Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
As I write about William F. Buckley, I can’t help thinking of my dad. They were alike in many ways, and my father introduced me, through the TV screen, to Buckley. I once told Buckley that he’d played a huge role in the formation of my political thinking—as I’d been watching “Firing Line” since it appeared on PBS when I was 9 years old—and he said, “Well, that’s a frightening thought.” Of course, it was a frightening thought. Why was a 9-year-old watching a political debate show led by this devout intellectual with the vocabulary of a … well … the vocabulary typical of no one at any education level? Cause of my dad. My atheist dad.
My father may have been against religion, but his ethical example, his dignity, and his love and respect for nature and his fellow man were spiritual practices if ever I’ve seen them. I know I got part of whatever religious core I have though him. And he and the author of “God & Man at Yale” shared many values.
Bill Buckley is best known for starting the magazine National Review, and, largely through that publication, for leading a revitalization of conservative politics in America. But there has always been a tension within conservatism between what Buckley represented and what at one time called itself the “Know Nothings”—anti-intellectual, often anti-immigrant, populism.
The conservatism William F. Buckley stood for was a heartfelt belief in individual liberty, collective responsibility and a healthy respect for traditions. His was not a politics of fear. It was a thoughtful and a decent politics. One that he was more than happy to defend against reasonable opponents.
Buckley’s “Firing Line” was no relative of the modern split screen scream-fest, with surrogates of Left and Right speaking from memorized talking points, bullying their way to … Continue reading Faithful Departed—William F. Buckley Jr.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
The debate over labels that may be — perhaps should be — of minor importance in political and social thought has vexed me regularly. The need to define certain positions as belonging to one camp or another seems quite important to most people. Categorizing things makes people feel they have a handle on them. Maybe this is human nature, but it gets in the way, I fear, of understanding the true nature of things.
In particular, I am vexed by the plethora of labels attached to various political positions: pro-America = Right; anti-free-market = Left; pro-personal-liberties = liberal; pro-tough-laws = conservative; pro-protecting-the-environment = Left. The list could go on for paragraphs.
The danger of these labels is that people feel compelled to put themselves into one camp or another. Once this is done, people further feel compelled to fit the belief system of their adopted camp — at least publicly. Thus you have columnists and others defending positions and narrowing their understanding of issues to fit their role.
The biggest casualty of all this is that it reduces the chance of coming to a well reasoned compromise on important issues. But it also does damage at the personal level. People are confused and distressed by what they perceive as inner “conflicts” based on differences they have with their ideological camp. If they were able to accept that their personal set of beliefs was legitimate and potentially consistent, even though it didn’t match any of the available ideologies, then they would be at rest. And perhaps, much of the illogical and confrontational dialogue on shouting matches like the McLaughlin Group would subside.
People who hold beliefs or have feelings which are not appropriate for the camp they have joined often suppress them. This not only damages them personally, it also deprives the world of … Continue reading Neither Left nor Right
