On Finding Faith

William F. Buckley has died.  In addition to his political conservatism, he was a public advocate for Christianity.  He used his PBS program "Firing Line" for intelligent, rigorous discussion and debate about issues related to Christianity.  I remember one debate about ten years ago with several advocates of Intelligent Design and evolution that he "moderated" during which he was so engaged and enthusiastic about the topic, he couldn't help himself from jumping into the debate himself.

He once interviewed Malcolm Muggeridge on the question "How Does One Find Faith?" (Go to the bottom of the list "His Own Writing and Speaking" and click on the title.)

Comments

[Francis Beckwith]

Buckley is one of my heroes. When I was 22 years old I read "Up From Liberalism." It has a profound impact on my views of politics and government. I then read everything by Buckley I could get my hands on. Those were the days when young conservatives were reading writers like Buckley, Gilder, Whittaker Chambers, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, Hayek Hazlitt, and Chesterton.

Now we are bombarded with Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, and O'Reilly. (I left off Rush because he always promotes traditional conservative literature like those mentioned above). These individuals have their strong points, but they are qualitatively inferior to the thinkers that many of us cut our teeth on decades ago.

I can barely watch Hannity and Colmes, since I know that Hannity's rhetorical success on that program is the result of having an adversary that is practically a corpse.

From Firing Line to Hannity and Colmes. My has the conservative movement fallen.

[Ryan]

Response to Frank Beckwith--

Frank, why the move back to Roman Catholicism?

[Francis Beckwith]

Ryan: That question is so 2007.

[Alan Aronson]

"From Firing Line to Hannity and Colmes. My has the conservative movement fallen."

How true. One of my NR favorite articles was the 1957 excommunication of Ayn Rand and Ojectivism by Whittaker Chambers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

Buckley's key insight was the necessity of separating what unfortunately has degenerated into today's Movement Conservatism from the likes of Gerald L.K. Smith, The American Mercury, and Robert Welsh.

Before we lament too much about the decline of conservatism, we should perhaps reflect that things did get off on the wrong foot. On the most significant issue of the period in which WFB wrote his first books and founded his magazine he was simply wrong.

"“The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957"

http://volokh.com/posts/1204148005.shtml

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/patrick-nielsen.html

But still, by all accounts he was a very kind and generous person on a personal level. I remember an article he wrote many years ago about getting morphine to the relative of their maid who had terminal cancer and was stuck in Cuba. He did get the foolishness of our drug laws.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/why-william-f-buckley-was-my-role-model

Conservatism has always been about the Coulters and Hannitys. For a short moment Buckley changed that image. It will be interesting to see how history treats him.

[Agilius]

>> Response to Frank Beckwith--
>>
>> Frank, why the move back to Roman Catholicism?

LOL. You dork. :D

>> The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race

He says "for the time being", which suggests he does not believe race is the basis for advancements; Further, given the current widespread acceptance of the misnomer "Black Community", it's hard to tell whether Buckley thought Whites were substantially different than Blacks, or whether he understood that America had decided to segregate Blacks, and due to the segregation - not the color of skin, per se - the White and Black colored groups developed cultures unique (more or less) to their segregated experiences.

Good find, Alan. Please don't ever leave the STR Blog. :)

>> I remember one debate about ten years ago with several advocates of Intelligent Design and evolution that he "moderated" during which he was so engaged and enthusiastic about the topic, he couldn't help himself from jumping into the debate himself.

O, man. I saw one debate with William Lane Craig and an Atheist, and that moderator did the same thing. Let me just say: Bad moderator!

I want to see moderators ask good questions of both sides, and make sure no one interupts the other.

[William Wilcox]

A link to a Firing Line clip of Buckley with Noam Chomsky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDmqRc80jJQ

Frank Beckwith says: "From Firing Line to Hannity and Colmes. My has the conservative movement fallen."

Television does illustrate the state of our society. I suggest that it is our society generally that has fallen, not necessarily or especially the "conservative movement".

Terms like "Borking" and "Swift boating" refer to the political climate and the trend to make ad hominem attacks and Bulverism the predominant method of argumentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

In our interactions are we motivated to find the truth or do we just want to win the argument?

Chesterton's take on liberal and conservative:

"The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected." and

"A progressive is always a conservative; he conserves the direction of progress. A reactionary is always a rebel."

STR's blog has been blessed with posters that, for the most part, avoid the vitriol demostrated by many partisan blogs and the media punditry. Buckley's Firing Line sought the same respectful exchange between opposing parties.

In my opinion, for the most part in his personal & public life, Buckley set a good example for us all, regardless of our worldview.

[Lumbergh]

I saw a debate between William Lane Craig and one of the guys from the Jesus Seminar.

Toward the end, WFB (the moderator) asked the fellow from the Jesus Seminar why he bothered claiming to be a Christian considering his beliefs.

Some may think this question unbecoming of a moderator. I thought it was brilliant.

[Alan Aronson]

"Terms like "Borking" and "Swift boating" refer to the political climate and the trend to make ad hominem attacks and Bulverism the predominant method of argumentation."

We should be careful to avoid invoking a false sense of equivalence. Robert Bork was rejected for two simple and valid reasons: His role in the "Saturday Night Massacre" which was a character and judgment issue and his views on constitutional interpretation, which views were quite radical and out of step with a majority of the Senate. The Swift-boaters, on the other hand were simply liars and dissemblers. A better example would have been the Thomas confirmation hearings.

Bulverism is inevitable in a world of thirty second sound bites and 700 word op-eds. We have evolved a system in which morons like Russert, Dowd, and Broder rise to the top. (Describing our media elite as morons isn't ad hominem; it's just an reasonable assertion based on observation.)

"Television does illustrate the state of our society. I suggest that it is our society generally that has fallen, not necessarily or especially the "conservative movement""

Unfortunately the rise of conservative ideas like de-regulation and a Ferengi-like market worship have seriously eroded concepts of the public good. When Firing Line first went on there was still a sense that profit wasn't the highest goal. A fair assessment of recent history has to account for a deterioration in public discussion during a conservative ascendancy.

Buckley elevated and civilized conservative discourse, even when he was wrong; this level appears to be unsustainable. If one explores the history of popular conservative discourse, one soon realizes that Coulter, et al merely represent a regression to the mean.

[Agilius]

>> A fair assessment of recent history has to account for a deterioration in public discussion during a conservative ascendancy.

I think the problem is that people love showboats.

A quick wit and a misundersood buzz word/phrase, here and there, is enough for most.

[MarkC]

Ryan,

I find this ongoing baiting about Mr.Beckwith's conversion tiresome and honestly, offensive ...

Can't we just post about the topic at hand, and leave the ankle biting for the lunchroom?

Frank has answered this question in print, radio, television ... every form of media I can think of ... Why don't you engage at the level of ideas, and not be so condescending...

[MarkC]

As a side note ... it's funny you would post this on a thread about William F. Buckley. His Catholic worldview seems to have served him quite well ....

[William Wilcox]

Off topic

Alan,

I have the strong impression that you don't understand the terms ad hominem and bulverism since I see examples of both in your post.

Can you determine which parts of your post might be considered (rightly or wrongly in your opinion) examples?

You have denied one concerning your use of the term "morons". To me, this is clearly an ad hominem!

[Alan Aronson]

Hi William, truth is always a defense, isn't it? Russert could ask intelligent questions, instead we get inane "got-ya" questions that tell us nothing. Matthews has his woman issues. Broder lives in a world that resembles ours only by accident. Dowd seems to believe that we are still in junior high. Klein, by his own admission, writes about matters on which he knows nothing. Judith Miller turned the NYT into a pr shop for the VP. These folks (and most of their colleagues) dumb down the public discourse in our country. In the presidential election, most of what we get is about the horse race. Most of these guys are literally ignorant about policy. They play favorites and too often give into a herd mentality. And have I mentioned the wall to wall coverage we get every time an attractive white woman goes missing? If one wishes a shorthand terms for the MSM, "moron" and "moronic" will do just fine.

[Agilius]

>> You have denied one concerning your use of the term "morons". To me, this is clearly an ad hominem!

Alan's use of "moron" was not part of an argument, per se.

His argument that a list of people who were inclined to the use of Bulverism became prominent with the acceptance of 700 word op-eds did not depend on the acceptance of his judgement that they were morons.

So while he was making a personal attack, he wasn't making that the issue.

One might say that Alan was poisoning the well, but I'll say of him that he hasn't seemed inclined to do that.

[Ryan]

Frank--

Well, we're only 3 months into 2007, so I'm just "a little" behind the times.

I didn't mean anything condescending, despite what some others believed. It's just that I thought I had a one-on-one with Mr. Frank Beckwith. I thought I'd take advantage of it. :-)

MarkC -- Maybe I ought to tell on you to Greg Koukl. He's the one who taught me how to ask questions like Columbo. :-)

[Francis Beckwith]

Ryan:

No offense taken. I was just trying to be funny. I am presently working on a book on my return to Catholicism. It should be out in November.

Frank

[Ryan]

Frank-

What is the one question that nobody asks you that you wish they would?

[William Wilcox]

Aquilius said: "His argument that a list of people who were inclined to the use of Bulverism became prominent with the acceptance of 700 word op-eds did not depend on the acceptance of his judgement that they were morons.

So while he was making a personal attack, he wasn't making that the issue."

I see your point but I am not sure that I completely agree.

To me it seemed that Alan was using his judgment of the character of individuals as a evidence/support for his argument that a system relying on 700 word op eds inevitably results in bulverism.

If this is not the case, then he is merely asserting that ad hominem/bulverism is inevitable with no support.

Here is C.S. Lewis: “You can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning—never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology....In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong” C.S. Lewis: God In The Dock

I will leave it to readers of Alan's posts to determine where and how closely he matches Lewis' description.

I didn't want to take this off topic but I think I can bring it back a little. There is a well know interview with Howard K. Smith where Gore Vidal calls Buckley a crypto-nazi. Buckley clearly offended and mad unfortunately responds pretty much in kind. Fortunately this was not characteristic for him.

Peggy Noonan says: "I share here a fear. It is not that the conservative movement is ending, that Bill's death is the period on a long chapter... Conservatism will endure if it is rooted in truth, and in the truths of life. It is. It is rather that with the loss of Bill Buckley we are, as a nation, losing not only a great man...[W]e are losing his kind---people who were deeply, broadly educated in great universities when they taught deeply and broadly, who held deep views of life and the world and art and all the things that make life more delicious and more meaningful."

Read the whole thing here:

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/entry.asp?entry_id=36131

[MarkC]

Ryan,

Sorry to doubt your motives. I guess I flinch a bit when the question is asked because the discussion of Frank's conversion has been frequently punctuated by critical and condescending posts (not necessary at this blog). Whether one agrees with him or not, his arguments are reasonable and defensible and so better to engage in the debate rather than questioning his sincerity or sanity.

I should have known to stay out of it because Frank has always represented himself perfectly well...

If you're interested, here are a couple of interviews he has done on the topic. The first from Christianity Today and the second from the National Catholic Register:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-33.0.html

http://ncregister.com/site/article/2772