Comments on: On Buckley’s Civility

By: 2b01269e27dd

2b01269e27dd — Sun, 11 May 2008 11:25:47 +0000

2b01269e27dd…

2b01269e27ddbd946b70…

By: John

John — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:29:55 +0000

I thought he was in favor if the Iraq war before it predictably went bad.

By: David L. Wilson

David L. Wilson — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:47:59 +0000

Mr. Henderson, I appreciate your insight into WFB. Although your commentary focuses on a facet of Buckley’s behavior, the larger point for me is the highlighting and validating of my impression of Noam Chomsky. I have seen hours of videotape of Chomsky discussing, debating, and fielding questions. Chomsky is unflappable–he simply does not allow emotion into the verbal exchange. He is cogent, logical, and articulate. He is the calm in the storm. His reasoning holds its own quiet strength, and does not need to throw its weight around the room. His demeanor is not defensive; it needs no adrenaline. This trait is remarkable to witness. It makes Chomsky unique among American speakers.

By: Weston

Weston — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:05:29 +0000

David,

I hesitate to open the discussion again, but I went and watched the Buckley/Chomsky debate and I must say I came out thinking very highly of Buckley’s civility. I’ll concede your point that Chomsky had him on the ropes for most of the interview, largely due to Buckley’s relative ignorance of the facts, and I’ll concede that Buckley frequently interrupted Chomsky, possibly for rhetorical purposes. But it was a casual debate between two men who disagreed passionately, and no matter the winner, both restrained themselves as well as can be expected in a public forum. I have witnessed hundreds of similar arguments between trained academics and this one was unremarkable, except for the eloquence and conviction displayed on both sides.

I agree that ideally opponents should “admit the point” when they have been beaten, rather than changing the subject. But as I am sure you’re aware, such exchanges are partly performative acts: they aim to enlighten the audience, not to convert one or the other participant. Changes of mind and heart occur between debates, not while they are going on, and Buckley’s stammering replies should be enough to satisfy his ideological critics. Calling him uncivil for failing to publicly humiliate himself, and then (here I am not speaking to David) calling him names after he’s dead strikes me as beyond the pale.

By: Weston

Weston — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:36:39 +0000

No. Other things count,too.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:29:35 +0000

Yep, you are both correct. I need to work on myself and to become much less judgmental. But hey, two wrongs don’t make a right.

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:23:36 +0000

I believe Jesus also said “Blessed be the peacemakers”. Inconsistency is the hallmark of the authoritarian mind.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:05:52 +0000

@ Tim R

amazing that you do not apply this to yourself — many here will see your hypocrisy come out in such a post

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:31:31 +0000

It wasn’t just civility he lacked, but intellectual honesty, morality, and a conscience. A true establishmentarian who availed himself of the ample opportunities for apparatchiks in America doesn’t deserve any sympathy, least of all from us.

By: Elaine Supkis

Elaine Supkis — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:01 +0000

Goldwater did the same…too late. What counts is to do it while in power, not just before meeting the Goddess of Justice at the Gates of Death.

By: cfountain72

cfountain72 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:54:40 +0000

I think something we may want to consider after someone’s passing is what would the world have been like without their presence on the stage of life. Once we get past the “he’s not perfect” (duh), I think it is safe to say that our nation, on balance, is better for having WFB as a citizen. I know he and National Review opened my mind up many years ago as a teenager to the importance of free markets and the folly of socialism. He also exemplified the importance that a good idea is worth saying well. Whether you agree or disagree with his final position, you knew that the position was arrived at following a level of intellectual rigor that is too often absent from talk-radio/Ann Coulter/Hannity milieu. (Sadly, many who now write at NR couldn’t carry his WFB’s intellectual jockstrap.)
Finally, to his credit, he also recognized before his passing the disaster that war-mongering neocons have visited upon both the nation and the GOP.

Peace be with you.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:21:56 +0000

Didn’t Jesus mention something about not judging others, lest ye be judged? Its real easy to judge others, especially when they can no longer defend themselves. Whatever your political views are, for heaven’s sake, have a little respect here.