to mingle in a folksy, reader-directed writing style that mostly falls flat.
April 7, 2018
It's already changed how I talk to Trump-loving friends and relatives. Hendershot has a flair for fairness.
Read
March 9, 2017“In vino veritas, in whiskey calamitas!”
Those were the first words of caution ever spoken to me by Bill Buckley—they wouldn’t be the last—as he passed me a large glass of red wine. I’d asked for whiskey. (Jack Kerouac, in a Firing Line appearance, would prove the truth of the maxim.)
We were at his Manhattan duplex, where he was collecting some material before driving to the studio where Firing Line was shot.
Earlier that day, he’d made a rare visit to the National Review editorial offices on the second floor at 150 East 35th Street. (His office was on the third floor, from which he exchanged copy via dumbwaiter with his sister Priscilla, our superb managing editor.) I was needed as a last-minute guest on Firing Line, he told me, to give the program balance.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Those were the first words of caution ever spoken to me by Bill Buckley—they wouldn’t be the last—as he passed me a large glass of red wine. I’d asked for whiskey. (Jack Kerouac, in a Firing Line appearance, would prove the truth of the maxim.)
We were at his Manhattan duplex, where he was collecting some material before driving to the studio where Firing Line was shot.
Earlier that day, he’d made a rare visit to the National Review editorial offices on the second floor at 150 East 35th Street. (His office was on the third floor, from which he exchanged copy via dumbwaiter with his sister Priscilla, our superb managing editor.) I was needed as a last-minute guest on Firing Line, he told me, to give the program balance.
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
February 17, 2020
The first warning is the cheap pun in the title. Sadly, the book title is there for the pun, as it misleads the reader about the theme of the book. The book is not about how WB put an abstraction on his TV show, but rather how WB differs from the ideal TV show host Hendershot fantasizes about. And there is no debate, just cheap shots, which WB probably deserves, yet that does not elevate Hendershot's remarks above cheap shots.
December 8, 2016
I spent far too much time as a poor man's Alex P. Keating so Buckley material rarely if ever educates me. However, I flipped to the endnotes several times in amusement at being surprised. If you watched Best of Enemies, or care skit the intellectual history of public political media, you will enjoy this book, especially with this author as your guide.
December 22, 2016
Fantastic book, recommend to anyone interested in political discussion (that is rational, coherent discussion). It doesn't matter whether you lean left or right, truly a wonderful book; though when coming upon the quotations of Buckley Jr. in the text one might want to have a dictionary handy at all times
May 12, 2017
I've heard lots about William F. Buckley in the past, but I've never read anything about him until I picked up this new book at the library. When I realized that the author was a confirmed liberal, I was somewhat hesitant to continue, as sure as I was in the inability for a liberal to give a fair shake to a conservative as many liberals are of the opposite. However, in a small gesture of trust in the premise of this book (the reintroduction into our society of honest-to-God debate) I decided to continue reading...and I'm glad I did.
Hendershot does an admirable job (considering our nation's present climate) presenting a fair and balanced look at Mr. Buckley, a man whose mission (though certainly not his politics) she seems to truly admire. Sure, there is the occasional obligatory shot at Fox News and its viewers but they come along with a couple (decidedly weaker) shots at CNN and MSNBC, so there appears to be a measure of equality.
The author breaks down her book by topics, spending a chapter on the women's liberation movement, another on Richard Nixon, yet another on civil rights, and the final chapter on Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was Mr. Buckley's crowning achievement as the "Father of Modern Conservatism". Hendershot cites numerous episodes and takes special care to inform the reader that Mr. Buckley was interviewing people from all over the spectrum of the issues at hand: one day he might have on Betty Friedan, women's lib heroine of the left and the next day, Phyllis Schlafly, heroine of the right. He would have on mainstream members of the civil rights movement and members of the Black Panthers, whose views were only slightly alluded to even within the more "progressive" media at the time. I found myself looking up a myriad of different episodes on YouTube, and thanks to the Hoover Institute, whose Herculean work in archiving so many episodes of Firing Line we should all be thankful for, many a lunch hour of mine was well spent!
Did Mr. Buckley have faults? Without a doubt, as Hendershot is quick to point out (some of which conservatives would gently point out could be seen as virtues). But overall, the theme of the book is that the public discourse that Mr. Buckley strove to project on his bare-bones show has long since disappeared from the American media landscape, and its high time we saw to its resurrection. And I think (or at least, I hope) that's a sentiment that all of us, liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between, can ALL agree with.
Hendershot does an admirable job (considering our nation's present climate) presenting a fair and balanced look at Mr. Buckley, a man whose mission (though certainly not his politics) she seems to truly admire. Sure, there is the occasional obligatory shot at Fox News and its viewers but they come along with a couple (decidedly weaker) shots at CNN and MSNBC, so there appears to be a measure of equality.
The author breaks down her book by topics, spending a chapter on the women's liberation movement, another on Richard Nixon, yet another on civil rights, and the final chapter on Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was Mr. Buckley's crowning achievement as the "Father of Modern Conservatism". Hendershot cites numerous episodes and takes special care to inform the reader that Mr. Buckley was interviewing people from all over the spectrum of the issues at hand: one day he might have on Betty Friedan, women's lib heroine of the left and the next day, Phyllis Schlafly, heroine of the right. He would have on mainstream members of the civil rights movement and members of the Black Panthers, whose views were only slightly alluded to even within the more "progressive" media at the time. I found myself looking up a myriad of different episodes on YouTube, and thanks to the Hoover Institute, whose Herculean work in archiving so many episodes of Firing Line we should all be thankful for, many a lunch hour of mine was well spent!
Did Mr. Buckley have faults? Without a doubt, as Hendershot is quick to point out (some of which conservatives would gently point out could be seen as virtues). But overall, the theme of the book is that the public discourse that Mr. Buckley strove to project on his bare-bones show has long since disappeared from the American media landscape, and its high time we saw to its resurrection. And I think (or at least, I hope) that's a sentiment that all of us, liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between, can ALL agree with.
May 29, 2017
Today, political talk shows have increasingly become a symptom of our partisan political culture – pandering either to the left (The Rachel Maddow Show) or right (The O’Reilly Factor). From the 1960’s to the 1990’s, however, the ground-breaking TV show Firing Line, hosted by William F. Buckley, Jr., bridged the gap between liberals and conservatives, encouraging an atmosphere of fair and open debate. In her new book, "Open to Debate: How William F. Buckley Put Liberal America on the Firing Line", academic Heather Hendershot details the history of Firing Line, and the show’s role in shaping the post-war conservative movement.
"Open to Debate" begins by recounting how Firing Line first went on air in 1966 after Buckley's failed campaign for Mayor of New York, which significantly raised the writer and National Review editor’s public profile. After the devastating loss of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, Firing Line arrived at a moment when the conservative movement was in disarray, and Hendershot details how, with his show, Buckley attempted to present a more refined conservatism - whether through his even-handed debates with prominent feminists and Black Panther leaders, or Buckley's efforts to distance the conservative movement from many of the actions of the Nixon administration. With the emergence of Ronald Reagan, the right eventually found a viable candidate whose platform embodied its vision, and Reagan's ascendancy to power in the 1980’s saw the conservatism long promoted by Buckley come to dominate the American political scene. Firing Line would continue to air throughout the Reagan years and into the 1990's, until an aging Buckley finally decided to retire the show at the dawn of the new millennium.
Personally, I thought this was a terrific book. Hendershot’s work is a lucidly written socio-cultural account of how Buckley and Firing Line contributed to conservatism’s movement from the realm of ideas into actual policy, and Hendershot’s supplementary observations on the way media landscape has shifted during and since Firing Line’s time on air were fascinating. Above all else, however, the book makes the important case for how the type of civilized debate featured on Firing Line is a lost art that needs to be revitalized, a message urgently needed in today's divided political culture. 4.5/5.
"Open to Debate" begins by recounting how Firing Line first went on air in 1966 after Buckley's failed campaign for Mayor of New York, which significantly raised the writer and National Review editor’s public profile. After the devastating loss of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, Firing Line arrived at a moment when the conservative movement was in disarray, and Hendershot details how, with his show, Buckley attempted to present a more refined conservatism - whether through his even-handed debates with prominent feminists and Black Panther leaders, or Buckley's efforts to distance the conservative movement from many of the actions of the Nixon administration. With the emergence of Ronald Reagan, the right eventually found a viable candidate whose platform embodied its vision, and Reagan's ascendancy to power in the 1980’s saw the conservatism long promoted by Buckley come to dominate the American political scene. Firing Line would continue to air throughout the Reagan years and into the 1990's, until an aging Buckley finally decided to retire the show at the dawn of the new millennium.
Personally, I thought this was a terrific book. Hendershot’s work is a lucidly written socio-cultural account of how Buckley and Firing Line contributed to conservatism’s movement from the realm of ideas into actual policy, and Hendershot’s supplementary observations on the way media landscape has shifted during and since Firing Line’s time on air were fascinating. Above all else, however, the book makes the important case for how the type of civilized debate featured on Firing Line is a lost art that needs to be revitalized, a message urgently needed in today's divided political culture. 4.5/5.
October 29, 2017
A fascinating exploration of William F. Buckley's long running public affairs show The Firing Line from the perspective of engagement with liberals and liberal ideas. The author is an admitted liberal and but find herself impressed with WFB's willingness to openly and honestly wrestle with the major issue of the day. Issues like civil rights and feminism but also political characters like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are wrestled with via not sound bites and shouting but through hour long conversations (or sometimes two hour debates). And Buckley was unafraid to give leftists and even radicals the platform to discuss and debate. This was something the traditional news programs simply didn't do; and still is lacking in our 24-7 cable news world. Hendershot clearly appreciates the fact that no matter where you fell on the political spectrum, Firing Line offered you the opportunity to hear different perspectives and learn from them. She also appreciates the fact the Buckley valued intelligence and rhetorical skill over simply agreeing with him. He wanted a spirited and interesting discussion even as he sought to win viewers over to his side.
The author clearly has her perspective and isn't afraid to offer it, but her respect for and enjoyment of Buckley comes through and as a result you learn a great deal about the history of Firing Line and its approach to the political and cultural environment it engaged with and reflected. It is also an interesting window into the history of conservatism; albeit a indirect one.
The author clearly has her perspective and isn't afraid to offer it, but her respect for and enjoyment of Buckley comes through and as a result you learn a great deal about the history of Firing Line and its approach to the political and cultural environment it engaged with and reflected. It is also an interesting window into the history of conservatism; albeit a indirect one.
October 24, 2018
A rip-roaring read: the kind of book you pick up for five minutes only to realise it’s now dark, you haven’t eaten for eight hours and your pets are dead.
Hendershot – an unrepentant but open-minded liberal – delves deep into the archives to examine the story of Firing Line, the American debate show hosted by waspish, brilliant, perma-grinning William F. Buckley, which presaged the triumph of American conservatism. Broken down by themes (though in a roughly chronological order, such was Buckley’s cresting and declining interest in certain subjects), the book looks at how Firing Line covered conservatism, communism, feminism, black power, Nixon and Reagan, giving thinkers as inflammatory and revolutionary as Huey Newton and Germaine Greer a platform to air their views at length, and so find supporters, unless the audience was suitably convinced by Buckley’s rebuttals.
The writing has the odd cliché or lapse into clunkiness, and Hendershot’s need to restate conclusions at the end of each chapter (and then write another chapter of woolly media studies material positing a potential ‘Firing Line 2.0’) is an academic affectation I could do without, but this is a gripping, thoughtful and revelatory book, a treat for anyone interested in political discourse, public intellectualism or just modern American history.
Hendershot – an unrepentant but open-minded liberal – delves deep into the archives to examine the story of Firing Line, the American debate show hosted by waspish, brilliant, perma-grinning William F. Buckley, which presaged the triumph of American conservatism. Broken down by themes (though in a roughly chronological order, such was Buckley’s cresting and declining interest in certain subjects), the book looks at how Firing Line covered conservatism, communism, feminism, black power, Nixon and Reagan, giving thinkers as inflammatory and revolutionary as Huey Newton and Germaine Greer a platform to air their views at length, and so find supporters, unless the audience was suitably convinced by Buckley’s rebuttals.
The writing has the odd cliché or lapse into clunkiness, and Hendershot’s need to restate conclusions at the end of each chapter (and then write another chapter of woolly media studies material positing a potential ‘Firing Line 2.0’) is an academic affectation I could do without, but this is a gripping, thoughtful and revelatory book, a treat for anyone interested in political discourse, public intellectualism or just modern American history.
June 28, 2021
This book is an achievement. This book's author deserves accolades at many levels. She takes a subject that would have almost certainly been reduced to rambling drudgery in another author's hands and makes it a lively jaunt where Buckley's wonderful witticisms, sprinkled throughout the pages, are very nearly matched by her own. Hendershot's voice is at once humorous, highly intelligent, fair-minded, honest, and compelling. Her book is an invitation to her fellow progressives to avoid the coming cliff and return to civility and it is a rebuke to many on the right to stop screaming and condemning political opponents as "Enemies" and start engaging them thoughtfully, with argument, in the spirit of Buckley -who was, when all is said and done, an active listener. I'm conservative (small "c") born in Massachusetts not 10 miles from Hendershot's residence in ("The People's Republic of") Cambridge, but she is my kind of American and her bold and beautiful effort is something to hoist up above the din. This divided house needs more Heather Hendershots.
October 24, 2020
If a dissertation formed the basis of a book this is what I anticipate it would sound (audiobook) like.
I never watched Firing Line, it predated my adulthood. But being a fan of Buckley I was curious about the program. Its quite the task for an author to summarize three decades worth of productions (nearly 1,500 episodes) to determine which particular dialogs are worthy of quoting here. Although the author is liberal i didn't sense any overt bias for or against Buckley (it does peek out when discussing others such as Reagan), which is to her credit.
This book covered a wide swath of important topics and I am grateful for that. But overall saddens to me admit that I found this book boring overall.
Overall Rating: 3.3
I never watched Firing Line, it predated my adulthood. But being a fan of Buckley I was curious about the program. Its quite the task for an author to summarize three decades worth of productions (nearly 1,500 episodes) to determine which particular dialogs are worthy of quoting here. Although the author is liberal i didn't sense any overt bias for or against Buckley (it does peek out when discussing others such as Reagan), which is to her credit.
This book covered a wide swath of important topics and I am grateful for that. But overall saddens to me admit that I found this book boring overall.
Overall Rating: 3.3
November 11, 2016
The author is a liberal, but this is a fair and well-balanced looked at the longest running TV show in history, William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Firing Line. She even dreams of doing a Firing Line 2.0, which I think is a great idea, albeit for a niche market. An excellent look at the history of the show and some of the most important leaders, public intellectuals, writers, etc., in history.
October 23, 2016
I would have given it 5 stars, but being written by a liberal, there is a left lean throughout the book
January 15, 2020
A bit kinder and more optimistic than I think is merited, but well worth attending to.
March 1, 2017
This is an excellent study of William F. Buckley's TV show.
Examining exemplary episodes, Hendershot gives us an extensive look at how Buckley constructed and crafted the image of reasonable and serious conservatism, positioning himself and it w/r/t issues and movements of his day (civil rights, black power, feminism, conspiracy theorists, the religious right, etc. etc.). The book is also a story of a public intellectual and his media environment, set in the context of the question about our contemporary media environment and what kind of discourse is possible. Well worth reading for anyone interested in either or those topics.
Two quibbles: There is almost no study of the influence of the show. Who watched it? What affect did it have? Hendershot speculates, on occasion, but lets the question go. That leaves the reader wondering to what extent any of this really mattered. Also, the book really doesn't look very deeply at production. There are brief examinations of the set and the sale of advertizing, which are good, but the book would have benefitted from a fuller, more sustained study of how such a show worked, practically, behind the cameras, and what affect this had on the discussions and debates. It's possible the subtitle was not intended that literally, but there could have been more on *how* Buckley's show did what it did.
Examining exemplary episodes, Hendershot gives us an extensive look at how Buckley constructed and crafted the image of reasonable and serious conservatism, positioning himself and it w/r/t issues and movements of his day (civil rights, black power, feminism, conspiracy theorists, the religious right, etc. etc.). The book is also a story of a public intellectual and his media environment, set in the context of the question about our contemporary media environment and what kind of discourse is possible. Well worth reading for anyone interested in either or those topics.
Two quibbles: There is almost no study of the influence of the show. Who watched it? What affect did it have? Hendershot speculates, on occasion, but lets the question go. That leaves the reader wondering to what extent any of this really mattered. Also, the book really doesn't look very deeply at production. There are brief examinations of the set and the sale of advertizing, which are good, but the book would have benefitted from a fuller, more sustained study of how such a show worked, practically, behind the cameras, and what affect this had on the discussions and debates. It's possible the subtitle was not intended that literally, but there could have been more on *how* Buckley's show did what it did.
January 28, 2019
Pays to have a dictionary handy when reading this book...Buckley used the English language masterfully and, to some guests, confounded them with his dictums.
Woefully, we are lacking credible conservative spokespersons (Buckley would shudder) in North America. Liberal thinking is dominating almost all of our education establishments.
And, in my experience, and that of my grand children from what they tell me, any view counter to the current liberal mind set, is met with derision and accusations short of fascism.
Woefully, we are lacking credible conservative spokespersons (Buckley would shudder) in North America. Liberal thinking is dominating almost all of our education establishments.
And, in my experience, and that of my grand children from what they tell me, any view counter to the current liberal mind set, is met with derision and accusations short of fascism.
December 14, 2016
My only quibble with this book is that two of the cover images are taken from the Buckley-Vidal debates of 1968, not from Firing Line. Otherwise this book is perfection, complete with a prescription for a Firing Line type show updated for today's media culture. Heather Hendershot is a goddess of cultural analysis and evenhanded judgement and shows how Firing Line was both timely and timeless.
Read
January 28, 2017Good book, excellent look at Bill Buckley and Firing Line history.
May 24, 2020
William F Buckley
One of the great debaters.A man of many talents.
You can hate him or love him but you cannot deny His genius
One of the great debaters.A man of many talents.
You can hate him or love him but you cannot deny His genius
December 16, 2017
Buckley is rolling in his grave. If he were still here he once again would intellectual vanguish the lunatic fringe on the alt right. He is missed. A great read for any real conservative.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews