Sunday, February 3, 2013

Super Bowl Sunday Fun With William F. Buckley Defending Racial Profiling and Questioning the "Extremism" of The Civil Rights Movement


I am torn. On one hand, I want to boo Ray Lewis for defeating my beloved New England Patriots. But then again, I give love to those who beat up my heroes and take destiny in their hands. I like San Francisco. But, they too beat the Patriots...just barely.

What is a brother to do?

Either way, I am going to watch the commercials, drink Sapporo, and eat some Ramen noodles with New York Strip and green scallions--one of my favorites.

Here, we were talking about good old William F. Buckley and how the National Review has taken to slumming in the Age of Obama. A few folks kindly reminded me that Buckley was a racist. Yes, he did kick out the Birchers from his private club. Nevertheless, he was one of the Right's intellectual forefathers of "polite racism." Let us not forget that fact.

Again, I am of two minds. Perhaps, Virgos are just indecisive by nature? The Tea Party GOP reactionary white populists in the Age of Obama are pathetic in their open appeals to herrenvolk racism and ugly white populism to keep the black usurper out of the White House.

By comparison, William F. Buckley had some class to his racism, what was an effortless bigotry that could be argued with, and about, over a nice glass of Chianti. You tell me, who is more dangerous to the Common Good? The Tea Party or William F. Buckley?



18 comments:

Blakk Sage said...

CDV, you're still a f#9king coward!

Werner Herzog's Bear said...

I did wonder about your kind words for Mr. Buckley yesterday, but I understand where you're coming from. In his day, such politely open racism could be expressed without public censure, as it would today. He was expressing what a lot of people like him thought. I find the Tea Party more dangerous, because they are a revolutionary death cult.

Yastreblyansky said...

He certainly could put on the manners, and I think the vulgarity of Lowry and Goldberg and those people in his magazine must be a real torment for him if he has to witness it in his hotel room in Hell, but then he had been making deals with the excruciatingly vulgar since Joe McCarthy and Whittaker Chambers and Pius XII. Remember Rush Limbaugh having lunch at Sylvia's and being surprised that the negroes had napkins and cash registers and all those trappings of civilization? One thing you can see on the video is that Buckley wasn't like that; Cambridge's urbanity doesn't surprise or upset him. You might say that makes his racism more dangerous, because of the ease with which he can deny it.


But I hate these postmodern reactionaries more because I have good taste too, anything wrong with that? Is that anything like the ambivalence you feel?

Robin Marie said...

Buckley, without a doubt. Insofar as many conservatives can tell themselves the Tea Party is about "small government," when the ugly is exposed, it is without veneer and off-putting to the educated middle-class conservatives who like to tell themselves that what they care about is tax dollars, not maintaining a racial hierarchy. At the least it makes them squirm a bit.

But watching Buckley, all their doubts are wiped away; look how reasonable, look how calm! And he's even willing to crack jokes with these Reasonable Black People. I think it is the Buckleyesque style of racism which is the biggest obstacle we face today.

chauncey devega said...

okay, now that is an odd one. in what way? i have been called many things. coward? no. do explain.

chauncey devega said...

But, they are harmless Americans who like to dress up to protect your liberties! How dare you insult them!

chauncey devega said...

I can't stand the neo John Birchers called the Tea Party because they will not own who and what they are. Buckley was the brain and his Tea Party thugs the brawn?

chauncey devega said...

They believe in a herrenvolk republic. They want to keep the goodies for the good white folks like themselves and remove any benefits from the State for the colored people. Classic Apartheid rationale.

Shady Grady said...

That's like asking who is more dangerous, Don Corleone or Luca Brasi. If you see Luca off leash it's because Don Corleone took the collar off.


Buckley wasn't the sort of man to engage in the silly theatrics of the Tea Party or publicly get lost in birtherism. But he had a very strong belief in white supremacy and was firmly opposed to using government or other steps to lessen or reverse the impact of racism.


Buckley would seem more reasonable and urbane but at his core he had many of the same beliefs as the more reactionary Tea Party members. He just dressed and spoke better and had more money.

Yastreblyansky said...

Maybe Buckley was capable of acknowledging his racism (but didn't do it) and Tea-ists aren't, but are also too dumb to disguise it (as Robin Marie above suggests). I shouldn't keep thinking they're not dangerous, given what they've done to the House of Representatives. Buckley never had that kind of real-world effect.

The Sanity Inspector said...

In later life WFB admitted that he had been wrong about the civil rights movement during the 50s and 60s. Maybe some contemporary commenters will have a similar revelation some years hence--if such a revelation is warranted.

If you've never seen it, and you have a spare hour, the famous debate between Buckley and James Baldwin at Cambridge University in 1965 is rewarding viewing.

brandi artez said...

I know I should be participating in the conversation, but ma fellow virgo that's a Pats fan! <3

Steve Fair said...

Dead on the mark.

Steve Fair said...

Buckley supported Apartheid in South Africa as late as 1989 on the premise that once the blacks took power "they would take the white people's money". That sums it up about Buckley as far as I'm concerned. White supremacy trumps black humanity every time.

flan59 said...

I am very glad I watched this - it was enlightening.

chauncey devega said...

Glad you enjoyed it. So much good stuff out there if you know what to look for.

flan59 said...

I have to wonder if Buckley saw that interview as some intellectual game or something. He saw himself as an intellectual's intellectual and I honestly think he thought he was going to trip up his guests by the way he phrased his questions - and perhaps that is an even bigger sign of his prejudice - and people like him are even more dangerous because their racism is more subtle and they act like they are being objective in the way they talk.

chauncey devega said...

Objectivity is the key. They assume their racist conclusions as empirical facts when they are actually subjective judgments. The intellectual racist is the most dangerous.