William Buckley-A Critique

Recent accolades heaped on William Buckley, at the time of his death, provide grim confirmation of the adage: A bad argument FOR something is much, much worse than a direct attack on the something. It provides antagonists of the something with the mistaken notion that they possess the high moral/intellectual ground in their attacks on the something.

In this case, the something, of course, the victim of the bad argument from William Buckley, is capitalism. Buckley is considered by many as the intellectual spokesman, if not for capitalism, then for its alleged equivalent, conservatism. Actually, Buckley never claimed that he was defending capitalism. In his Wall Street Journal piece, "To Preserve What We Have", and elsewhere, he merely called for stopping at the current point of welfare state expansion and going no further. At each point he would say that this political apparatus, the welfare state, should expand no further. From the next point, and the next, he'd cry stop-no more expansion. Many who call themselves conservatives hold this position, which is completely futile. The welfare state, by its nature, must expand, and keep restricting freedom-if there is no philosophical opposition.

Several times, Buckley did call for protection of freedom, which, in the sense of individual rights, goes hand in hand with laissez faire capitalism. But, he never came close to answering: What ethical code supports individual rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and capitalism; what is the nature of man and human knowledge that in turn supports this ethical code; and what is the fundamental nature of reality that supports all the above portions that depend on it? No one can really be a proponent of individual rights and capitalism without articulating a philosophy of: Ethics-rational self interest; epistemology-reason and logic; and metaphysics-objective reality.

To the extent Buckley offered any defense of freedom or capitalism, it was based on religious faith, which really means-on altruism, sacrificing oneself for others. This lethal combination is completely incompatible with capitalism. Many of capitalism's alleged defenders are silent on this contradiction, but Buckley fully advocated it-to the extent he advocated any position-as his basis for freedom.

The most disgraceful and inconsistent aspect of his posturing as a defender of freedom lay in Buckley's militant stand against abortion-a woman's right to choose and to her own body. He fully advocated the dark religious superstition that life begins at conception, rather than the scientific position that human life, unlike the preliminary parasitical fetus, begins at birth or its equivalent. No defender of individual rights could advocate forcing women into lives of unwanted pregnancies.

Buckley could employ a wide variety of words, many not widely used. He could utter many witty, sarcastic, snide comments, usually without context or as part of a complete position. This ability is not enough to classify him as an intellectual or a defender of capitalism or individual freedom, much less as a defender of any consistent political or philosophical position.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com