frenemy mine
August 30, 2015 6:04 PM Subscribe
Fascinated by those Best of Enemies, Gore Vidal and William Buckley, going at it in 1968 live on national television? (youtube). It's Buckley against Vidal, but don't get pulled into the Buckley Myth
Or listen to James Baldwin debate William Buckley
Or listen to James Baldwin debate William Buckley
Best of Enemies is a great film.
For those interested in Gore Vidal, I also recommend Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia, which is on Netflix.
posted by Soulfather at 6:41 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
For those interested in Gore Vidal, I also recommend Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia, which is on Netflix.
posted by Soulfather at 6:41 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I believe the Buckley Myth argument that it was more about Catholicism. When he had Jerry Brown on his show, back when the governor was considered so far to the left he was called Governor MoonBeam (as opposed to his now decidedly centrist positioning), it surprised everyone by turning into a love-fest. Before Governor Brown entered politics, he studied to be a Catholic priest and they turned out to be philosophical, if not political, twins. Gore Vidal, not so much.
posted by eye of newt at 7:22 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by eye of newt at 7:22 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Gore Vidal* did an excellent episode of the Dead Authors Podcast, if you're in to that sort of thing, which you are if you're reading this thread.
* Not actually Gore Vidal
posted by echo target at 7:22 PM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
* Not actually Gore Vidal
posted by echo target at 7:22 PM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I always thought the myth about William Buckley was that he was an intellectual. He was highly skilled at composing erudite-sounding phrasings of the most fatuous inanities, and it's a sign of how thoroughly society was already on his side that he was taken seriously.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:54 PM on August 30, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:54 PM on August 30, 2015 [24 favorites]
Regarding Buckley being intellectual, I was really interested in seeing his views. I hadn't really come across a good right wing intellectual. So, I had great hopes from the Buckley Chomsky debates.
And, it was such a let down. Buckley just focuses on shooting the messenger. I have seen college debates which focus more on issues.
Buckley might have a lot of influence but he was not an "intellectual".
I despair to find intellectually sound conservative point of views on issues.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 8:10 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, it was such a let down. Buckley just focuses on shooting the messenger. I have seen college debates which focus more on issues.
Buckley might have a lot of influence but he was not an "intellectual".
I despair to find intellectually sound conservative point of views on issues.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 8:10 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
This I must see. Thank you.
posted by freakazoid at 8:34 PM on August 30, 2015
posted by freakazoid at 8:34 PM on August 30, 2015
In Bed With Gore Vidal is so gossipy and trashy I can't help but recommend it
I mean, he had so many problems , and is awful, and John Rechy hated him, but he wasn't a borderline fascist curio like Buckley , and you know
posted by The Whelk at 8:48 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, he had so many problems , and is awful, and John Rechy hated him, but he wasn't a borderline fascist curio like Buckley , and you know
posted by The Whelk at 8:48 PM on August 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am now imagining Vidal/Buckley slash
OMG SOMEONE STOP ME I'VE READ TOO MUCH TRASHY IRL FIC
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 9:37 PM on August 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
OMG SOMEONE STOP ME I'VE READ TOO MUCH TRASHY IRL FIC
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 9:37 PM on August 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Vidal's performance is a marvel of rhetoric, some of it due to his extensive preparation, some of it, undoubtedly, benefitting from an accident of timing. But he wanted to show the right, and Buckley as the right's representative, as being amoral, hateful bullies whose platform was one of pure selfishness.
But Buckley gave the right an artificial veneer of intellect. So, when Buckley offered a defense of the police attacking protestors in Chicago, Vidal called him a crypto-fascist. And when Buckley responded as he did, the veneer fell away. In that moment, Buckley seemed like a snarling, hateful bully who was only too ready to likewise use violence against speech he disapproved of.
Vidal is quite candid that he did not think television was a good format for debate -- he says so during the last of his debates with Buckley. He wasn't there to make a nuanced political argument. He was there to show the right wing as being monsters. And Buckley let him, and it's no wonder this was a source of shame for Buckley for the rest of his life, especially as he had such sneering contempt for Vidal, and, as a result, so underestimated him.
posted by maxsparber at 9:49 PM on August 30, 2015 [18 favorites]
But Buckley gave the right an artificial veneer of intellect. So, when Buckley offered a defense of the police attacking protestors in Chicago, Vidal called him a crypto-fascist. And when Buckley responded as he did, the veneer fell away. In that moment, Buckley seemed like a snarling, hateful bully who was only too ready to likewise use violence against speech he disapproved of.
Vidal is quite candid that he did not think television was a good format for debate -- he says so during the last of his debates with Buckley. He wasn't there to make a nuanced political argument. He was there to show the right wing as being monsters. And Buckley let him, and it's no wonder this was a source of shame for Buckley for the rest of his life, especially as he had such sneering contempt for Vidal, and, as a result, so underestimated him.
posted by maxsparber at 9:49 PM on August 30, 2015 [18 favorites]
Buckley might have a lot of influence but he was not an "intellectual".
Buckley, including his affectation of the mid-Atlantic accent, was what dumb people think smart people sound like.
posted by JackFlash at 10:47 PM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Buckley, including his affectation of the mid-Atlantic accent, was what dumb people think smart people sound like.
posted by JackFlash at 10:47 PM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
everybody talking about gore vidal, nobody talking about how goddamned insanely brilliant James Baldwin is
(really, buckley was at his best when he could turn it all into a circus, like with vidal - he knew that - but with intellectual giants like Baldwin he was utterly out of his depth, and it shows. the whole thing is worth watching because he is inconsequential to the towering intelligence of a great man.)
posted by koeselitz at 11:51 PM on August 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
(really, buckley was at his best when he could turn it all into a circus, like with vidal - he knew that - but with intellectual giants like Baldwin he was utterly out of his depth, and it shows. the whole thing is worth watching because he is inconsequential to the towering intelligence of a great man.)
posted by koeselitz at 11:51 PM on August 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
But he wanted to show the right, and Buckley as the right's representative, as being amoral, hateful bullies whose platform was one of pure selfishness.
That description fits Normal Mailer better than William F. Buckley. Mailer hated Vidal too.
Buckley was a singular force in American politics. He had no tolerance for anti-semetic elements on the right; He almost single-handedly resurrected the GOP from the disaster of Barry Goldwater and the 1964 presidential election and drove the John Birch Society so far into the weeds that they still have no influence in Republican politics. Neither Vidal, nor Mailer, nor Chomsky can claim any similar success on the left although Mailer sold more books than all of them combined.
including his affectation of the mid-Atlantic accent
The mid-Atlantic accent? Buckley grew up in England and France and his accent is one of a kind.
posted by three blind mice at 2:43 AM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
That description fits Normal Mailer better than William F. Buckley. Mailer hated Vidal too.
Buckley was a singular force in American politics. He had no tolerance for anti-semetic elements on the right; He almost single-handedly resurrected the GOP from the disaster of Barry Goldwater and the 1964 presidential election and drove the John Birch Society so far into the weeds that they still have no influence in Republican politics. Neither Vidal, nor Mailer, nor Chomsky can claim any similar success on the left although Mailer sold more books than all of them combined.
including his affectation of the mid-Atlantic accent
The mid-Atlantic accent? Buckley grew up in England and France and his accent is one of a kind.
posted by three blind mice at 2:43 AM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
In that moment, Buckley seemed like a snarling, hateful bully who was only too ready to likewise use violence against speech he disapproved of.
And there's something perfectly young-Mister-Burns-y about the defense that he wasn't actually rising to punch a gay man in the face, he was getting up to leave but was hindered by a back brace he had to wear because of a sailing accident.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:28 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
And there's something perfectly young-Mister-Burns-y about the defense that he wasn't actually rising to punch a gay man in the face, he was getting up to leave but was hindered by a back brace he had to wear because of a sailing accident.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:28 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
> ...drove the John Birch Society so far into the weeds that they still have no influence in Republican politics.
I am sure that has more to do with the popularity of the Reagan administration, campaign and legislative strategies of K Steet during the 90s, Republican Party-affiliated news channel Fox News, and more recently the calculated projects of (John Birch founding member) Fred Koch's sons during the last two decades which have resulted in the entire party, not to mention political discourse nationally, shifting farther to the right than the Birchers had collectively dreamed it could.
Basically, their job is done. They won by the efforts of their successors.
posted by ardgedee at 5:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am sure that has more to do with the popularity of the Reagan administration, campaign and legislative strategies of K Steet during the 90s, Republican Party-affiliated news channel Fox News, and more recently the calculated projects of (John Birch founding member) Fred Koch's sons during the last two decades which have resulted in the entire party, not to mention political discourse nationally, shifting farther to the right than the Birchers had collectively dreamed it could.
Basically, their job is done. They won by the efforts of their successors.
posted by ardgedee at 5:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Governor MoonBeam
I thought this was more about his dating Linda Ronstadt and talking about Zen, and a cultural desire to look down on Californians as "flaky", in the parlance of the times, than it was about Brown's policies.
posted by thelonius at 5:50 AM on August 31, 2015
I thought this was more about his dating Linda Ronstadt and talking about Zen, and a cultural desire to look down on Californians as "flaky", in the parlance of the times, than it was about Brown's policies.
posted by thelonius at 5:50 AM on August 31, 2015
"...drove the John Birch Society so far into the weeds that they still have no influence in Republican politics.."
Er, you *do* know who the Koch brothers are? And who their father was?
posted by notsnot at 5:54 AM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
Er, you *do* know who the Koch brothers are? And who their father was?
posted by notsnot at 5:54 AM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
I almost feel sorry for Buckley having to follow Baldwin in that debate (the OP link doesn't have the full thing for some reason). But Buckley really lowers himself to the occasion; he slithers and writhes inside his arguments like a worm.
posted by nom de poop at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2015
posted by nom de poop at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2015
The mid-Atlantic accent? Buckley grew up in England and France and his accent is one of a kind.
No, it wasn't. You're misunderstanding.
The mid-Atlantic accent was a style of speech taught to the upper class in the Northeast and actors in the early 20th century. Think of the way FDR talked, or the way actors talked in movies from the 30s and 40s.. Buckley's accent was one of a kind, all right, a kind of artificial affectation of the rich.
From the article:
No, it wasn't. You're misunderstanding.
The mid-Atlantic accent was a style of speech taught to the upper class in the Northeast and actors in the early 20th century. Think of the way FDR talked, or the way actors talked in movies from the 30s and 40s.. Buckley's accent was one of a kind, all right, a kind of artificial affectation of the rich.
From the article:
According to William Labov, teaching of this pronunciation declined sharply after the end of World War II. As a result, this American version of a "posh" accent has all but disappeared even among the American upper classes. The clipped English of George Plimpton and William F. Buckley, Jr. were vestigial examples.posted by Sangermaine at 7:21 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're both right. The Mid-Atlantic accent was a sort of imaginary accent set somewhere between America and the United Kingdom, and was an affected posh accent taught in prep and elocution schools. But Buckley came by his honestly (and idiosyncratically), from having been raised in England but unconsciously adopting some of the Southern speech mannerisms of his mother, and other from his childhood in Connecticut and his education at Yale. His accent sounds to us like the Patrician mid-Atlantic accent we hear in movies because it was essentially made of the same stuff, but he never consciously affected it.
posted by maxsparber at 8:07 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 8:07 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
drove the John Birch Society so far into the weeds that they still have no influence in Republican politics
Really? So the Heritage Foundation goons, the Shaffleys, the Kochs, the Tea Party, and all the other Bircher legacy groups have no influence? Really? Is there any one of the GOP candidates vying for nomination now that doesn't have to speak through a Birch-inspired megaphone in this day and age?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:15 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Really? So the Heritage Foundation goons, the Shaffleys, the Kochs, the Tea Party, and all the other Bircher legacy groups have no influence? Really? Is there any one of the GOP candidates vying for nomination now that doesn't have to speak through a Birch-inspired megaphone in this day and age?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:15 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Recall that it was Buckley that wrote in the New York Times: "Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals."
He also wrote in support of Jim Crow that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”
posted by JackFlash at 8:36 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
He also wrote in support of Jim Crow that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”
posted by JackFlash at 8:36 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Jackflash, I'd like the specific Buckley citations you quoted directly; book, writings and page number., for the sake of accuracy. Then I'll shut up.
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 9:03 AM on August 31, 2015
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 9:03 AM on August 31, 2015
I'd like the specific Buckley citations you quoted directly
Crucial Steps in Combating the Aids Epidemic; Identify All the Carriers, WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR., New York Times, March 18, 1986
Crucial Steps in Combating the Aids Epidemic; Identify All the Carriers, WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR., New York Times, March 18, 1986
Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:24 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
You have got to be kidding! That's exactly what we suspected all along! You are calling for the return of the Scarlet Letter, but only for homosexuals!
Answer: The Scarlet Letter was designed to stimulate public obloquy. The AIDS tattoo is designed for private protection.
https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf
Here you go, Seekerofsplendor:
The AIDS tattoo comment (NYT Op Ed, March 1986)
Jim Crow South comments (PDF) (unsigned -- but widely attributed to Buckley, Nat'l Review editorial, 1957)
posted by lord_wolf at 9:26 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here you go, Seekerofsplendor:
The AIDS tattoo comment (NYT Op Ed, March 1986)
Jim Crow South comments (PDF) (unsigned -- but widely attributed to Buckley, Nat'l Review editorial, 1957)
posted by lord_wolf at 9:26 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Some more gems from Buckley's editorial in the National Review titled "Why the South Must Prevail":
"It is not easy,and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
"If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
"The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could."
" So long as it [the South] is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization."
posted by JackFlash at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
"It is not easy,and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
"If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
"The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could."
" So long as it [the South] is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization."
posted by JackFlash at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Jesus, he sounds just like those people online who regurgitate a thesaurus in every post in a desperate attempt to sound smart.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:07 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Sangermaine at 10:07 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Buckley's puesdo intellectual posturing can be found in anyone wearing a bow tie who is not currently at a gay wedding or a Time Lord.
posted by The Whelk at 10:18 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 10:18 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
maxsparber: “But Buckley gave the right an artificial veneer of intellect. So, when Buckley offered a defense of the police attacking protestors in Chicago, Vidal called him a crypto-fascist. And when Buckley responded as he did, the veneer fell away. In that moment, Buckley seemed like a snarling, hateful bully who was only too ready to likewise use violence against speech he disapproved of.”
I don't agree entirely with this reading of it. I think the exchange is rather misunderstood. People love to believe that William F Buckley was so incensed at being called a crypto-Nazi that he simply became unhinged, losing control and spitting whatever words he could summon up at Gore Vidal. But the fact is that Buckley knew precisely what he was doing; he was cool as a cucumber, and he spat out that particular epithet on purpose.
The problem with the popular conception of this exchange is that it rests on the notion that William F Buckley would be so shocked and surprised at being called a "crypto-Nazi" that he'd be reduced to sputtering. But that seems unlikely. Buckley was used to being called a crypto-Nazi at this point, well used to it.
We're talking about a man whose father was a loudly outspoken anti-Semite, a man who by his own account "wept tears of frustration" at the age of eleven because his brothers didn't bring him along when they burned a cross at a Jewish resort. He always claimed he outgrew that legacy, but though he knew anti-Semitism was becoming unpopular, it still haunted him at National Review. The case of George Lincoln Rockwell is the most prominent one: National Review employed him early on, but then let him go when he went public as the founder of the American Nazi Party. (Buckley admired the Spanish fascist dictator Franco, but made it clear that he saw a stark difference between fascism on one hand, which might sometimes be okay, and Nazism, which was at least publicly untenable.) But, though they had distanced themselves officially from him, the National Review published more than one editorial defending George Lincoln Rockwell and suggesting he didn't deserve such harsh treatment at the hands of Jews. The National Review didn't limit its defenses to American Nazis, either; during the trial of Adolph Eichmann in 1960, the National Review published an opinion piece decrying this bringing up of old ghosts and suggested that it was ugly to display such a "refusal to forgive" (!) and moaning about the way that the "Hate Germany Movement" was being allowed to flourish.
There were plenty of people then who saw these facts and felt an unnerving sensation that the National Review and William F Buckley, its editor in chief, were uncomfortably close to saying they didn't really think all that Nazi business was all that terrible, aside from a few bloody little mistakes. And some of the people who felt that way naturally said so.
So when William F Buckley heard Gore Vidal call him a "crypto-Nazi," he wasn't shocked or surprised; he had certainly heard that accusation before. And when he turned around and called Vidal a "queer," threatening him with physical violence, he wasn't responding with the fury of someone who hated Nazis so much that he felt personally insulted by any association with them. (If he was that sort of man, he would have had to become estranged from his entire family – which, of course, he wasn't.) William F Buckley responded that way for two very coldly calculated reasons: first, he wanted to seem like the kind of man who was so morally outraged at Nazism that he resorted to physical violence when associated with it; second, he wanted to shut Vidal up, because he knew exactly where the conversation was going. And so did Gore Vidal. Gore Vidal was no idiot, and he knew all about George Lincoln Rockwell and the NR coverage of the Eichmann trial. He could call Buckley a "crypto-Nazi," but he could also back that accusation up with facts, and I have no doubt that he was about to.
In short: Buckley wasn't angry at all. He was being careful. He didn't want to let Gore Vidal actually bring up the uncomfortable affinity for Nazism apparent in Buckley's frequent attacks on anti-Nazism. Buckley wanted to make an outburst that seemed to portray him as stridently against Nazism, and then be done with it. It was an annoyingly successful rhetorical tactic.
posted by koeselitz at 10:30 AM on August 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
I don't agree entirely with this reading of it. I think the exchange is rather misunderstood. People love to believe that William F Buckley was so incensed at being called a crypto-Nazi that he simply became unhinged, losing control and spitting whatever words he could summon up at Gore Vidal. But the fact is that Buckley knew precisely what he was doing; he was cool as a cucumber, and he spat out that particular epithet on purpose.
The problem with the popular conception of this exchange is that it rests on the notion that William F Buckley would be so shocked and surprised at being called a "crypto-Nazi" that he'd be reduced to sputtering. But that seems unlikely. Buckley was used to being called a crypto-Nazi at this point, well used to it.
We're talking about a man whose father was a loudly outspoken anti-Semite, a man who by his own account "wept tears of frustration" at the age of eleven because his brothers didn't bring him along when they burned a cross at a Jewish resort. He always claimed he outgrew that legacy, but though he knew anti-Semitism was becoming unpopular, it still haunted him at National Review. The case of George Lincoln Rockwell is the most prominent one: National Review employed him early on, but then let him go when he went public as the founder of the American Nazi Party. (Buckley admired the Spanish fascist dictator Franco, but made it clear that he saw a stark difference between fascism on one hand, which might sometimes be okay, and Nazism, which was at least publicly untenable.) But, though they had distanced themselves officially from him, the National Review published more than one editorial defending George Lincoln Rockwell and suggesting he didn't deserve such harsh treatment at the hands of Jews. The National Review didn't limit its defenses to American Nazis, either; during the trial of Adolph Eichmann in 1960, the National Review published an opinion piece decrying this bringing up of old ghosts and suggested that it was ugly to display such a "refusal to forgive" (!) and moaning about the way that the "Hate Germany Movement" was being allowed to flourish.
There were plenty of people then who saw these facts and felt an unnerving sensation that the National Review and William F Buckley, its editor in chief, were uncomfortably close to saying they didn't really think all that Nazi business was all that terrible, aside from a few bloody little mistakes. And some of the people who felt that way naturally said so.
So when William F Buckley heard Gore Vidal call him a "crypto-Nazi," he wasn't shocked or surprised; he had certainly heard that accusation before. And when he turned around and called Vidal a "queer," threatening him with physical violence, he wasn't responding with the fury of someone who hated Nazis so much that he felt personally insulted by any association with them. (If he was that sort of man, he would have had to become estranged from his entire family – which, of course, he wasn't.) William F Buckley responded that way for two very coldly calculated reasons: first, he wanted to seem like the kind of man who was so morally outraged at Nazism that he resorted to physical violence when associated with it; second, he wanted to shut Vidal up, because he knew exactly where the conversation was going. And so did Gore Vidal. Gore Vidal was no idiot, and he knew all about George Lincoln Rockwell and the NR coverage of the Eichmann trial. He could call Buckley a "crypto-Nazi," but he could also back that accusation up with facts, and I have no doubt that he was about to.
In short: Buckley wasn't angry at all. He was being careful. He didn't want to let Gore Vidal actually bring up the uncomfortable affinity for Nazism apparent in Buckley's frequent attacks on anti-Nazism. Buckley wanted to make an outburst that seemed to portray him as stridently against Nazism, and then be done with it. It was an annoyingly successful rhetorical tactic.
posted by koeselitz at 10:30 AM on August 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
Bill Nye's going to get fat from all that gay wedding cake.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:31 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:31 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Um, koeselitz's serious history popped up between The Welk's superficial, witty remark and my superficial, witty reply. Sorry for any confusion.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:34 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:34 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Also, a lot can be said about Buckley's choice of the epithet "queer" for Vidal. I think he selected that very carefully, too. His aim was to paint Vidal as immoral, unnatural; Buckley, on the other hand, was supposed to be such a good, upstanding American that he reddened and balled his fists when accused of familiarity with Nazism. It's clear that this, too, was an act – Buckley knew very well the "unnatural" pleasures that he imputed to Gore Vidal – but he knew how to play the game. He knew most good, decent, moral Americans would forgive his outrage at being called a Nazi, and would forgive also his resorting to a slur in such a heated moment. He was counting on that, as he was counting on the fact that most people would see the heated moment and turn away before they got to know the more uncomfortable facts.)
posted by koeselitz at 10:35 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 10:35 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm really glad to see Best Of Enemies on the Blue. It's a fantastic film. Forgive the self-link, but I got to write about the origin and making of the film.
posted by vibrotronica at 11:30 AM on August 31, 2015
posted by vibrotronica at 11:30 AM on August 31, 2015
William F Buckley responded that way for two very coldly calculated reasons: first, he wanted to seem like the kind of man who was so morally outraged at Nazism that he resorted to physical violence when associated with it; second, he wanted to shut Vidal up, because he knew exactly where the conversation was going.
I don't buy this. Firstly, I have seen the footage very recently, and it isn't cold calculation you see. Secondly, Buckley was humiliated by the experience for the rest of his life; there is a vivid expression of it when the footage is played during a sendoff from Firing Line, and he responds icily, and then crosses to a journalist to complain that he was sure the footage was burned. I'm not sure what the source is for your version, but it is inconsistent with the actual footage and Buckley's very real embarrassment about the experience.
posted by maxsparber at 11:54 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't buy this. Firstly, I have seen the footage very recently, and it isn't cold calculation you see. Secondly, Buckley was humiliated by the experience for the rest of his life; there is a vivid expression of it when the footage is played during a sendoff from Firing Line, and he responds icily, and then crosses to a journalist to complain that he was sure the footage was burned. I'm not sure what the source is for your version, but it is inconsistent with the actual footage and Buckley's very real embarrassment about the experience.
posted by maxsparber at 11:54 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well – I'll concede that (I think) it's probably some of both. It was an outburst borne out of desperation, probably, but it was still an attempt to derail an actual discussion of actual problematic history. I think it needs to be pointed out that calling William Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" was not some vague insult on Gore Vidal's part; nor was it even a reference to Buckley's execrable attitudes toward the Civil Rights Movement. It was a reference to the fact that Buckley was, well, rather friendly toward actual Nazi ideals in some disturbing ways. If Buckley was shocked, it was probably at the fact that Vidal would have the gall to bring that up in polite conversation, and fear that his past statements could legitimately be used against him.
I mean – to put it another way, it's interesting to think about Buckley's response about it. He'd always say that Gore Vidal started it by calling him a "crypto-Nazi." What's ironic is that both insults were actually true. Gore Vidal was, in fact, a "queer;" and Buckley was, in fact, a "crypto-Nazi." In saying that Vidal started it, Buckley was implying that these things were personal, private things, and the offense lay in bringing them out in public where they might be embarrassing. But being a crypto-Nazi is absolutely not the same as being a queer; and Gore Vidal, who had the strength of mind to be forthright and strident about the fact that queerness was a natural and proper part of the human sexual experience, knew this better than anyone. William F Buckley was embarrassed by the Nazi affinities of his past and his present, and had the gall to be offended when presented with them in debate, reacting as though some embarrassing secret of his had been revealed, and responding by attempting to do the same to his interlocutor. No wonder he was ashamed by this exchange.
posted by koeselitz at 1:47 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I mean – to put it another way, it's interesting to think about Buckley's response about it. He'd always say that Gore Vidal started it by calling him a "crypto-Nazi." What's ironic is that both insults were actually true. Gore Vidal was, in fact, a "queer;" and Buckley was, in fact, a "crypto-Nazi." In saying that Vidal started it, Buckley was implying that these things were personal, private things, and the offense lay in bringing them out in public where they might be embarrassing. But being a crypto-Nazi is absolutely not the same as being a queer; and Gore Vidal, who had the strength of mind to be forthright and strident about the fact that queerness was a natural and proper part of the human sexual experience, knew this better than anyone. William F Buckley was embarrassed by the Nazi affinities of his past and his present, and had the gall to be offended when presented with them in debate, reacting as though some embarrassing secret of his had been revealed, and responding by attempting to do the same to his interlocutor. No wonder he was ashamed by this exchange.
posted by koeselitz at 1:47 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Gordon was at the screening I attended in NY and told us that the only footage that exists of the "crypto-nazi/queer" debate is the black and white;he thinks that Buckley had the color version which was originally broadcast destroyed.
Vidal describes Buckley in the 9-69 Esquire piece as "honking and hissing,flapping his arms...." He's calling him a goose.
posted by brujita at 4:25 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Vidal describes Buckley in the 9-69 Esquire piece as "honking and hissing,flapping his arms...." He's calling him a goose.
posted by brujita at 4:25 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
"....and you'll stay socked" seems more likely the reason to be ashamed. Weakest punch line to an insult I've ever heard. What does it even mean?
I despair to find intellectually sound conservative point of views on issues.
Are you hoping to be converted or challenged? How do you define intellectually sound? Do you find a basis in old time religion, Catholicism and Protestantism enough to disqualify the conservative thought that comes out of them? On a different tack, (I'm assuming you identify as liberal) how strongly do you question liberal points of view? Can you see yourself pulling a Nat Hentoff, going square against his liberal colleagues on the abortion question?
There's plenty of conservative writing out there these days, ranging from media hacks clearly in it for the money and anonyms who fear for their reputations. Paleos hate the Neos and vice versa, and both may make occasional common cause with Libertarians. From frauds and cranks to thoughtful and sincere, just like on the left.
he sounds just like those people online who regurgitate a thesaurus in every post in a desperate attempt to sound smart.
Well, Lewis Lapham isn't far behind (and me a subscriber!)
posted by IndigoJones at 4:33 PM on August 31, 2015
I despair to find intellectually sound conservative point of views on issues.
Are you hoping to be converted or challenged? How do you define intellectually sound? Do you find a basis in old time religion, Catholicism and Protestantism enough to disqualify the conservative thought that comes out of them? On a different tack, (I'm assuming you identify as liberal) how strongly do you question liberal points of view? Can you see yourself pulling a Nat Hentoff, going square against his liberal colleagues on the abortion question?
There's plenty of conservative writing out there these days, ranging from media hacks clearly in it for the money and anonyms who fear for their reputations. Paleos hate the Neos and vice versa, and both may make occasional common cause with Libertarians. From frauds and cranks to thoughtful and sincere, just like on the left.
he sounds just like those people online who regurgitate a thesaurus in every post in a desperate attempt to sound smart.
Well, Lewis Lapham isn't far behind (and me a subscriber!)
posted by IndigoJones at 4:33 PM on August 31, 2015
Many years ago when I was young, I remember seeing W.F. Buckley on some random PBS political debate show, and he was infuriating. When asked to clarify on his foreign policy opinions, he pulled out a series of rhetorical evasions, and projected an airily bored and dismissive miasma over any question put to his self-righteousness. It was a pretty good lesson in rhetoric, in retrospect.
His enduring contribution to American culture was providing a voice model for Robin Williams in Disney's 'Aladdin'.
posted by ovvl at 4:55 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
His enduring contribution to American culture was providing a voice model for Robin Williams in Disney's 'Aladdin'.
posted by ovvl at 4:55 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, fun for those who like this sort of thing: Vidal's very cynical overview of American history, Gore Vidal's American Presidency (1996).
posted by ovvl at 5:05 PM on August 31, 2015
posted by ovvl at 5:05 PM on August 31, 2015
The Buckley-Vidal debates changed television . . . for the worse.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:31 PM on September 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:31 PM on September 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older An unlikely friendship and an end to the guilt | Wes Craven Dies at 76 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That he's secretly Rutger Hauer's father?
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:21 PM on August 30, 2015 [3 favorites]