A Fabian Conservatism?
There are two systems operating on this Earth. According to one, every man, woman, and child strives with carnal jealously to grasp and hold on to their rights to self and things, and when there is more than enough, the excess is disposed of, given away, or traded on the open market. That is the better of the two systems. According to the other system, men and women quest for virtue and renown, seeking to bring the Kingdom of Heaven down to this world, by violence if necessary, and we are further told that at the end of this process a man shall appear who resembles Christ in certain regards. It is this second system which attracts the best and the brightest. The late William F. Buckley Jr., 1925-2008, practicing Catholic, family man, nominal patriot and putative spy, Yale graduate, novelist, journalist, polymath and polyglot, yet above all things, “intellectual”, was certainly among the brightest of his generation. As a general principle, we ought not speak ill of those whom God has loved and endowed with great talents, yet it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to preserve both truth and memory to render judgement on matters of public record, and especially those actions or omissions which have led the American body politic down its present primrose path. If we are the proverbial tin can, well then, Mr. Buckley was a chief contender among those who kicked us down the road and into the ditch. Assuredly, we have every right to inquire into his mind and motives.
My first memory of William F. Buckley is the televised image of two posh, erudite men engaged in a furious altercation over the merits of the Republican presidential nominee in 1964. The one on the left (from the viewers perspective) was a scandalous representative of the liberal avant guard, an inconsistent and curmudgeonly libertarian/left/democrat, surely an entertaining character if one were to consider him in isolation. However, he could barely gain a point against the other man, the one on the right (again keeping perspective in mind) who seemed an utter novelty, the Adam of a new race which was awaiting formation, or rather self-formation. Gore Vidal, (stage left) has kept a loyal following of fans and detractors, yet Vidal by himself would never have become an epochal or a defining figure of those crisis years. It was Buckley’s, not Vidal’s, video debut , which marked off a new era, not (sadly) of American political thought, but of rhetoric and reality television.
Thus was born, at least in the viewing public’s mind, that oxymoron, the “conservative intellectual.” The hokum of Dogpatch, an image of the American right as rustic buffoons so carefully crafted by liberal opinion makers was momentarily shattered by a visible presence. Since I was a kid, I didn’t know that Buckley had already attained considerable celebrity in literary and journalistic circles, as early as 1950, with the publication of his God and Man at Yale, but now the word had become flesh, visible to millions upon millions of couch dwellers and potato chip eaters. He spoke, and he spoke well, interspersing his verbal darts with the flick of a serpentine tongue across tightly drawn lips. Suddenly, the viewers glimpsed a crack of light shining through the deadening conformity of consensus politics. Was this the chiaroscuro dawn of a new day, or just a hoax? It was ominous when, in a fit of peek, the new god dropped his smooth mask to coin a notorious neologism. Vidal, he fulminated, was an “octo-moron!” In those days of civil discourse you didn’t just go calling someone an eight-fold idiot in front of America’s families…not to mention the lexicographers!
Fast forwarding to the present, and the perspective of the post-Trump, post-civil discourse era, it becomes painfully clear that this erudite “conservatism” has failed. Someone once observed that Hegel only “died” in 1933, a watershed beyond which many conceded that his “dialectic of history” bore scant resemblance to the logical deductions of some charitable and edifying Deity. We might likewise reckon that Buckley “died” in 2016, when it became abundantly clear that the chattering of the political class could no longer be confined to a salon discussion constrained by the niceties of an Americanized high tea. Today we must reluctantly acknowledge that even domestic politics is war, perhaps not quite violent war, but war none the less. But then, shouldn’t we have known that all along? If we didn’t it was mainly our own fault, yet no thanks to Bill Buckley and others who were only too happy to perpetuate our fond illusions. Hence, those moderates who have managed to wake up to the situation often discover that they are very late into a long war of attrition conducted by the left, poised on unfavorable terrain, and desperately short of intellectual ammunition. William F. Buckley, Jr... Best Price: $6.36 Buy New $19.99 (as of 09:55 EDT - Details)
Not that all possible ideologies which might be denominated as conservative are bankrupt, rather, it is especially the smug, above-the-fray “conservatism” defined by William F. Buckley which circumstances have rendered impotent. Herein is the real eight-fold idiocy, not that Buckley was able to concoct a new ideology, which he had the brains and the perfect right to do, but that he usurped the nomenclature of a previous movement, the Old Right, and applied it to his novelties. A guileless Buckley would have decanted his fresh ideological wine into new, or at least newly labeled, wine-skins. Accordingly, Buckley might have dubbed his concoction “Fabian Conservatism” or some such critter…but he insisted on preserving the illusion of continuity with the anti-New Deal coalition. Ironically, the moderate Socialists of the early 20th century showed a greater respect for intellectual property rights by relabeling themselves as Fabians, thus permitting the revolutionary Bolshoi to maintain their identity as “Reds.”
Actually, “Fabian” would have been a far better moniker for whatever Buckley was up to. For one thing, the progressives, then and now, have never intended to give up a single inch of political gain. It is always a matter of advance to the front, either slow and Fabian or fast and revolutionary. In contrast,”conservatism” as it was reinvented by Buckley’s National Review in in the 1950s, has been much closer to the strategy of Quintus Fabius “the delayer”(Rome, 3rd c BC)…defining itself as the weaker side and then enlisting for a long, indeed perpetual, retreat. Today we are experiencing the results of this capitulation. Buckley, much like Keynes “in the long run”, did not live to see the full consequences of this “Fabian” defeatism, a nation in which the conservative brand as a whole has been discredited, and where only a retrenched populism and leftism remain as the primary engines of our uncivil discourse.
Pied Piper of the Establishment
Was Buckley’s defeatism a matter of principle? Was it motivated by an Oswald-Spenglerian ennui in the face of irresistible winds of change? Or was it something else, something less intellectual but more human, a quest for power and social acceptance by a man with the smarts and social connections to become a celebrity, combined with a secret contempt for moral absolutes? John F. McManus considers this question in his William F. Buckley Jr.: Pied Piper of the Establishment, a look at the public words and actions of America’s most famous, so to speak, “conservative.” In this concise and readable work McManus illustrates how virtually every major premise of conservatism was contravened by Mr. Buckley and his associated writers at National Review. Did Buckley really “delay” the advent of the current unpleasant situation through judicious compromise, such as might merit the title Fabian Conservatism? Or did he hasten on the day of reckoning by sapping the bulwarks of more authentic brands of resistance? Mr. McManus doesn’t rush to judgement, but judge he does, by patiently building up a bill of particulars which will strongly incline the reader to embrace the latter hypothesis. The major, though not the only, items that McManus itemizes in the antithetical “conservatism” of Mr. Buckley are the following.
- Buckley substituted an unidentified “conservatism” for the explicit definition of good government found in the Constitution.
- He shielded an unholy alliance between leftists, capitalists, and statists, or what Mr. McManus calls, “the conspiracy” from the public, by denying its existence and targeting its foes.
- By accepting membership in the Council on Foreign relations, he supplied dignity and cover to a key element of this conspiratorial apparatus, or what today might be called the shadow government of the deep state.
- He contributed to the undermining of the nation’s morality.
- He led Americans away from involvement in the kind of principled activism (a.k.a. any continuation of the anti-war, non-interventionist Old Right conservatism, such as flourished in the Robert Taft era).
If Mr. McManus has been able to give us a comprehensive account of Mr. Buckley, his ideology, friends, and actions, it is because, as a young conservative he was a Buckleyite himself. Initially having no alternative to the narrative introduced by National Review which smeared the remnants of the Old Right, and in particular its revival in the organizational form of the John Birch Society, Mr. McManus was an enthusiastic “Fabian” conservative. However, the providential arrival of a letter from a total stranger (in those days before the internet when it was hard to canvass opinions beyond one’s circle or standard journalism) led McManus to question the spin which National Review had put on the distinction between “right-wing” and “conservative.” Subsequently, McManus did his own investigations which forced him to completely rethink the ambiguous ideology of William Buckley and embrace a principled philosophy of freedom. This, in turn, led to membership and later leadership in his once-scorned but now beloved John Birch Society.
Now in order to form a just estimate of William Buckley, such as McManus and others have attempted, one has to understand the context of the world into which this new “conservatism” (Buckleyite, Fabian, or just “faux”) emerged. The Second World War had been a global victory which came at the price of weakening every domestic institution in America other than the state, and the conscience of the Old Right urged a return to something like a peacetime society and economy. It was well understood, and not just by conservatives, that there was a natural iteration between times of war and times of peace, and that a condition of perpetual war was a recipe for tyranny. True, there was the very real threat of Communism to be dealt with, but it had to be dealt with in such a way that the very institutions used to fight Communism did not replicate the evil they were designed to overcome.
However, the wisdom of turning America back into a normal society was not so easily put into practice. The vast wartime tangle of bureaus and red tape (into which many actual “Reds” had insinuated themselves) proved easier to dedicate to new missions than to mothball. Predictably, the same political party which had given America the New Deal were enthusiasts for the National Security State (activated by legislation passed in 1947) which perpetuated and legitimated all the essential wartime security and military apparatus.
This rapidly consolidating system was rightfully seen by many conservatives as “Orwellian” (a coinage of that era, since 1984 was written in 1948). Moreover, for objectors the remedy was both obvious and Constitutional, i.e., “Throw the bums out!” and restore a peacetime, lassez-faire economy. According to the myth of the two party system, that was the expected order of things, with frequent turnarounds in power both affirming the sovereignty of the people and harmonizing extremes of policy. Around 1954, similar to the Trump election of 2016, enemies of the status quo envisaged that if their party won fair and square the “loyal opposition” would consent to a fundamental reorientation of national policy. Alas, then as now, the concept of “loyal opposition” proved to be an oxymoron…if not an eightfold idiocy! Whatever the hardships and tragedy of the New Deal and the Second World War, the truly sinister development wasn’t triggered until, after a twenty years hiatus, a Republican administration was finally inaugurated. To the shock and dismay of genuine conservatives, rather than a return to normality, under Eisenhower, the progress towards a managerial welfare/warfare state was affirmed and even accelerated.
It was at this juncture of history that William F. Buckley Jr. appeared in the forums of public life. Initially, National Review shared the outrage of the Old Right, sill smarting from the primary defeat of Taft, at the wholesale adoption of New Deal programs and apparatus by the nominally Republican administration which had replaced Truman. McManus notes that…
In December 1957 Buckley himself scolded President Eisenhower for his sorry leadership. During a forum in New York City sponsored by National Review he excoriated Ike for having allowed the “problem of internal security” to grow to “to a state far worse than that under Mr. Truman.” Insisting that “Mr. Eisenhower must, inevitably, be repudiated.” Buckley lamented that he didn’t expect anything to be done because “Eisenhower does not take stands, except against [Senator Joseph] McCarthy and the Bricker Amendment [stipulation that treaty law did not supervene US sovereignty].” His remarks were later published in the National Review.
Thus, early on in the editorial career of the National Review, a policy line was taken which seemed indistinguishable from the base of the Old Right/Taft Republican movement. However as soon as these conservative bona fides were established, Buckley took a new tack, ingratiating himself to left and center by taking a more establishment approach to the issues, and, most importantly, positioning himself on the acceptable side of the “right-wing extremist” vs. “conservative” divide. Conveniently, the criteria for judging this distinction were largely devised by Mr. Buckley himself. An initial omen of this strategy was McCarthy and his Enemies (1954) a book coauthored by Buckley on the anti-Communist investigator, an ostensible defense which contained so many unseemly observations of its subject and his cause that it diminished both. By the early ’60s it should have been clear that Buckley had done a two-step, 1) appropriate the label “conservative” through his initial appeals to the Old Right, and 2) change the definition of “conservative” by stigmatizing most of the positions traditionally held by the Old Right.
It is important to remember that the Old Right (used here as equivalent to the anti-New Deal coalition) was a lassez-faire, generally anti-war, limited government movement. It was not “right-wing” in the pejorative sense that subsequent political rhetoric has framed the term. Significantly, such genuine rightists as existed in the America of the ’30s and ’40s seldom opposed the New Deal in principle. The segregationist “Dixicrats” were all aboard FDR’s gravy train, and the scattering of minuscule groups which sought to ape European fascism could only complain that the New Deal was insufficiently centralized, militarized, technocratic, paganized or dictatorial.
The making of a god
However, if one is positioning oneself as the ascending god of public opinion, it is not sufficient, though it may be necessary, to redraw a nation’s ideological cartography. As McManus repeatedly points out in his criticism of Buckley, which is in fact a criticism of the way conservatives “do politics,” ideology is generally overrated as a ground of human action. Contrary to whatever Richard Weaver may have intended, it is people, not ideas, who create political consequences…at least in the short run. To put it according to the myths of the old pagans, whether one is Oedipus or the King of Alba Longa, one must slay the god of the harvest if one wishes to establish a new religion. In the case of William F. Buckley Jr., it was not enough to displace, disparage, and assume the mantle of a bloodless abstraction such as “conservatism” or the generic, and geriatric, “Old Right.” As in days of yore, a living sacrifice was necessary.
Now it so happened that, preceding and shadowing the career of our Ivy League tyro was another man, a very different sort of fellow, a practical businessman and independent researcher, yet one who, in the technical definition of anthropologist Rene Girard might be reckoned as Buckley’s “double.” That man was Robert Welch, who founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Whatever the merits of Girard’s theories might be, it is said that in a mimetic universe (that is, a society populated by imitative creatures, which indeed sounds rather familiar) it is impossible for doubles to long coexist. Buckley and Welch were doubles in the sense that one or the other was destined to become the rallying point of the conservative cause. One or the other, not both.
To translate from mythic to political terms, an assassination was in order! Fortunately for Welch, especially considering Buckley’s career in operational intelligence, assassination of character was deemed sufficient. Welch, having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (something Buckley was especially dedicated to preventing among his fledgling “conservatives”) was cast out of the paradise of polite company, and into the valley of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Except that Welch neither wailed nor gnashed his teeth, but took his public stigma, or what Girard would call his “skapegoating” with charitable fortitude.
Just as Girard’s mimetic theory would predict, it worked like a charm, this exchange of fates between Welch and Buckley. McManus quotes Buckley biographer Judis on the potent effects…
Buckley’s attack on the John Birch Society also transformed him as a public figure. He [Buckley] was no longer the pariah of the McCarthy days. He was a public representative of the new conservatism that television producers and college deans could invite to appear without provoking an outcry. Whether intentional or not, Buckley’s attack on the John Birch Society prepared the way for his own celebrity. (McManus p. 153)
[N.B., Pay attention to how “without provoking an outcry” appears, from the vantage of the present, on the forward side of a half-century historical parenthesis! Intimidation of speech outside of the left’s allowed parameters is not a novelty of the post-Trump era, but has been a frequent academic constraint in both 20th and 21st century America. Perhaps the intermission of good feeling and toleration was only due to “Fabian” self-censorship on the part of conservatives.]
The scapegoating of Welch and the new ideological cartography mutually reinforced and validated each other. One doesn’t have to be a Harry Turtledove to imagine an alternative historical scenario, a world in which Welch did the scapegoating and Buckley became the sacrifice. The major obstacle to the realization of this alternative universe was the basic decency and fair-play of Welch himself, who refused to be drawn into mimetic rivalry with fellow conservatives. Welch illustrated his own attitude by prefacing his response to the scapegoating with lines from the poet Edwin Markham…
He drew a circle and shut me out–
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in! (McManus p.154)
Furthermore, the inverted ideological map of the alternative universe would actually make far more sense, with Welch positioned as the centrist and Buckley as “far right-wing.” Most people at the mid-point of the 20th century would, setting aside propaganda, have regarded Welch as the solid “bourgeois” and Buckley as the scheming, effete, aristocrat. Indeed, it was this almost French Bourbon air of amorality and private immunity which gave Buckley much of his charm and influence. And if such quirks of character were not enough to make one suspect that Buckley was far to the “right” of Welch, what about the secret societies, the espionage, the pornography and similar intrigue? I won’t go into the details here as McManus documents them extensively in his book. However, it might be useful to take a synoptic glance at what McManus evidently considers Buckley’s most damning characteristic.
Barking up the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
To reiterate, Buckley made a sacrifice of Welch, thus becoming a divinity, the god of a new conservative movement formed in his own image. However, there is a curse attendant on all mortals who pretend to godhood, that they must sleeplessly patrol the bounds of their sacred groves against the onslaught of fresh rivals. We may liken Buckley to the cherub charged with guarding paradise, however the tree that he was set guard over was not that of life, but rather concerned a very specific form of knowledge.
To be sure, Buckley was not against knowledge or intellect, and with the exception of one particular form of knowing, he was pleased to spread abroad all sorts of chatty information and innuendo. This included exposure of the more outrageous left wing follies, and to this was added his police function as a maintainer of conservative standards of belief and decorum. In short, he was smart, and he was on a mission to save America from its own stupidity, stupidity and error of such magnitude that it threatened to lose the Cold War and bring Western Civilization to an untimely end. Nor was he against knowledge in the sense of “carnal knowledge” and he had a Playboy interview to prove it. That too was smart, in the sense of currying favor with “the smart set” of the ’60s.
Most significantly, as intellectual-in-chief, Buckley enjoyed the role of contrarian, stimulating all sorts of fascinating conversations by reversing conservative thought on key social and economic issues. Should Richard Nixon have instituted wage-and-price controls? Well, why not give it try? Contrary to everything which the Austrian school of economics had painstakingly demonstrated, that wage-and-price controls would sabotage production and exchange, Buckley felt that one had to be open minded on the topic. Should the Supreme court have had authority to determine whether abortion was murder? Why not? True, two-thousand years of Christian teaching had already provided a clear answer to this question. However Mr. Buckley, though a Catholic, felt that discussion on the topic needed to be opened up and freed from dogma. In addition to abortion and price controls, Mr. McManus lists over a dozen “indefensible positions”(pp. 220-229) where Buckley either reversed the conservative stand or introduced moral ambiguity. And should we have been surprised? After all, settled doctrines don’t sell magazines or increase the ratings of televised talk shows the way that controversy and factional in-fighting do.
Yet for all his delight in upsetting the apple cart of knowledge, there was one angle which Buckley declared taboo. With regard to American government policy, and to some extent other institutions of society, all investigation had to take place within the smart/stupid framework. The alternative framework, the good/evil framework, was strictly out of bounds. Any policy commentator who suggested that there was a conspiracy in high places actively engaged in undermining America’s best interests, was just a dog barking up the tree of forbidden knowledge, and needing to be silenced. These barking dogs were many, including not just Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Robert Welch, and Herbert Hoover, but ironically Buckley himself together with the staff of National Review, prior to his apotheosis as the god of a new conservatism. Yet as early the mid-’50s it was clear that a new paradigm was taking hold.
In August 1956, at about the same time that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was warning of a “conspiracy so monstrous” that one “cannot believe that it exists,” Buckley offered his contrary view that America’s problems were occurring “spontaneously, not in compliance with a continuously imposed discipline.” In effect, he was saying, “Don’t listen to Hoover, the House Committee, or the Senate Subcommittee. Ignore even my own statement in McCarthy and His Enemies. The bad that happens to our nation is the result of spontaneous stupidity, not orchestrated design.” (McManus pp. 128-129)
Apart from questions of historical accuracy, why is this still a big deal? Of all the trees in the political garden, why does the fruit of this one matter in a unique way? Let’s pay attention to the observations of Mr. McManus….
Concluding that willful conspirators rather than mere bumbling do-gooders are at the root of such problems stimulates activity because of human nature’s most powerful instinct: self-preservation. Most who decide that the disastrous transformation of America is the work of deliberate evildoers will do whatever they can to save their country, themselves, and their loved ones.
But those who become convinced that the damage being done results from well-intentioned mistakes will do little except grumble. Even while witnessing the ongoing destruction, they will shrug their shoulders, continue working to keep their heads above water, and naively expect others in government and elesewhere to eventually see the error of their ways and take corrective action.
Today, as never before, many are willing to impute evil to their governing officials. Unpleasant as this might be, it at least gives us grounds for reevaluating Buckley’s assessment that stupidity and not conspiracy was at the root of America’s ills. Fewer and fewer people today would concur with this assessment, however time and energy have been lost through distractions…not the least of distractions being Buckley’s influence, an influence which both intellectualized and demoralized political discourse on the right.
Postscript on Intellectuals and Pseudo-Intellectuals
It was a balm to the pride of conservatives in the 20th century that thinkers on the left consisted not of actual, but of false or “pseudo”, intellectuals. In contrast, Mr. Buckley and his cohorts could be trotted out as examples of the genuine article. To be sure, Buckley and his friends were more erudite, not to mention amiable, than your average Weatherman. However, in some ultimate sense Mr. Buckley was as “pseudo” as they came, and for reasons that should now be apparent, that, being a conscientious objector to the war against evil, he whiled away his time in the garden of ideas.
That is not to say that ideas cannot be serious. However the number of people for whom ideas are central to existence is few indeed. For Bill Buckley ideas were toys, baubles of the mind which could be entertained as hypotheses, not principles which compelled moral action. How many of us can say that we deal with ideas in any other way? Are we all not pseudo-intellectuals to one degree or another? Perhaps that is our nature, the nature of those of us who are less than gods. Perhaps it is good to be only a pseudo-intellectual.
Those who truly sought salvation in ideas have nearly vanished from the Earth. Plato, Plotinus, Hypatia of Alexandria, and later during the Renaissance, Pletho and Pico before his conversion by Savonarola, and perhaps a few others. William F. Buckley was not among their company, and neither was Jesus of Nazareth. So in spite of old Bill’s long list of sins, which I have barely touched upon here, this speaks well for his soul, that he was not an intellectual in the absolute sense. There is always hope.