Posted on 09/24/2005 9:54:39 AM PDT by SoCalJB
THE ROBERTS DISRUPTION By William F. Buckley Jr. Fri Sep 23, 8:49 PM ET
A few years ago, checking in with the office, I was told I had a telephone call from Norman Lear. I immediately returned it, and probably my voice quavered. The very thought of being in personal touch with the producer of "All in the Family" -- my all-time favorite television program! "What," I asked unctuously, "can I do for you?"
"Well," he said, "I would like you to be the keynote speaker at the annual banquet of People for the American Way."
I wondered how Archie Bunker would have responded to such a request, mutatis mutandis (Middle English from Medieval Latin: with the respective differences having been considered). If I had the powers of Carroll O'Connor to register bewilderment/surprise/stupefaction, the expression on my face would have flowed, coast to coast, over the telephone line.
"Mr. Lear --"
"Norman."
"Well, Norman, it wouldn't be right for me to address People for the American Way."
Why not? he asked. All I had to do was give a speech about free speech.
It was with difficulty that I explained to him that his organization was devoted in almost all matters to promoting the opposite of what I have spent my life championing.
He seemed genuinely surprised. And in this morning's papers I read that he called together his circle in Hollywood to register his dismay at the nomination of John Roberts to serve on the Supreme Court. After Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) announced that he would vote to confirm Roberts, Mr. Lear's -- Norman's -- organization described that decision as "inexplicable." The news story recounting the event went on to report that "some Democratic activists are already warning that these votes could affect turnout in the 2006 midterm elections."
"It's not right," as Archie would say, to engage in tu quoque argumentation (Latin idiom: a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others), but I break the rule to say that, talking of inexplicability, it is very close to that to suggest that any vote against Judge Roberts is motivated by anything at all except rank and mindless opposition to anything proposed by President Bush. The qualifications of Judge Roberts are clear beyond any reasonable question. Short of repealing that clause in the Constitution that gives the president authority to nominate members of the Supreme Court, how else deny Roberts?
What is in the political wings is something like an early polarization among Democrats. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) is pretty steadfast as an undeviating leftist, and although Judge Roberts was tender as a lamb in replying to his questions during the hearings, Roberts, speaking extemporaneously, did everything this side of taking Senator Kennedy's written text and correcting its historical errors, to treat him as an informed interrogator. But there were a half-dozen Democratic senators waiting to follow Kennedy's lead.
It is too early to know whether the effort at consolidating the Democratic Party in its left-lurch is going to succeed. It is a polarization without, at this moment, hard resistance from the center. Senator Leahy said he would support Roberts, but managed to appease the left by saying unpleasant things about the judge's record. Several senators are being courted by the left, among them Durbin and Schumer and Lautenberg, and there will be a substantial vote in opposition.
It has the dawning feel of the separatism of 1947-'48. The hard left back then pressed for either appeasement of the Soviet Union or else submission to it. They had a candidate then -- Henry Wallace -- and don't have one now. Senator Kerry's ungoverned hostility to President Bush edges him toward supremacy among the Bush haters, but it is not clear that these are definitely en route to governing the Democratic Party. What cause would the left seek out, in a bid for national control first of the Democratic Party, then of the nation?
Norman Lear is not, for all his affability and innocence, the stuff of which grand secessions are made. He is more in the school of Kerensky (i.e., Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky, 1881-1970 - Russian revolutionary; overthrown as prime minister by Bolshevik Revolution because of moderate policies and indecision) than of Lenin. And it is too early to discern what will be the vote of Democrats at large on the matter of John Roberts' nomination. If Roberts were to fail of confirmation, then a political front would have opened up.
But Roberts, inexplicable as it may be, isn't going to fail, so the Democrats will not be able to use him as the great cause for dissension from the American way.
Buckley is a master of the English language---I miss seeing him on TV on a regular basis.
One of my favorite TV moments was the "debate" between him and Gore Vidal. It was positively delicious.
bttt
Thank you for the translations :)
He is also incredibly funny. Of Hunter S. Thompson he wrote, "One can be sorry that Hunter Thompson died as he did, but not sorry, surely, that he stopped writing."
Love this:
"Judge Roberts was tender as a lamb in replying to his [Uncle Teddy's] questions during the hearings, Roberts, speaking extemporaneously, did everything this side of taking Senator Kennedy's written text and correcting its historical errors, to treat him as an informed interrogator."
I love it.
"Norman Lear is not, for all his affability and innocence" the stuff....
I'm sure some pedophiles, whom Lear's foundation and PFAW would defend, could be called affable. But Mr. Buckley, INNOCENT? Surely you jest (common English, from Old English: Jester, the wise fool saying things that cannot other than in stage whispers be said in politically-correct company)....
As usual when I read Buckley I find myself wondering---mutatis mutandis an' all---"What the devil has Norman Lear got to do with John Roberts and the Dems flailing about helplessly?"
Hey Bill! Eschew obfuscation bub!
I watched it live and I tell you---it was something for TV in those days.
Thanks for the links---I didn't even know they existed and will watch it again.
Ah,those were the days,my friend-----.
to view later
From Clip 4:
Vidal: "the only pro or crypto-Nazi here is yourself."
Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
Gotta love it. What a priceless asset he is.
I loved to watch and read Buckley even when I was a bleeding heart liberal. He is one of the steady influences responsible for my enlightenment.
Did you ever see the debate between Buckley and the Gipper on the subject of the Panama Canal? Reagan actually bested Buckley!
Don't mess with Blackford Oakes!
:)
Gray, did you see in the article that Bill said that he saw in his newpapers of yesterday that Norman Lear is gathering his Hollyweird cronies to register dismay at Judge Roberts' nomination..? That's why Norman Snear, er Lear, is pertinent to the 'Dems flailing about helplessly'; and given that Lear and Buckley had an awkward exchange a few years ago, when Bill then thought the 'People for the American Way' was lunatic fringe, Bill's now indicating their rasping has only exacerbated but definitely not to the point of cohesing or galvanizing the polarized DemoRat party, now split into two factions: 1.) the lunatic fringe; and 2.) the far left..! ;-)
Oh, that's just a hoot!
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.