Posted on 01/21/2005 12:29:43 PM PST by baseball_fan
"I am confused why anyone cares what William F Buckley Jr. thinks and writes."
William F Buckley Jr. has displayed heroic intellectual courage and insight over the years as one of the few prominent early conservative voices. He took on exposing the dangerous pretensions of the radical left as well as doing the yeoman work necessary to help clarify what the conservative right might best represent.
Without Buckley's influence in establishing the modern conservative movement, it is highly unlikely you would have had a conservative Ronald Reagan for President (Reagan was a Democrat in the 50's). Reagan in turn had the backbone to both defeat the Communist Soviet Union while reversing our cultural decline from a near fatal loss of confidence underwritten by an elite leftist media and academic intelligentsia.
Conservative principles such as faith, liberty, individual responsiblity, limited government and a strong defense have had him as their invaluable champion. Most people know him from his long running TV program, "Firing Line," which was on PBS (and was an intellectual delight to watch) as well as the magazine he founded, "National Review." He taught a whole generation what it meant to think for oneself.
His style has been relatively inaccessible at times and can require much thought and attention. Without the "Firing Line" program, it is difficult to know where one can best get a sense of the man as well as his thought. I admit to becoming frustrated with his work at times too, but find if I stick with it, I usually have been more than amply rewarded. It would be a real loss if those interested enough in contributing to FreeRepublic.com, which in many ways builds on the modern conservative movement's legacy, through unfamiliarity lost sight of Buckley's contributions. Hope this helps in that regard.
bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley%2C_Jr.
---
LOL! 50% of the time with Bill it's blarney and baloney. But, Bill is a good guy.
LOL! A gravitas-less hubris-laden Texan. What a bummer.
;-)
Obvious, redundant and unnecessary therefore deliberately provocative and insulting. I am glad your not president as well. Saying so in a manner as you did is unsay & obvious and can only have one purpose.
Oh, and, assuming that you're telling the truth about working hard to get the President reelected...
I gave $125 to Bush-Cheney 2004, $50 to the RNC and $75 to the SBVT. I spent $100 or so on GOP & BUSH-CHENEY gear to advertise my choice. I put up signs around my town. I worked the polls for 4 hours as a GOP challenger on election day. I personally convinced at least two people to vote Bush. I had at least one Letter to the Editor in support of Bush printed.
...you sure didn't give him long to stop supporting him, did you?
Sorry. acting like a mindless lemming or Bush-Parrot is not my thing. Among the knee-jerk defense lemmings any CRTs of Bush is a stoning offense.
I see at as BECAUASE of my support I have a greater right (and responsibility) to point out problems as I see them. I have NOT stopped supporting him. Just because I am not a stepford-supporter does not mean I do not support him. Because I have made the obvious observation, corroborated by several Conservative pundits including not just Noonan & Buckley, but Jonah Goldberg and others at NRO as well, that Bush's speech was at best poorly writen and lacking substance (while oscillating between the vapid & saccarhine) you call me "adsorptive".
Brilliance in foreign policy doesn't mean that you understand economics sometimes, or vice versa. Buckely is just wrong and his timing was wrong, wrong, wrong.
And, yes. My reply to you was provocative, because I had just read a series of posts from you (the first 5 or so that you posted on this thread) that were deliberately provocative, and, if I might borrow one of your vocab words, 'vapid,' and I was responding to that.
In thinking for myself, as I always, ALWAYS do, I would say that I have the courage to say that Buckley is WRONG because he just doesn't have the gift of vision that makes this speech rise above what one can analyze in concrete terms. In other words, he (and the rest of the critics) are missing the boat on this one. Besides which, the people you listed sit at a computer and write things. They talk about things. They don't DO anything. The President speaks in lofty terms, and then takes the risks of boldly acting out what he has spoken about. Noonan and Buckley are just talkers. President Bush walks the talk.
btw, the same response was given to Reagan when he saw things that others could not see, so this response is not surprising in the least.
Oh........and thanks for helping get the President elected (you didn't have to give the details, though, since I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth anyway). And, do you mind telling me what 'adsorptive' means? It's not in my dictionary, and I don't remember 'calling you' that.....
Exactly, LS. I have a great deal of respect for Buckley, and have for as many years as I can remember.
But that doesn't make him right on this one. The broad vision of this speech is breathtaking. The fact that Buckley self-admits that he's confused about this speech, tells you all you need to know.
He's brilliant, but he just doesn't "get" this one. Fortunately, we have a President who does, and because of that, we will have a world that is more democratic and free four years from now, just as it is more democratic and free than it was four years ago.
I met Jaffa, had lunch with him, and in 45 minutes he either a) only talked about himself or b) was completely incomprehensible. I truly mean that. I'm no genius, but I'm not a dolt, and I couldn't fathom a word the man said. Then I met the historians at Claremont, and they were total jerks. I politely handed back all their money and went to U.Cal. Santa Barbara.
Jaffa is so smart he needs a translator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.