Thursday, February 28, 2008

Old News

Instead of linking, I have copied, as they say, "the whole thing":

INAUGURATING A NEW CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL MAGAZINE

There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for New Liberty Journal. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined.

Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did New Liberty Journal not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if New Liberty Journal is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

New Liberty Journal is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the National Organization of Women and the New York Times are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.

"I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater," said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does." We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!)

The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Michael Moore’s bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Paul Krugman will have denounced you in a dozen articles, Susan Sontag will have written ten essays about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award.

Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is a serious question of whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is a dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses — on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending.

And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas — not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is — dare we say it? — as necessary to better living as Chemistry.

We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country. All this would not appear to augur well for New Liberty Journal. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism.

After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over fifty men and women of small means invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives.

Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march.

For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.



I have altered the name of the magazine and changed some of the more time-bound personal references, but otherwise this is the text of the opening edition of the National Review, written by William F Buckley, Jr on November 19, 1955.

Buckley died yesterday. The article could have been written just as recently.



6 comments:

Anonymous said...

William F. Buckley Jr.
February 19, 2005
Killers at Large
AIDS carriers and their victims.
...Public heath officials are considering measures which, 20 years ago, would have been though fascistic interventions in human rights...The boundaries of the new campaign, let alone the niceties, haven’t been resolved upon, but not much thought is being given to concerns of privacy. Murderers need to be stopped, and if this means opening their mail, well — such things happen and you can take comfort that you may be saving a life.
The objective is to identify the carrier, and to warn his victim. Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration.

OreamnosAmericanus said...

When I put up this post, I was aware of Buckley's bad history with HIV; his response to it was something I was never comfortable with at all, to put it mildly. It was a subject where his normal rationality left him.

Anonymous said...

So to be P.C. regarding Bill Buckley you are willing to overlook his advocacy of tatooing the asses of infected men? Hmmmm...I mean, he wasn't talking about people who contracted HIV from transfusions, was he?

OreamnosAmericanus said...

Funny to see "PC" and "Bill Buckley" in the same sentence.

I am willing to overlook that enough now so that his larger point of view is worth noting here. When I was a liberal, he used to infuriate me because he was so articulate. But he was never a hero of mine or an oracle to me; I thought he was wrong on several things of late, for example. It was his basic position, not all his policy choices that I was highlighting.

I guess I am used to doing this. Almost everyone I know and love holds positions on politics, religion, that vary greatly from mine. And everyone I know makes wrong choices and takes mistaken stands on things.

Maybe I had a liberal moment and forgave him for that, now that he's dead.

And if you knew me, you'd know that I have a weakness for men who are both smart and funny, regardless of their bad choices.

Anonymous said...

Hello,

This is a question for the webmaster/admin here at usmalesf.blogspot.com.

May I use some of the information from this blog post above if I give a backlink back to your site?

Thanks,
John

Anonymous said...

What amount can an agency legally require to let a policy holder out of his automobile insurance?
What amount does your agency cost when a person chooses to stop and how much pressure can you use to hold them?
What are some tips or something like that we can say if our customer has several months remaining on his existing automobile coverage? Certainly, many of us are not going to hold back until his renewal comes due every time.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...