Ten Questions with Jeremy Lott on WFB

I am a big fan of William F. Buckley, Jr. Have been since high school. I have read nearly all of his books and  have read a great deal about him.

So I was intrigued when I saw that an author who I enjoy, Jeremy Lott, had come out with a short bio of WFB as part of the Christian Encounters series at Thomas Nelson.

This was another book I read back in the summer but didn’t get a chance to review until now. I thought it would be useful to bring back the Ten Questions format and ask Jeremy to answer a few questions.

He graciously agree and the Q&A is below (my questions in bold)

1. How does viewing WFB through the lens of “prophet” help us understand him better?

It helps us to see how he saw himself, at least in part. I quote from a letter that William F. Buckley wrote to Ronald Reagan recounting Buckley’s appearance on the Tonight Show. WFB told Johnny Carson “that vaticide was the act of killing a prophet, and that if he wanted to go down as guilty of that crime, all he had to do was kill me.”

Now, this was a witticism, so we shouldn’t place too much weight on it, but neither should we ignore it. I argue that it was along the lines of what Ben Stiller’s villain White Goodman said several times in the movie Dodgeball. You remember? “I’m kidding, but not really.”
2. This is a Christian Encounters series, how did WFB’s faith impact and inspire his politics?

His politics grew out of his faith and his upbringing, though the faith sometimes had to serve as a check on the upbringing. It moved him on segregation, anti-Semitism, and mutually assured destruction (the last very late in life), for instance.

3. Did Buckley’s anti-communism during the Cold War hide, to a degree, his more libertarian side?

To a degree, it did. When you are concentrating on using one national security apparatus to grind down another, more threatening one, you are going to appear less libertarian.

But there’s also the fact that his libertarian side emerged from a political theory, dubbed “fusionism,” that was really developed in the 1960s. Fusionism said virtue that is coerced is not virtue, and so government should get out of the virtue-promotion business. This eventually inspired to his call to end the war on drugs, but it took awhile.

4. How is the National Review of today different from the magazine WFB created and ran for so many years?

It’s more reliably Republican. In 1956 and 1960, NR declined to endorse the GOP nominee, and Buckley regularly criticized Eisenhower and Nixon. That started changing in 1968 when the magazine threw its weight behind the Nixon-Agnew ticket. In 2008, it endorsed Mitt Romney in the primaries and John McCain in the general.

5. How important was Firing Line to making WFB a household name? How do you think the show impacted both conservatives in the media and political media in general?

It put him in people’s living rooms once a week and allowed him to mix it up with most of the great politicians and cultural figures of the time. Many conservatives, including current NR editor Rich Lowry, were inspired by this. It also proved that a regular forum for ideas on television could find a dedicated audience.

6. How significant (both short and long term) was the damage from the ill fated NR Civil Rights editorial? The almost immediate reversal seems to be forgotten.

I was shocked to learn that National Review’s stance in favor of barring blacks from the ballot lasted for only one issue. In the very next issue, NR reversed itself. And yet this is often cited as some long-standing policy of the magazine. Very odd.

It did a lot of damage, obviously. It helped defenders of the Civil Rights Act to brand all of its critics as racists. The professional anti-racists really haven’t changed their script since.

7. What was the most surprising thing you came across or learned researching this book? Was there anything that struck you as new and/or under-reported?

How about the fact that Buckley didn’t really want to found National Review? He tried to take over The Freeman, Human Events, and even the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal before he finally threw in the towel and founded NR.

8. What do you see as WFB’s legacy in terms of the conservative movement?

The fact that there is a conservative movement.

9. Is “fusionism” still possible?

I think its central insight is still valid, though it only goes so far. It doesn’t help us settle some contentious issues like abortion. Practically, it will always be applicable because any conservative coalition in this country is going to be a mix of conservatives and libertarians. They’ll have to find some way to get along.

10. Ayn Rand, and her books, have made something of a comeback. WFB tried to write Objectivism out of the conservative movement. Did he succeed?

We should distinguish between Rand-as-entertainment and Objectivism. She wanted people to swallow the philosophy and the novels as a single shot but that’s not how it usually works, in my experience. Modern Rand fans prefer cocktails. One of her biggest boosters, Glenn Beck, mixes his Atlas Shruggery with Mormonism. That should have Rand turning over in her atheist grave.

About the author

Kevin Holtsberry

I work in communications and public affairs. I try to squeeze in as much reading as I can while still spending time with my wife and two kids (and cheering on the Pittsburgh Steelers and Michigan Wolverines during football season - oh, and watching golf too).

View all posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *