” Reagan elected Reagan, no matter how ignorant you may believe that to be. “
Which misrepresents your post that I responded to. You said:
“Buckley had no impact on electing Reagan. He was largely unknown and his magazine was largely unread. Reagan got Reagan elected.”
And that remains a remarkably ignorant statement. Buckley founded National Review in 1955. He and Reagan first met in 1961 and both played a role in the Goldwater campaign. Buckley ran for mayor of New York City against John Lindsay in 1965, which garnered him national attention. His Firing Line began its long run in 1966. Buckley’s brother James served as U.S. Senator from New York from 1971 to 1977.
During the 1970s the entire world of conservative journalism wasn’t much bigger than National Review, Human Events, and the American Spectator, with National Review being by far the best known. In the late 70s Buckley’s Firing Line crew televised a major debate that split conservative ranks and pitted Reagan against Buckley, that being the debate over the Panama Canal Treaty. Buckley sided with Carter’s treaty and Reagan opposed it. Reagan’s stance against Carter and his treaty had an early and strong effect on Democrats who didn’t like the idea of turning over the Canal.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_60/ai_n30985764/
To dismiss Buckley and his magazine as “largely unknown” and “largely unread” is ridiculous. He was very well known in political circles and his magazine, like all opinion journals, had an influence far in excess of its circulation.
“To dismiss Buckley and his magazine as “largely unknown” and “largely unread” is ridiculous. He was very well known in political circles and his magazine, like all opinion journals, had an influence far in excess of its circulation.”
So you insist. Ask any 1000 conservatives if they had read NR in those days and what do you honestly believe the answer would be. You certainly wouldn’t find enough to tip an election in your favor. Who exactly watched Firing Line? The vast majority of Americans who would eventually vote for Reagan? Of course not.
I believe that you’re reading largely unknown as “not known” which is not what I said. Buckley may have delivered a portion of votes for Reagan, but he could never bring conservatism (or libertarianism) to the mainstream precisely because he was so dry and aloof (read intellectually snobbish). In fact, I insist that is why PBS carried he show. While he was intellectually stimulating he was politically harmless.
Don’t agree, that’s OK. The author we’ve been commenting on is aghast at the prospect of conservatism losing it’s “intellectual” edge and I’m thrilled with the potential.
I am prepared to debate conservatism with hosts on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Meet the Press, This Week, or the editors at Time, Newsweek, NYT, the Washington Post, etc. But they won’t do it. Instead, they want to characterize conservatism, they want to characterize the ascendency of conservatism around an eccentric, etc. Hayward did not mention my book, he did not mention Steyn, he did not mention Sowell, he did not mention Williams, he did not mention Victor Davis Hanson, and many, many others. As explained in this excellent piece for a true Reaganite of long standing, there’s a difference between elitism and intellectualism, and Hayward confuses them. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Brain-dead-conservatives-Redemption-is-found-in-Reagan-roots-63483142.html
“’Buckley had no impact on electing Reagan. He was largely unknown and his magazine was largely unread. Reagan got Reagan elected.’
And that remains a remarkably ignorant statement. Buckley founded National Review in 1955. He and Reagan first met in 1961 and both played a role in the Goldwater campaign...”
OK. I mispoke. With a circulation that Jonah Goldberg says is soaring at 150,000 I have to imagine that that was double back in 1980, so that’s what probably tipped the election for Reagan. No wait, Reagan won by almost 8.5 million.