William F. Buckley—The Greatest of a Generation

American conservatism has lost its most brilliant and stalwart public intellectual. William F. Buckley died this morning at his home, following his wife, who died last year, and his dear friend Van Galbraith, who died last month.

Mr. Buckley’s National Review had this to say this morning about the legacy of its founder and editor:

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country — and a better one — than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement.

Celebrating Mr. Buckley’s unwavering opposition to an ascendent liberalism, NR notes:

When Buckley started National Review — in 1955, at the age of 29 — it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide.

Though ruthless and relentless in his advocacy of conservative principles, Mr. Buckley was by temperament a true gentleman. I can think of no better tribute to this man than to point you to the gracious eulogies he published for two of his most bitter ideological (though not personal) enemies, Arthur Schlesinger and Norman Mailer, both of whom passed away last year.

Bon voyage, Bill. Happy sailing up there.

William F. Buckley’s archive at National Review

Has Rush Limbaugh Been Sucked Into the Mainstream Media?

In his bestseller See, I Told You So, Rush Limbaugh says that his job is really pretty simple: to draw the largest radio audience he can. That’s typical Limbaugh faux humility.

Rush knows full well that he’s become a major figure in both American media and politics. That became undeniable last week during the dust-up between The New York Times and John McCain over The Times story hinting that the Senator had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. Not only was Rush’s response to the story covered on talk radio and cable news networks, where the 24-hour news cycle cries for content at any cost, but also on the broadcast network news and in daily newspapers across the country, where editorial standards remain high.

The question is, has Rush been sucked into the mainstream media, the “drive-bys” he so relentlessly attacks?

There’s no denying Limbaugh’s stature in the media; his radio audience alone approaches 20 million listeners per week, plus he publishes some of the best political satire around at The Limbaugh Letter, his books were both bestsellers, and politicos and media critics quote and analyze him ad nauseum.

Maybe five media figures in American history have exerted such an influence over the American public: Horace Greeley, who fostered various social reforms and played a key role in putting an end to slavery; William Randolph Hearst, who is often credited with helping to start the Spanish-American War; Walter Cronkite, who is often credited with ending the Vietnam War (Lyndon Johnson responded to Cronkite’s famous commentary on the futility of that war by saying, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”); Walter Lippmann, who advised five presidents and wrote some of the best works ever on mass media and the relationship between journalism and civil society; and William F. Buckley, who did more than anyone in the 20th Century to keep conservatism alive as a vital and much-needed counterweight to liberalism.

What fascinates many about Rush is that his persona is so multi-faceted, and that his commentary is so deep and funny at the same time. Few on the left or the right quite “get” the man or his schtick. The left, for instance, tends to take him at face value–a shallow, bigoted, knee-jerk conservative. The right, on the other hand, tends to do exactly the same thing!

If you take either the man or his words at face value, you’re missing the point. Rush appeals to so many precisely because he can be interpreted in so many ways. Shallow liberals and shallow conservatives can drink at the surface of his reservoir of knowledge and wit, responding with spite and glee, respectively. More nuanced thinkers can chuckle at his put-on excesses: the feigned bravado, the innuendo, the hyperbole, the intentionally over-the-top tweaking of liberals. The irreverant mind can marvel at his satirical skills, the linguistic at his language skills, the mnemonic at his uncanny memory, and the holistic at his ability to connect the dots of our national conversation.

Rush deosn’t mean for us to take him seriously; he does expect us to take conservatism seriously. That’s the genius of Limbaugh: he’s a virtuoso entertainer and satirist, but at the same time, an unwavering advocate for conservative philosophy. He is to pop culture conservatism what George Will is to intellectual conservatism.

To answer the question above, has Rush been coopted by the mainstream media?

Not even close. In fact, he’s laughing at the drive-bys for taking him so seriously…laughing all the way to his place of worship—the bank.

Newsprism.com

Horse Race in Home Stretch

Two weeks ago, in a post entitled “Prediction: Obama Victory in November,” I wrote this:

The liberal media seem to be having their cake and eating it, too, by tacitly anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee, while at the same time pretending–largely in the interest of ratings and circulation–that he and Hillary Clinton are neck-and-neck in the race.

Since then, Obama has consolidated his lead, and Clinton has launched a two-pronged strategy aimed at derailing him. First, she’s been attacking him on multiple fronts: inexperience, campaign tactics, plagiarism, and, apparently, even fashion. Second, she’s been accusing journalists of treating her unfairly compared to Obama, with whom (she claims) they’re infatuated.

A simple question: if Hillary Clinton had won eleven straight primaries and caucuses, would the press still be treating Obama as a contender? Or would they be treating Clinton as the presumptive nominee and turning their backs on Obama? If anything, Hillary has been treated with unwarranted deference, or, as Maureen Dowd puts it, with “utter open-mindedness.”

Obama is pulling away as this race heads into the home stretch, yet Hillary is being treated as if the race is headed for a photo finish.

Mrs. Clinton should stop whining.

Make that, whinnying.

Newsprism.com