“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 think it's interesting the way you conflate "intellectual" with "snob." None of your conservative heros are "intellectuals?" Answer carefully.