Editing this goddamn book to meet a September publication deadline is a bear, so I apologize for the lack of posts, which I will remedy as soon as physically possible. I'll likely be putting out some excerpts and out-takes from it in the coming weeks.
But I'm not here to write about my absence. I'm here to write about William F. Buckley, Jr.
In the past few days I've read ten or so obituaries/remembrances of Buckley. They've all been
solid, Michael Kinsley's in The New York Times being the best. But none of them emphasized, at least to the extent I think these observations need to be, two points about one of our finest poison pens.
First, as a writer and speaker, Buckley was not a mere "sesquipedalian," as that term has now been borrowed by every successive hack. He pushed the boundaries of vocabulary to create a lyricism in his commentary that shifted the eye from the holes in his arguments. That's not an insult by any means. Buckley was an entertainer as much as a thinker, at least to me, and conservatism, like liberalism, is an obviously incomplete ideology. Unless you've utter shit for brains, it's pretty clear neither school can rule the day entirely without some degree of checking by the other. The battle's always been "How much of each?" If you've read Buckley, you've probably noticed he penned a lot of "elegant misses" and often ended his columns with questions rather than the cheap tie-outs writers are expected to offer the lowest common denominator. I'm no student of Buckley, just a subscriber to his magazine, but I'd like to think those misses were backhanded recognitions that there were two credible sides to what he was arguing, as well as a compliment to the readers.
This brings me to the second point, the more important one. As strident and obnoxious as he could be, Buckley intellectually engaged and truly considered opposing views. In a medium currently dominated by the likes of Anne Coulter, DailyKos, Bill O'Reilly and MoveOn, the reservation and depth of thought Buckley brought to the debate cannot be overemphasized. Buckley abused rhetoric, but no one could ever mistake his commentary for that of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage or any of the other mindless advocates who'll claim to be drafting in his wake. He is not them. He is nowhere near them. If anything, he's a reminder of what's missing in them, and consequently, what's missing in our national discourse.
Bill Buckley was a wonderful writer and a man who saw both sides of an issue, even if he didn't like to admit it. That is rare, and that is important, and that is why, now, in the usual idiot wind of election year spin filling our airwaves, you should find some of his essays and read them.
Posted by PhilaLawyer at 7:32 AM