MotherJones Blog: Buckley's '69 Preview of a Pax Americana

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Buckley's '69 Preview of a Pax Americana

William F. Buckley, a man so idiosyncratic he could only be described as a caricature of himself, died on Wednesday. A conservative writer, magazine founder, failed NYC mayoral candidate, and television host, Buckley's views and his magazine, the National Review, could very well be considered Mother Jones' ideological counterbalance, a publication that, as described by the New York Times, "isolated [the] cranks from Mr. Buckley's chosen mainstream."

I found this gem of a video today, Buckley going up against Noam Chomsky in a 1969 debate on American imperialism and intervention. It shows a classic Buckley, so enamored with his own mannerisms and quirks that he hardly notices Chomsky tearing him apart. In making the case for an imperialism that seeks to "help" as opposed to exploit, Buckley says, "There is an observable distinction by, ahem, intelligent man between a country that reaches out and interferes with the affairs of another country because it has reason to believe that a failure to do so will result in universal misery, and that country which reaches out and interferes with another country because it wants to establish Coca Cola plants and Chase national banks and whatever and exploit it." And there you have it, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement lays out an ideology that will come in handy for a certain group o' buddies 34 years later.

Video after the jump:

—Andre Sternberg

Comments

Caricature is right. Feel like I'm watching a brilliant comedic actor making fun of I don't even know who...

Posted by: Paul Miller on 02/29/08 at 7:48 PM Respond

"The world is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be."

~ George Santayana

****

I always found Buckley odd and although he seemed to act reasonably his thought process was not.

Posted by: capt on 03/01/08 at 5:28 AM Respond

that's a great lesson in how to use affectation, needlessly complex vocabulary, and the occasional use of condescension to avoid saying anything of substance. buckley does get torn apart, and his rambling only makes it worse. that clip would be great material for a class on debate or rhetoric.

Posted by: nmc on 03/01/08 at 10:51 AM Respond

Conservatism is not a 'kinder gentler Nazism' yet, by the way that conservatives have been lambased, those who do not know what true conservatism is have connected the type of 'conservatism' spewed by the likes of Roosh Limberg, Shorn Hannistien, Horror-wits, Squeal Borktsien, Anne Kolterberg, Like Saveragestien and other 'pseudo-cons.'

Yet, those talk-show propagandists are not 'conservatives,' in fact, they are hard-core 'liberals' when it comes to taking care of their pet-projects (their old relatives needing healthcare, the 'liberal' lawyers to protect their rights, their right to do as they please without being told), HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS (particularly non-Europeans), then the call for 'conservatism,' is quite loud.

Yet, who are the most 'conservative' in America today in the social and cultural arena -- it is African-Americans, who have a long history (back into Africa) of being social, cultural and religious conservatism that was brought to the Americas. On the other hand, when it comes to human rights, freedom and the right to progress, African-Americans are liberal.

False conservatives are 'liberal' when it comes to the rights of foreign people such as those in the Middle East and elsewhere. False conservatives do not want to be associated with the extremist religious people of the Middle East, so they pretend to want 'freedom' for these people, yet they want to enslave the people of America who are calling for the same freedoms and same economic and political rightss that others want in foreign nations.

The problem with the 'kinder gentler form of Nazism' as some call it is that one of the MAIN ISSUES THAT PUSHED CONSERVATISM IN THE 1960'S WAS THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND OTHER AMERICANS, INCLUDING WHITE WOMEN -- the mothers, sisters, aunts, wives of today's so-called 'conservatives.'

The neo-cons of today were the Dixiecrats of tomorrow. They fled turned the Repubs into a party 'AGAINST LINCOLN,' not a party of Lincoln.

The other issue was the BETRAYAL of people whose ancestors suffered in World War II Germany from the 'liberal' cause of freedom and human rights.

Hence, many people who supported decency and human rights in the US and supported the Civil Rights of Americans, THEY BETRAYED ANYONE WHO WANTED AN 'EVEN HANDED POLICY' IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Today's America however, do want an 'even handed' policy in the Middle East and are tired of having to pay more for Middle Eastern oil than is necessary.

One has to wonder how long will America tolerate the false 'conservatives' who dominate the talk show and cable networks promoting policies that will lead to Americans paying $10 - $15 dollars for a gallon of gas.

Fortunately, as the price of gas has gone up to $4.00 per gallon, and since Anwar and the California coast is not being drilled for oil, America will depend on Middle Eastern oil.

Will America continue to tolerate a political ideology that is geared to the oppression of people thus causing the price of commodities like oil to rise?

Thankfully, the American people recognize that lobbies, neo-cons, pseudo-cons, talkshow propagandists and those who fanatically support a Middle Eastern nation before America are being seen as contributing to the distruction of America and the reducing of America to a third world, dependent nation -- WHO CONTINUES WITH THE MANTRA 'OUR GREAT ALLY,' EVEN WHEN THIS MENTALITY AND FALSE 'CONSERVATISM' IS DRIVING AMERICA BACKWARD.

Posted by: Nubianem on 03/02/08 at 10:35 AM Respond

thanks my friends good web site

Posted by: transseksuel on 03/02/08 at 1:00 PM Respond

thank you very much

Posted by: youtube on 03/02/08 at 11:30 PM Respond