NOVATOWNHALL

Jacob already noted this, and of course it’s the big story of the day in the conservative blogosphere: But for the record, I’ll miss William F. Buckley and I am grateful for all he did for me.

As a college kid in the early 1980s, still trying to figure out what I thought, I religiously read The Nation, The New Republic and National Review, basically unconsciously covering all parts of the political spectrum (New Republic was a middle of the road publication back then). If there was a “truth,” it definitely seemed like it would inhere somewhere within this troika of magazines.

By 1986, National Review had become my philosophical home, in large part because of Bill Buckley’s commentary. At age 25, I became a “conservative” for life. My first vote for a Republican was for George H.W. Bush in 1988. (Then, my first vote against a Republican was for Ross Perot in 1992, but that’s a story for another day).

Apart from his fantastically helpful idiosyncrasy of including in every op-ed column a single word I would need to look up in the dictionary (a mantle since picked up by R. Emmett Tyrrell), and the fact he was right about so many issues back when “conservatism” was by no means assured a place at the table of policy respectability (the Reagan Era was not judged a success until long after the Reagan presidency was over), Bill Buckley’s work ethic was the stuff of legends. He wrote extensive commentary in the magazine on a weekly basis, maintained a nationally syndicated 2-3 times a week column, did the weekly Firing Line television show for a decade or three, and of course wrote all the books and ancillary essays.

He penned op-ed pieces in the limousine on the way to the airport, for crying out loud. It took me an entire weekend to write a 5-page, double-spaced paper at the time.

While trying to overcome laziness and my own wide-ranging stupidity, having WFB as an example of what a human can do was immensely valuable. I never met the guy, but throughout my 20s he was one of my few mentors, at a time I needed all the help I could get.

I didn’t go to Yale. I wasn’t rich. My forebearers - back to the beginning of time, as far as I could tell - were blue collar. I started a family during college and consequently we were not well off. But I never got a whiff from all of WFB’s writings that he was in any way intrinsically different from me. I eventually learned that he was wealthy, but in the miles of column-inches I never read anything that set him apart.

And what a legacy he left! I have a ton of his essays and my stock of NR magazines, but there are gems like the Firing Line interviews with Malcolm Muggeridge discussing Catholicism and other topics - such important cultural artifacts.

The specifics of WFB’s contributions in the ideological arena are not within my range of expertise to discuss, simply because the content was, in essence, the content of the conservative revolution which took place in America from the 1980s on. There are much better informed people out there who can limn out the details of what Bill said and when, and what followed.

(And be sure to dig into the writings over at NRO, where the folks who know are spelling it out.)

But here is one I can do.

Many years ago, I think back in the early 1990s, Bill wrote a column reporting on his and his wife’s struggles to quit smoking. The gist was they both had decided to quit smoking cigarettes, and after some time in the project they - two life-long smokers - were at each others’ throats. They sat down to discuss it, and recognized they could not both go through the ordeal and live in the same house with each other. The physical and mental stress of overcoming the addiction was too much - you could not have two baskets of crazed atoms in close proximity at one time.

So they had to decide - either we both keep smoking or only one of us can quit, if we want to stay together. Bill quit, and Pat resumed smoking and became the stabilizing force while he overcame the addiction to nicotine.

This story had an impression on me, both because I have my own addictive tendencies and because self-sacrifice seems to be such an essential part of life particularly manifested in our most immediate relationships. The decision Bill and Pat Buckley made was one I had never even thought about, but after I read his column I never forgot it. Throw aside all the levels of analysis that could be brought to bear on the question: It’s a pretty stark expression of life - human life, relationship reality - is it not? It makes you think, What would I do? What decision would I and my spouse make to preserve the relationship if it came down to that.

Pat Buckley died in April, 2007. Honestly, back when I read about the poignant story above, I assumed Pat had consigned herself to a much earlier demise to preserve the relationship. But they were only off by ten months. I hate it that Bill Buckley died; I hate it that Pat Buckley died. But I am glad they got almost the full time together. I think God looked kindly on their difficult decision.

I am curious, all of our left leaning friends here declare fascism to be anathema, but do they really know what fascism means? Here is a set of current laws, enacted for the public good, or some well meaning official tried to enact them.

1. You are required by law to sterilise your pet

2. You are not allowed to smoke in public

3. You are not allowed to own a gun

4. Fast food companies are required to put calorie information next to the item

5. Tobacco companies are liable for people using their product correctly

6. The government sets the temperature in your home

7. You are not allowed to smoke in your own home

8. You are not allowed to serve your own 18 year old son having a beer at your kitchen table

9. You are not allowed to park an SUV on the street

10. If you are obeise you can be denied government health benifits

My question is are these fascist in nature or not? Any and all are welcome to answer.

I am about to give you an example of apples and oranges and show how they can be different yet mix well together and become compatible.

I was recruited for jury duty in a capital murder case.  To make this short, this person killed their spouse.  The defender presented a wonderful case and suppressed gobs of incriminating evidence.  The prosecutor was espousing facts without producing evidence or substance.  This was sad.  3 of us on the jury got it.  2 copped out because of job hardships (that’s why there are alternates) and the other nine were individual fixated on one (and different) piece of evidence.  After days of fact finding and discussion I realized that it is like conservatives and liberals.  Not much gets done.  Well, compromises were made to keep the jury from being hung and starting over on a lesser charge.  The jury presented its verdict to the judge for 6 and one half years.  3 of these were mandatory by state for using a firearm in the commision of a felony.  Thank the law for small favors.  The judge at sentencing did not reduce this sentence.  We later read that a piece of evidence was omitted where the defendant admitted killing his spouse (non-chalant as it was) for making aspersions of his manhood.  How utterly pathetic.  The defendant got away with murder and it only cost 6 and a half years.  Why?  Compassion.

We have lived thru the last local elections and we are already talking about more schools and higher taxes.  We pay our local officials higher salaries and they give us social programs that they want to fund.  Loudoun is looking to build ANOTHER new government center.  Isn’t this a recession?  State government has faired no better with there wants.  They want to build a new general assembly building (temporarily) with funding to study a permenant location.  How to pay for this when we are strapped for cash and the governor (little g for a little gov) can’t get his socialist programs enacted?  How about an extra 5 cent state tax per gallon of gas!  What?  Gas is over three bucks; what’s another nickle.  Next in line are the candidates for the White House.  Socialists with promises of freebies for everyone.  What about the illegals you say?  No big deal.  There are bigger fish to fry like getting our soldiers home and insurance for everyone.  How about college anyone can afford and handouts to those who are not rich (including 12 million illegals) so that they may feel like americans too.  How does this happen?  Compassion.

Americans are very compassionate people.  They give to charities and come to the aid of the world when ever the call goes out.  We will go out of our way to help those in need that can’t do it all on their own.  Where we stop is when it is againest the law.  We aren’t compassionate with those that use and abuse others.  What am I saying!  The examples above prove different.  The landscape has changed.  There are no more rules or barriers.  Anything goes.  Be compassionate for that drunk driver that just killed a family.  The priest that fondled little boys for 20 years.  That gang member that killed his rivals because they killed his brother gang member.  Are you kidding me?

I would rather see sympathy and empathy towards these types of people.  Then let the law handle the rest.  That is why we have laws.  Compassion is for the dog that got hit by the car.  Or the homeless guy looking for a meal.  How about a mother trying to take care of 3 kids while working 16 hours a day.  The children that need cancer research.  It seems that compassion (the apples/oranges mix) is being predominately used to harm the innocent instead of helping them.  Remember this when you start voting in the next election.  If you vote compassionately it may severely harm the country.  Try using research and logic to know what to do.  Don’t let compassion get in the way.

Regardless of which way the democrats decide, it looks very much like McCain will be the Republican. I’d rather have a true conservative, but is he “good enough” on a large enough set of issues?

I visited his website, and looked at some of the issues:

Abortion — he says he believes Roe v. Wade was wrong, and does not believe the courts should rule by judicial fiat. — a plus

2nd Amendment — signed the Congressional Amicus brief that asks the court to let the lower court ruling stand (the right to bear arms is an individual right). a plus

Health care — seems to support a nationalization of health care. a minus

Taxes — seems to have a principle of low taxes, but has a lot of programs that would require taxes. semi-neutral.

Iraq — believes we can “win” whatever that means, but it would require additional forces. Not sure what to do with this. neutral

“human dignity” (his website’s words, not mine). He seems to have reasonably conservative ideas (protection of children from porn, stem cell research should not be government funded, marriage is “one man, one woman”. I’d have to give him a plus.

Defense (not immigration) — strong on military. a plus

Immigration — too conciliatory to those already here illegal. a minus

Environment — appears to have bought into global warming as a fact rather than a theory that is hotly (pun intended) debated. a minus

Overall, he is just better than worse (he has an overall plus of one issue).

David Horowitz’s incisive little essay notes succinctly what we have attempted often to explain here:

Rhetorically, they are passionate proponents of “equality” but in practice they are committed enthusiasts of a hierarchy of privilege in which the highest ranks are reserved for themselves as the guardians of righteousness, and then for those they designate “victims” and “oppressed,” who are thus worthy of their redemption. Rhetorically they are secularists and avatars of tolerance, but in fact they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness…

You know the drill.

It’s always easy, and important, to tweak our liberal friends. Simply because they are wrong on so many counts, they need to be so reminded.

Currently, there is no better way to do so than by promoting Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Despite the title of this post, it really is not such a tall order to drive liberals crazy. Start talking about the Civil War, and most of them go berserk within minutes. There are a number of other topics that cause liberals to totally freak, to the extent that further civilized conversation is not possible. You know the topics.