Buckley (Jr.) Resigns from the National Review
I guess those 12,000 emails found him:
Christopher Buckley, the author and son of the late conservative mainstay William F. Buckley, said in a telephone interview that he has resigned from the National Review, the political journal his father founded in 1955.
Mr. Buckley said he had “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog posting on TheDailyBeast.com; since then, he said he has been blanketed with hate mail at the blog and at the National Review, where he has written a column.
As a result, he wrote to Richard Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and
its publisher, Jack Fowler, offering to resign, and “this offer was rather
briskly accepted,” Mr. Buckley said.Mr. Buckley said he did not understand the sense of betrayal that some of his conservative colleagues felt, but said that the fury and ugly comments his endorsement generated is “part of
the calcification of modern discourse. It’s so angry.” Quoting Ronald Reagan, he added, “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”Mr. Buckley has joined a growing list of conservatives who have either endorsed Mr. Obama or questioned whether McCain now stands any chance of being elected. On Monday, the writer Christopher Hitchens also endorsed the Democratic ticket.
I think it’s a stretch to call Hitchens a conservative. His political roots are in the anti-Stalinist left and he is basically a social-democrat with respect to domestic policy. I suppose if he was a Yank of the right generation we’d call him a “Scoop Jackson Democrat,” with radical Islam serving the role for Hitchens that Communism played for Jackson.
I think Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley should publish all the hate mail they received. It would be interesting to know what conservative America (or at least that segment of it) is thinking. Someone said to me, “Well, think how betrayed we would feel if Hillary Clinton endorsed McCain.” I said I would be appalled, but I wouldn’t write to her and tell her that her mother should have aborted her and thrown the fetus in a Dumpster.
Ironically, I think alluding to said hate mail reflects more poorly on Mr. Buckley and Mr. Penalver than on the people who wrote it.
(Just kidding.)
To Peter Nixon:
A question: Even given your description of Hitchens, would you agree that it’s a big deal when he – in effect – endorses Obama? McCain, after all, has been very close to the Bush position on Iraq that Hitchens has championed, and that Obama has disputed.
The “brisk” acceptance by Nat. Review of young Buckley’s resignation indicates how ideologically locked in the right is.
That underscores the anger true beleivers of that movement can generate concerning the upcomingelection and the difficulty of bringing together a nation desperately in ned of uniting.
I know everyone here understands the old adage that there are THREE sides to every story. I zipped over to NR and the editor (?) Rich Lowrey posted this on the situation:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWEwZmYwNDE0YWI4OGI2ZTZlN2EwYTBhNmZlZDliMjc=
Word on Christopher Buckley [Rich Lowry]
Chris is up with a post at The Daily Beast, “Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired.” I’d like to clarify this “firing” business. Over the weekend, Chris wrote us a jaunty e-mail with the subject line “A Sincere Offer,” in which he offered to resign his column on NR’s back page and said that if we accepted, there “would be no hard feelings, only warmest regards and understanding.” We took the offer sincerely. Chris had done us the favor of writing the column beginning seven issues ago on a “trial basis” (his words), while our regular back-page columnist, Mark Steyn, was on hiatus. Now, Mark is back to writing again, and—I’m delighted to say—will be on NR’s back-page in the new issue.
Just one other point: Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a “tsunami,” that e-mail at NRO has been running “oh, 700-to-1″ against him, and that there’s a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license. We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits (we never like to lose any readers, but circulation is way up this year). No doubt part of what upset these readers was the dim view Chris expressed of them in his first Daily Beast post. So it goes. It’s an intense election season and emotions are running high. We continue to have the highest regard for Chris’s talent and wit, and extend to him warmest regards and understanding.
UPDATE: The Daily Beast headline has been changed to “Buckley Bows Out of National Review.”
Rich Lowry:
Chris is up with a post at The Daily Beast, “Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired.” I’d like to clarify this “firing” business. Over the weekend, Chris wrote us a jaunty e-mail with the subject line “A Sincere Offer,” in which he offered to resign his column on NR’s back page and said that if we accepted, there “would be no hard feelings, only warmest regards and understanding.” We took the offer sincerely. Chris had done us the favor of writing the column beginning seven issues ago on a “trial basis” (his words), while our regular back-page columnist, Mark Steyn, was on hiatus. Now, Mark is back to writing again, and—I’m delighted to say—will be on NR’s back-page in the new issue.
Just one other point: Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a “tsunami,” that e-mail at NRO has been running “oh, 700-to-1″ against him, and that there’s a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license. We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits (we never like to lose any readers, but circulation is way up this year). No doubt part of what upset these readers was the dim view Chris expressed of them in his first Daily Beast post. So it goes. It’s an intense election season and emotions are running high. We continue to have the highest re
Eduardo Peñalver: I don’t know if you were quoting directly from the NYT posting you link to or if it was your original writing, but he was paraphrasing President Reagan, not “quoting” him. President Reagan’s 1962 comment, after he changed his political party affiliation from Democratic to Republican following the election of President Kennedy, was: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
(http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-reagan,1,2107723,full.story)
Um, indented text with line along the left side indicates block quote.
In that case, the NYT link has actually since been corrected to read “Paraphrasing” instead of “Quoting”.
Gene:
I suppose whether the Hitchens endorsement is a big deal or not depends on whether you think Hitch brings anyone along with him. Those of us who read Slate or Vanity Fair, regularly probably think it is a big deal, but I suspect the vast majority of those folks are already going for Obama already. I think that the kind of people who read Hitchens regularly are “high information” voters who have already made up their minds.
In one sense, Hitch may be the last of what one might call the “GWOT left/liberals” to come home to the Democrats. Most of the folks in that category (e.g. Tom Friedman, etc.) have already declared for Obama.
This is probably a longer response than you wanted–but you got me thinking. Quite dangerous, that!
Too long a response? No way!
Thanks very much.
Oops. I guess it was clear who I was addressing, but just in case, why not do it right?
Peter Nixon:
Too long a response? No way!
Thanks very much.
Hitchens:
A self-abosrbed, self important iconoclast.
A foreign policy neo-con (cut from the same cloth as those who brought you pre-emptive war as the default foregin policy of the United States supported by both parties). Truly part of what history I hope will some day regard as one of the most dangerous ideological movements as far as US foreign policy is concerned.
I’ve been following this story pretty closely, since I’m a NR subscriber. I don’t know what Christopher Buckley is categorizing as “hate mail.” But the impression that I got from reading around on the conservative blogs, as well as my own reaction upon reading the initial endorsement blog post, was that more readers were upset with Christopher Buckley’s argument for endorsement rather than the endorsement itself. If I am remembering correctly, he argued that McCain has abandoned his principles during this campaign. And he followed it up be arguing that Obama is the type of politician who will incorporate conservative ideals in governing and won’t just follow typically liberal orthodoxy. I think one could concede the first point to some extent as McCain has reversed some positions during the campaign (as has Obama). The second portion of the argument was the one that I and others, I believe, found dishonest. With a majority in the House of Reps, Senate, and control of the presidency, it is hard for many conservatives to see how Obama would inspire legislators to incorporate ideas from the party that was just voted out.
So to sum up, my impression is that conservatives were upset with Buckley because his argument seemed to be at least somewhat disingenuous. Of course there will be some who are just angry because he is a Buckley, but most reactions I’ve seen, at least, addressed the logic of his argument.
PS – Buckley also mentioned how the late great WFB had on occasion endorsed Democrats running for office, like Joseph Lieberman in his successful run for the Senate. What the younger Buckley did not mention in the blog post, and what was likely familiar to most WFB fans, was that WFB endorsed Lieberman because of WFB’s singular hatred for Lowell Weicker, the incumbent Dem holding the contested Connecticut senate seat. And he supported Lieberman instead of the Republican challenger because the election was in Connecticut, and not in Texas, and the poor GOP guy, I forget his name, didn’t stand a chance.
Edit: My memory is slipping on me. Weicker was the Republican candidate, albeit a very moderate one. Confused him with another Senator that WFB disliked. Check out Happy Days Were Here Again for some essays about Buckley’s tremendous dislike of Weicker and the establishment of Buckleys for Lieberman. It is a hoot.
Adeodatus said: “With a majority in the House of Reps, Senate, and control of the presidency, it is hard for many conservatives to see how Obama would inspire legislators to incorporate ideas from the party that was just voted out.”
I think that the party is being voted out because it itself is failing to incorporate what it claims are its own ideas. Defections of people like Hitchens and Buckley are just one of the signs of this. It’s ironic, but it’s true.
To reiterate Htichens cannot be labelled a conservative Republican in the convential sense of the term. He can hardly be labelled a conservative.
He is simply a bit of an eccentric (and I don’t mean that in a pejorative way).
Many conservatives, including WFB as I recall, opposed Iraq. Iraq is wholly a neo-con phenomenon in the annals of US foreign policy history. Neo-con ideology is not the province of the Republican party, it has appeal within Democratic circles as well.
George D said: “To reiterate Htichens cannot be labelled a conservative Republican in the convential sense of the term. He can hardly be labelled a conservative.
He is simply a bit of an eccentric (and I don’t mean that in a pejorative way).
Many conservatives, including WFB as I recall, opposed Iraq. Iraq is wholly a neo-con phenomenon in the annals of US foreign policy history. Neo-con ideology is not the province of the Republican party, it has appeal within Democratic circles as well.”
One of the delights of the current election cycle is seeing the people who actively supported the GOP in all of their elections for the last couple of decades now telling us that the people that they supported weren’t really “conservatives” after all.
“I think that the party is being voted out because it itself is failing to incorporate what it claims are its own ideas. Defections of people like Hitchens and Buckley are just one of the signs of this. It’s ironic, but it’s true.”
Very perceptive, and I also think, true!
Unagidon said: “I think that the party is being voted out because it itself is failing to incorporate what it claims are its own ideas. Defections of people like Hitchens and Buckley are just one of the signs of this. It’s ironic, but it’s true.”
If by “ideas” of the “party”, are you referring to one of the many strains of Conservatism, I don’t think that is accurate. The political culture of the majority has moved more and more towards those of Western Continental Europe. The political philosophy of the Committee of Five and the Federalists has seen its resonance with the electorate decrease in proportion to this. Human political history would argue that this trend will not reverse – in my opinion the Conservative philosophy is just growing less and less palatable to the majority of the electorate, regardless of whether certain members of the GOP are or are not “real conservatives”.
Interesting comment MAT. The people most actively supporting McCain this time around don’t look all that European in their attitudes to me. Also, it’s only been two years since the last elections and the worm seems to have turned a great deal since then. Finally, I thought that “conservatism” implied conserving something?
I told my wife abou tyoung Buckley’s comment and she laughed.
She said”Kooks ar ea good word. I think a kook is one who latches on to one thing only at the expense of others.”
I agreed and thought of some posters here(sorry)….
Unagidon: I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say was that the political center, and therefore Independents, is moving more towards that of W Continental Europe in its political attitudes. I agree that supporters of Senator McCain do not share that political attitude. I also agree that Conservatism implies conserving something, particularly the ideals of the Committee of Five and the Federalists. I think these ideals however, regardless if Senator McCain represents them truly or not, are finding less resonance among voters. To say it another way, I guess I am trying to make a proffer that an increasing majority of Americans are embracing the political attitudes of W Continental Europe, that trend has been consistent over the last two decades, and that Conservatism, and to the extent the GOP is the electoral vehicle for this philosophy, the GOP, will continue to see its electoral success wane.