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.

Related articles

• Reason.tv: Author Jeremy Lott on William F. Buckley Jr.’s Faith and Politics (reason.com)
• William F. Buckley (Christian Encounters) by Jeremy Lott (collectedmiscellany.com)
• Breaking the Buckley Rule | Jeremy Lott (guardian.co.uk)

I have to admit, I was shocked to find out that National Review editor Rich Lowry had co-written a novel.  I just didn’t picture him as the novel writing type.  Of course, he had the help of literary agent Keith Korman.  But still a surprising project. For thos unfamiliar with the book here is the PW set up:

Unlikely hero Peter Johnson, a mildly buffoonish writer working for the Crusader, a left-wing magazine, is recruited by CIA agent Stewart Banquo for the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist. Banquo figures no one would ever suspect Johnson, known for his drunkenness and willingness to take a bribe, to be working for the CIA. Johnson, who accepts the job for a variety of reasons, heads off to Iran. A series of double crosses lands Johnson in the hands of the Iranians and sets up the rest of the plot involving a chillingly plausible terrorist attack.

And so my curiosity piqued, I decided to give it a read.   Banquo’s Ghosts turned out to be a entertaining thriller with a distinct political style to it.  This part is not surprising.  In many ways Lowry is following in the footsteps of the man he succeeded at NR: William F. Buckley; who wrote a number of espionage thrillers with strong contemporary political undercurrents.

For more see below.

The political aspect of the novel is both a strength and a weakness.  The strength is what one reviewer labeled the works “moral clarity” (the NR review noted the “clarity of vision” as well).  Lowry and Korman have a clear point of view and this gives the book a certain confidence and voice.  And conservatives will of course like the lack of moral ambivalence involved. But it also means that, at times, the story can get lost a little in the book’s didacticism.

At points the authors stop the story to make a point.   Whether they pull this off probably depends on your political compass to some degree.  Like this comment clearly aimed at the security lapses connected to lax immigration enforcement.  After noting the ease with which drug runners cross the border, thus making tracking nuclear material very difficult, a mini-rant:

What no one ascertained for certain was  the identity of these Mexican drug runners or  where they were headed. No matter. The next day  politicians of every stripe continued to celebrate  themselves in their particular ways. Some  postured on the cable shows about the dangers of  transfats in corn chips, while others called for  safer kiddy-kar kid seats. In a fit of statesmanship,  Bangor, Maine, banned smoking in privately  owned cars with children in them. Finally: kids in  Bangor, Maine, were safe from second-hand  smoke.

This would bring a chuckle – or a sad shake of the head – to those who are furstrated by the lack of border security in this country.  Others may find it bland anti-pc rhetoric.  But it is clearly editorial commentary not an integral part of the story. This type of commentary is threaded throughout the novel.

For the most part, however, the commentary doesn’t derail the story nor is it jarring or out of place.  The book has a clear political perspective so the commentary comes with the territory. (I would imagine, however,  if you are the type of person who uses the words “neocon” and “cabal” in the same sentence you might find yourself frequently arguing with Lowry and Korman’s portrayal of Iran, progressive journalists, and much more.)

If there is a problem with tone and style it has more to do with balancing satire and thriller not political opinion with plot.  Lowry and Korman clearly set out to mock a number of elite institutions from the CIA  and the State Department to the liberal media establisment.  But at its root the book is a thriller and the satirical aspects don’t always mesh with thriller aspects (for more see this Forbes review).

But these critiques don’t really make much of an impact if you find the novel an entertaining read.  Sure, the book strains plausibility at times, and its political commentary is rather run of the mill War on Terror supporting anti-liberal media conservatism, but the plot is nevertheless well done and the pacing brisk.  And as noted above, it has a certain voice or tone that works well for this genre.

Conservatives looking for a fun read that takes their perspective seriously, and pokes fun of liberals, will clearly enjoy this one. But I think the partisian jibes are low key enough that most readers from whatever side of the political spectrum will enjoy it for what it is.  With summer coming this makes for a nice beach/airplane read for political junkies of every stripe.